# C_2011290EN.01000502.xml

| 1.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/5

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Constitucional, Madrid (Spain) lodged on 28 July 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni — other party: Ministerio Fiscal

(Case C-399/11)

2011/C 290/08

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Constitucional

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Criminal proceedings against: Stefano Melloni

Criminal proceedings against

Other party: Ministerio Fiscal

Other party:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1), as inserted by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA (2), be interpreted as precluding national judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant conditional upon the conviction in question being open to review, in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the person requested under the warrant? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1), as inserted by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA (2), be interpreted as precluding national judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant conditional upon the conviction in question being open to review, in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the person requested under the warrant?

1

2

| 2. | In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, is Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with the requirements deriving from the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and from the rights of defence guaranteed under Article 48(2) of the Charter? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, is Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with the requirements deriving from the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and from the rights of defence guaranteed under Article 48(2) of the Charter?

| 3. | In the event of the second question being answered in the affirmative, does Article 53, interpreted systematically in conjunction with the rights recognised under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, allow a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the requesting State, thus affording those rights a greater level of protection than that deriving from European Union law, in order to avoid an interpretation which restricts or adversely affects a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution of the first-mentioned Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event of the second question being answered in the affirmative, does Article 53, interpreted systematically in conjunction with the rights recognised under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, allow a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the requesting State, thus affording those rights a greater level of protection than that deriving from European Union law, in order to avoid an interpretation which restricts or adversely affects a fundamental right recognised by the Constitution of the first-mentioned Member State?

in absentia

---

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

1

(2)  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).

2

---