# C_2016260EN.01001502.xml

| 18.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Ianos Tranca

(Case C-124/16)

(2016/C 260/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Amtsgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Ianos Tranca

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not subsequently have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can verifiably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not subsequently have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can verifiably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?

1

| 2. | Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who is not resident in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?

status quo ante

status quo ante

---

(1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).

1

---