# C_2016260EN.01001301.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 24 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Pawel Dworzecki

(Case C-108/16 PPU) (1)

1

((Request for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 4a(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions of execution - Reasons for optional non-execution - Exceptions - Mandatory execution - Sentence handed down in absentia - Concepts of ‘summons in person’ and ‘official notification by other means - Autonomous concepts of EU law))

(2016/C 260/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Pawel Dworzecki

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | 1.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Council Framework Directive 2002/584/JHA of 13 February 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘summoned in person’ and ‘by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’ in that provision constitute autonomous concepts of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

1.

1.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Council Framework Directive 2002/584/JHA of 13 February 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the expressions ‘summoned in person’ and ‘by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’ in that provision constitute autonomous concepts of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union.

| 2. | 2.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a summons, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was not served directly on the person concerned but was handed over, at the latter’s address, to an adult belonging to that household who undertook to pass it on to him, when it cannot be ascertained from the European arrest warrant whether and, if so, when that adult actually passed that summons on to the person concerned, does not in itself satisfy the conditions set out in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

2.

2.Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a summons, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which was not served directly on the person concerned but was handed over, at the latter’s address, to an adult belonging to that household who undertook to pass it on to him, when it cannot be ascertained from the European arrest warrant whether and, if so, when that adult actually passed that summons on to the person concerned, does not in itself satisfy the conditions set out in that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.

1

---