Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62017CN0271

Case C-271/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

OJ C 277, 21.8.2017, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.8.2017   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/24

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Openbaar Ministerie v Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

(Case C-271/17)

(2017/C 277/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Sławomir Andrzej Zdziaszek

Questions referred

1.

Are proceedings

—

in which the court in the issuing Member State decides to combine separate custodial sentences which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment into one single custodial sentence, and/or to change an aggregate custodial sentence which had previously been imposed on the person concerned by a final judgment and

—

in which that court no longer examines the question of guilt,

such as the proceedings which led to the cumulative sentence of 25 March 2014, a ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in the introductory subparagraph of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? (1)

2.

Can the executing judicial authority:

—

in a case where the requested person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision,

—

but where the issuing judicial authority has not, either in the EAW [European Arrest Warrant] or in the supplementary information requested pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, provided information about the applicability of one or more of the circumstances referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in accordance with the wording of one or more of the categories of point 3 of paragraph (d) of the EAW form,

for those very reasons conclude that none of the conditions of Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been satisfied and for those very reasons refuse to execute the EAW?

3.

Are appeal proceedings

—

in which there has been an examination of the merits and

—

which resulted in the passing of a (new) sentence on the person concerned and/or the confirmation of the sentence handed down at first instance,

—

where the EAW concerns the execution of that sentence,

the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ as referred to in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

(1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

Top