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 62018CN0220

Case C-220/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2018 — ML

OJ C 221, 25.6.2018, p. 8–9 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

201806080481931342018/C 221/092202018CJC22120180625EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL201803278921

Case C-220/18 PPU: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2018 — ML

Top

C2212018EN810120180327EN00098192

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany) lodged on 27 March 2018 — ML

(Case C-220/18 PPU)

2018/C 221/09Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen

Party to the main proceedings

Person whose surrender is sought: ML

Questions referred

1.

What significance does it have, for the purpose of the interpretation of the above provisions, ( 1 ) if legal remedies exist for detainees in the issuing Member State in respect of the conditions of their detention?

(a)

If, taking account of the aforementioned provisions, the executing judicial authority is in possession of evidence of systemic or general shortcomings affecting certain groups of persons or certain prisons in the issuing Member State, is a genuine risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person whose surrender is sought in the event of his surrender, that would render the surrender inadmissible, to be ruled out merely by reason of the fact that such legal remedies have been introduced, without the need for further assessment of the conditions of detention?

(b)

Is it of significance in this regard that the European Court of Human Rights has held in respect of such legal remedies that there is no evidence that they do not offer detainees realistic perspectives of improving unsuitable conditions of detention?

2.

If Question 1 is answered to the effect that the existence of such legal remedies for detainees, without further assessment of the specific conditions of detention in the issuing Member State by the executing judicial authority, does not of itself exclude a genuine risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person whose surrender is sought:

(a)

Are the aforementioned provisions to be interpreted as meaning that the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in the issuing Member State extends to all prisons or other correctional facilities in which the person whose surrender is sought may be incarcerated? Does this also apply to simply temporary or transitional detention in certain prisons? Or can the assessment be limited to the prison in which, according to information from the authorities of the issuing Member State, the person whose surrender is sought is likely to be incarcerated for most of the time?

(b)

For this purpose, is it necessary to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the conditions of detention concerned that determines both the personal space available to each prisoner and other conditions of detention? Are the conditions of detention thus determined to be assessed on the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights established in its judgment in Muršić v Croatia (judgment of 30 October 2016, application no 7334/13)?

3.

If Question 2 is also answered to the effect that the assessment required by the executing judicial authority must extend to all prisons under consideration:

(a)

Can the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in each individual prison envisaged be rendered superfluous by a general assurance given by the issuing Member State that the person whose surrender is sought will not be exposed to any risk of inhuman or degrading treatment?

(b)

Or, in lieu of an assessment of the conditions of detention of each individual prison envisaged, can the decision by the executing judicial authority on the admissibility of the surrender be made contingent upon the person whose surrender is sought not being exposed to any such treatment?

4.

If Question 3 is also answered to the effect that the provision of assurances and the imposition of conditions cannot render the assessment by the executing judicial authority of the conditions of detention in each individual prison envisaged in the issuing Member State superfluous:

(a)

Must the duty of assessment by the executing judicial authority extend to the conditions of detention in all prisons envisaged, even in the case where the judicial authority of the issuing Member State advises that the period of detention in them of the person whose surrender is sought will not exceed three weeks, circumstances permitting?

(b)

Does this also apply if the executing judicial authority is unable to ascertain whether that information was provided by the issuing judicial authority or whether it originates from a central authority in the issuing Member State acting in response to a request by the issuing judicial authority for support?


( 1 ) Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision; OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial; OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24.

Top