# C_2019016EN.01002801.xml

| 14.1.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 29 August 2018 — IK

(Case C-551/18 PPU)

(2019/C 16/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie

Party to the main proceedings

Applicant: IK

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is sufficient that, in the EAW, an issuing judicial authority mentions only the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not the legal consequence imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, such as the TBS, which will give rise to actual deprivation of liberty only after the execution of the main custodial sentence and only after an exceptional decision to that effect is taken by the sentencing court?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the surrender by the Member State of the issuing judicial authority on the basis of an EAW that refers only to the executable custodial sentence imposed and thus not to the legal consequence of the TBS imposed, which has been imposed for the same offence and by the same judicial decision, has the result that actual deprivation of liberty in execution of that legal consequence may be effected in the Member State of the issuing judicial authority?

| 3. | If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If Question 2 is answered in the negative, must Article 8(1)(f) of the EAW Framework Decision be interpreted as meaning that the issuing judicial authority’s failure to mention in the EAW the legal consequence of the TBS imposed has the result that the legal consequence imposed, of which the issuing judicial authority can be assumed not to have any knowledge, cannot give rise to actual deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State?

---

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

---