16.9.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 312/7


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 July 2019 — Openbaar Ministerie, YU, ZV v AZ

(Case C-510/19)

(2019/C 312/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Openbaar Ministerie, YU, ZV

Respondent: AZ

Questions referred

1.

1.

Does the term ‘judicial authority’ as referred to in Article 6(2) (1) of the Framework Decision constitute an autonomous concept of EU law?

2.

If the answer to Question 1.1 is in the affirmative: which criteria are to be applied for the purpose of determining whether an authority of the executing Member State is such a judicial authority and whether a European arrest warrant executed by that authority therefore constitutes such a judicial decision?

3.

If the answer to Question 1.1 is in the affirmative: is the Netherlands Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service), more specifically the Officier van Justitie (Public Prosecutor), covered by the concept of judicial authority, as referred to in Article 6(2) of the Framework Decision, and does the European arrest warrant executed by that authority thus constitute a judicial decision?

4.

If the answer to Question 1.3 is in the affirmative: is it permissible for the initial surrender to be assessed by a judicial authority, more specifically, the Overleveringskamer (the court responsible for the surrender decision) in Amsterdam, in accordance with Article 15 of the Framework Decision, whereby, inter alia, the defendant’s right to be heard and right of access to the courts are respected, whereas the supplementary surrender in accordance with Article 27 of the Framework Decision is assigned to a different authority, namely the Officier van Justitie, whereby the defendant is not guaranteed the right to be heard or to have access to the courts, with the result that there is a manifest lack of coherence within the Framework Decision without any reasonable justification?

5.

If the answer to Questions 1.3 and 1.4 is in the affirmative: should Articles 14, 19 and 27 of the Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that a public prosecution service acting as the executing judicial authority should first of all respect the defendant’s right to be heard and right of access to the courts, before consent can be given for the prosecution, conviction or detention of a person with a view to the execution of a custodial sentence or measure for a criminal offence committed before his surrender under a European arrest warrant, that latter offence not being the criminal offence for which his surrender was requested?

2.

Is the Officier van Justitie of the Openbaar Ministerie of the Amsterdam judicial district who acts in implementation of Article 14 of the Netherlands Wet van 29 april 2004 tot implementatie van het kaderbesluit van de Raad van de Europese Unie betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel en de procedures van overlevering tussen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie (Overleveringswet), (Law of 29 April 2004 implementing the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States of the European Union (Law on the surrender of persons)) the executing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the Framework Decision which surrendered the requested person and which can grant consent within the meaning of Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of the Framework Decision?


(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).