# C_2016156EN.01002902.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/29 |
| -------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 24 February 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki

(Case C-108/16)

(2016/C 156/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Paweł Dworzecki

Questions referred

| 1. | Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA,( 1 )
—
‘in due time ...was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
and —
‘in due time ... 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’
autonomous concepts of EU law? | — | ‘in due time ...was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
and | — | ‘in due time ... 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’
autonomous concepts of EU law? |
| -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | ‘in due time ...was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’
and | | | | |
| — | ‘in due time ... 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’
autonomous concepts of EU law? | | | | |

| 2. | If so:
– a.
how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and – b.
does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:
—
according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; —
it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; —
it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, fall under one of those two autonomous concepts? | – a. | how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and | – b. | does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:
—
according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; —
it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; —
it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, | — | according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; | — | it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; | — | it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, |
| ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | - | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| – a. | how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and | | | | | | | | | | |
| – b. | does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:
—
according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; —
it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; —
it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, | — | according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; | — | it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; | — | it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, | | | | |
| — | according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person; | | | | | | | | | | |
| — | it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial, | | | | | | | | | | |

---

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

---