# C_2015016EN.01001801.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/18

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

(Case C-486/14)

(2015/C 016/28)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, Hamburg)

Parties to the main proceedings

Piotr Kossowski

Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Principal Public Prosecutor’s Office), Hamburg

Questions referred

| 1. | Do the reservations entered at the time of ratification by the contracting parties to the Schengen Convention (1) pursuant to Article 55(1)(a) thereof — specifically, the reservation entered by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to (a) when depositing its instrument of ratification, that it is not bound by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention, ‘if the crime in respect of which the foreign judgment has been made was committed wholly or partly on its sovereign territory’ — continue in force following the integration of the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997, as preserved by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon; are these exceptions proportionate limitations on Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2)? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do the reservations entered at the time of ratification by the contracting parties to the Schengen Convention (1) pursuant to Article 55(1)(a) thereof — specifically, the reservation entered by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to (a) when depositing its instrument of ratification, that it is not bound by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention, ‘if the crime in respect of which the foreign judgment has been made was committed wholly or partly on its sovereign territory’ — continue in force following the integration of the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997, as preserved by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon; are these exceptions proportionate limitations on Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2)?

| 2. | If these questions are answered in the negative:
  Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If these questions are answered in the negative:

Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged?

---

(1)  The Schengen acquis — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19).

(2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).

---