Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011CN0396

Case C-396/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Ciprian Vasile Radu

OJ C 282, 24.9.2011, p. 15–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/15


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Romania) lodged on 27 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Ciprian Vasile Radu

(Case C-396/11)

2011/C 282/29

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Constanța

Party to the main proceedings

Ciprian Vasile Radu

Questions referred

1.

Are Articles 5(1) and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, provisions of primary Community law, contained in the founding Treaties?

2.

Does the action of the competent judicial authority of the State of execution of a European arrest warrant, entailing deprivation of liberty and forcible surrender, without the consent of the person in respect of whom the European arrest warrant has been issued (the person whose arrest and surrender is requested) constitute interference, on the part of the State executing the warrant, with the right to individual liberty of the person whose arrest and surrender is requested, which is authorised by European Union law, pursuant to Article 6 TEU, read in conjunction with Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and pursuant to Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms?

3.

Must the interference on the part of the State executing a European arrest warrant with the rights and guarantees laid down in Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, satisfy the requirements of necessity in a democratic society and of proportionality in relation to the objective actually pursued?

4.

Can the competent judicial authority of the State executing a European arrest warrant refuse the request for surrender without being in breach of the obligations authorised by the founding Treaties and the other provisions of Community law, by reason of the fact that the necessary conditions under Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, have not been cumulatively satisfied?

5.

Can the competent judicial authority of the State executing a European arrest warrant refuse the request for surrender without being in breach of the obligations authorised by the founding Treaties and the other provisions of Community law, on the ground that the State issuing the European arrest warrant has failed to transpose or fully to transpose or has incorrectly transposed (in the sense that the condition of reciprocity has not been satisfied) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

6.

Is the domestic law of Romania, a Member State of the European Union — in particular Title III of Law No 302/2004 — incompatible with Article 5(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 48 and 52 thereof, with reference also to Article 5(3) and (4) and Article 6(2) and (3) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to which Article 6 TEU refers, and have the above provisions properly transposed into national law Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?


Top