EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62022CA0492
Case C-492/22 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against CJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(2) — Determination of the competent judicial authorities — Decision to postpone surrender adopted by a body not having the status of executing judicial authority — Article 23 — Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender — Consequences — Article 12 and Article 24(1) — Keeping the requested person in detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings in the executing Member State — Articles 6, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of the accused person to appear in person at his trial)
Case C-492/22 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against CJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(2) — Determination of the competent judicial authorities — Decision to postpone surrender adopted by a body not having the status of executing judicial authority — Article 23 — Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender — Consequences — Article 12 and Article 24(1) — Keeping the requested person in detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings in the executing Member State — Articles 6, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of the accused person to appear in person at his trial)
Case C-492/22 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against CJ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(2) — Determination of the competent judicial authorities — Decision to postpone surrender adopted by a body not having the status of executing judicial authority — Article 23 — Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender — Consequences — Article 12 and Article 24(1) — Keeping the requested person in detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings in the executing Member State — Articles 6, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Right of the accused person to appear in person at his trial)
OJ C 35, 30.1.2023, p. 19–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.1.2023 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 35/19 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against CJ
(Case C-492/22 PPU) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(2) - Determination of the competent judicial authorities - Decision to postpone surrender adopted by a body not having the status of executing judicial authority - Article 23 - Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender - Consequences - Article 12 and Article 24(1) - Keeping the requested person in detention for the purposes of criminal proceedings in the executing Member State - Articles 6, 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right of the accused person to appear in person at his trial)
(2023/C 35/21)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank Amsterdam
Party to the main proceedings
Applicant: CJ
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
Article 24(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that: the decision to postpone a surrender referred to in that provision constitutes a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant which, pursuant to Article 6(2) of that framework decision, must be taken by the executing judicial authority. Where such a decision has not been taken by that authority and the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) of that framework decision have expired, the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant must be released, in accordance with Article 23(5) of that same framework decision. |
|
2. |
Article 12 and Article 24(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as: not precluding a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, whose surrender to the authorities of the issuing Member State has been postponed for the purposes of a criminal prosecution instituted against him or her in the executing Member State, from being kept in detention on the basis of the European arrest warrant whilst the criminal prosecution is being conducted. |
|
3. |
Article 24(1) of Framework 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second and third paragraphs of Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights must be interpreted as: not precluding the postponement of the surrender of a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, for the purposes of a criminal prosecution instituted against that person in the executing Member State, solely on the ground that that person has not waived their right to appear in person before the courts seised in connection with that prosecution. |