# C_2016350EN.01001501.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 July 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Dániel Bertold Lada

(Case C-390/16)

(2016/C 350/19)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Szombathelyi Törvényszék

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Dániel Bertold Lada

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Articles 67 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a criminal procedure or other national procedure, governed by national legislation, the purpose of which is the ‘recognition’ or application in a Member State of the validity of a foreign judgment (resulting in the foreign judgment being regarded as having been delivered by a national court), in relation to a defendant in a criminal case in which a final and definitive judgment has already been given by a national court of another Member State of the European Union? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Articles 67 and 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) be interpreted as precluding a criminal procedure or other national procedure, governed by national legislation, the purpose of which is the ‘recognition’ or application in a Member State of the validity of a foreign judgment (resulting in the foreign judgment being regarded as having been delivered by a national court), in relation to a defendant in a criminal case in which a final and definitive judgment has already been given by a national court of another Member State of the European Union?

| 2. | Is a procedure of a Member State of the European Union, specifically that provided for in Paragraphs 46 to 48 of Hungarian Law No XXXVIII of 1996 ‘for recognition of the validity’ in Hungary [of foreign convictions], relating to criminal proceedings brought in another Member State and culminating there in a final decision (in relation to the same person and to the same acts), compatible with the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (in the light of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA (1) of 24 July 2008), even if in reality that procedure has the purpose not of enforcing such a decision, but of establishing a basis for that decision to be taken into account in criminal proceedings to be brought in the future? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is a procedure of a Member State of the European Union, specifically that provided for in Paragraphs 46 to 48 of Hungarian Law No XXXVIII of 1996 ‘for recognition of the validity’ in Hungary [of foreign convictions], relating to criminal proceedings brought in another Member State and culminating there in a final decision (in relation to the same person and to the same acts), compatible with the principle of ‘non bis in idem’ laid down in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (in the light of Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA (1) of 24 July 2008), even if in reality that procedure has the purpose not of enforcing such a decision, but of establishing a basis for that decision to be taken into account in criminal proceedings to be brought in the future?

1

---

(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings (OJ 2008 L 220, p. 32).

1

---