Case C‑294/16 PPU

JZ

v

Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the

Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia w Łodzi)

‛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’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 28 July 2016

1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Implementation by Member States — Obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law

   (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299)

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Article 26(1) — 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 — Not included — Verification by the national court

   (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 26(1))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 32-33)

2.  Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, 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.

   When applying Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the judicial authority of the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant is required to consider whether the measures taken against the person concerned in the executing Member State are to be treated in the same way as a deprivation of liberty and therefore constitute detention within the meaning of Article 26(1). If, in carrying out that examination, the judicial authority comes to the conclusion that that is the case, Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 requires that the whole of the period during which those measures were applied be deducted from the period of detention which that person would be required to serve in the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant.

   (see paras 40, 44, 46-47, 53-55, 57, operative part)