29.8.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/20

1.

The Szombathelyi Városi Bíróság wishes to know, in connection with the criminal proceedings pending before it, whether ‘a person other than a natural person’ falls within the definition of ‘victim’ in Article 1(a) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, in light of the obligation to promote mediation between the victim and the offender in criminal cases, laid down in Article 10 of the Framework Decision, and asks the Court of Justice to explain and supplement its judgment in Case C-467/05 Dell’Orto [2007] ECR I-5557.

2.

The referring court wishes to know, regarding Article 10(1) of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, which provides that ‘[e]ach Member State shall seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which it considers appropriate for this sort of measure’, whether the meaning of the term ‘offences’ may be interpreted to refer to all offences the legal classification of which is substantively the same.

3.

Is it possible to interpret the words ‘[e]ach Member State shall seek to promote mediation in criminal cases.]’ in Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA in such a way that the conditions upon which offender and victim can have access to mediation can be satisfied at least until the point when a decision is made at the first stage of proceedings; or [in such a way] that a condition that the offender have admitted the facts during the legal proceedings, after the investigation has been completed — when all other conditions are satisfied — is a condition which is compatible with the obligation to promote mediation?

4.

With regard to Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, do the words ‘[e]ach Member State shall seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which it considers appropriate for this sort of measure’ mean that the option of mediation in criminal proceedings must be generally available, provided that all the prerequisite legal conditions are satisfied, and that there is no room for discretion?. That is to say, if the reply to the question is in the affirmative, is the existence of a condition worded as follows: ‘[where] having regard to the nature of the offence, the form of responsibility and the person of the suspect, the legal proceedings may be omitted or there are grounds for believing that the court will take into account active repentance at the time of sentencing’ compatible with the provisions (requirements) of Article 10?