This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0294
Case C-294/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 26(1) — European arrest warrant — Effects of the surrender — Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State — Concept of ‘detention’ — Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment — Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 49)
Case C-294/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 26(1) — European arrest warrant — Effects of the surrender — Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State — Concept of ‘detention’ — Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment — Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 49)
Case C-294/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 26(1) — European arrest warrant — Effects of the surrender — Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State — Concept of ‘detention’ — Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment — Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 49)
OJ C 402, 31.10.2016, p. 12–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
31.10.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 402/12 |
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście
(Case C-294/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 26(1) - European arrest warrant - Effects of the surrender - Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State - Concept of ‘detention’ - Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment - Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 49))
(2016/C 402/15)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: JZ
Defendant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście
Operative part of the judgment
Article 26(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 measures such as a nine-hour night-time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring of the person concerned by means of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, are not, in principle, having regard to the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of all those measures, so restrictive as to give rise to a deprivation of liberty comparable to that arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as ‘detention’ within the meaning of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain.