# C_2019065EN.01002102.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku (Poland) lodged on 11 October 2018 — Criminal proceedings against JI

(Case C-634/18)

(2019/C 65/29)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Rejonowy w Słupsku

Party to the main proceedings

JI

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the rule of EU law contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that that rule does not preclude the expression ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ from being interpreted on a case-by-case basis as part of the individual assessment of a national court, and that that assessment does not require the application of any objective criterion, in particular that it does not require a finding that the offender possesses drugs for the purpose of performing acts covered by Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, that is to say production, offering, offering for sale, distribution, brokerage, or delivery on any terms whatsoever? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the rule of EU law contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, (1) read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that that rule does not preclude the expression ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ from being interpreted on a case-by-case basis as part of the individual assessment of a national court, and that that assessment does not require the application of any objective criterion, in particular that it does not require a finding that the offender possesses drugs for the purpose of performing acts covered by Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, that is to say production, offering, offering for sale, distribution, brokerage, or delivery on any terms whatsoever?

| 2. | In so far as the Polish Law on combating drug addiction contains no precise definition of ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ and leaves the interpretation thereof to the bench adjudicating in a specific case in the exercise of its ‘judicial discretion’, are the judicial remedies necessary to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the rules of EU law contained in Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, and in particular Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, sufficient to afford Polish citizens effective protection resulting from the rules of EU law laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In so far as the Polish Law on combating drug addiction contains no precise definition of ‘a significant quantity of drugs’ and leaves the interpretation thereof to the bench adjudicating in a specific case in the exercise of its ‘judicial discretion’, are the judicial remedies necessary to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the rules of EU law contained in Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, and in particular Article 4(2)(a) of that framework decision, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, sufficient to afford Polish citizens effective protection resulting from the rules of EU law laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking?

| 3. | Is the rule of national law contained in Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction compatible with EU law, and in particular with the rule contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and, if so, is the interpretation which the national Polish courts place on the expression ‘a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs’ contrary to the rule of EU law pursuant to which a person who has committed the offence of possessing large quantities of drugs to perform activities covered by Article 2(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA is to be subject to stricter criminal liability? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the rule of national law contained in Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction compatible with EU law, and in particular with the rule contained in Article 4(2)(a) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(c) thereof, and, if so, is the interpretation which the national Polish courts place on the expression ‘a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs’ contrary to the rule of EU law pursuant to which a person who has committed the offence of possessing large quantities of drugs to perform activities covered by Article 2(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA is to be subject to stricter criminal liability?

| 4. | Is Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction, which lays down stricter criminal liability for the offence of possessing a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs, as interpreted by the Polish national courts, contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union], read in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Is Article 62(2) of the Law on combating drug addiction, which lays down stricter criminal liability for the offence of possessing a significant quantity of psychotropic substances and narcotic drugs, as interpreted by the Polish national courts, contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights [of the European Union], read in conjunction with Article 6(1) TEU)?

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8.

---