# C_2019172EN.01000601.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/6

---

Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad — Bulgaria) — Criminal proceedings against RH

(Case C-8/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Directive (EU) 2016/343 - Article 4 - Public references to guilt - Pre-trial detention decision - Remedies - Procedure for reviewing the lawfulness of that decision - Observance of the presumption of innocence - Article 267 TFEU - Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Right to have a case heard within a reasonable time. - National legislation restricting the powers of the national courts to make a request to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or obliging them to adjudicate without waiting for the answer to that request - Disciplinary sanctions for failure to comply with that legislation)

(2019/C 172/07)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad

Criminal proceedings against

RH

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 267 TFEU and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which has the result that the national court is obliged to adjudicate on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision without the opportunity to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice or to wait for its reply. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 267 TFEU and Article 47, second paragraph, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings which has the result that the national court is obliged to adjudicate on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision without the opportunity to make a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice or to wait for its reply.

| 2. | Articles 4 and 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read together with recital 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements deriving from the presumption of innocence do not preclude, where the competent court examines the reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect or the accused person has committed the offence with which he is charged, in order to give a ruling on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision, that court from comparing the elements of incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented to it and giving reasons for its decision, not only stating the evidence relied on, but also ruling on the objections of the defence counsel of the person concerned, provided that that decision does not present the person detained as being guilty. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Articles 4 and 6 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, read together with recital 16 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements deriving from the presumption of innocence do not preclude, where the competent court examines the reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect or the accused person has committed the offence with which he is charged, in order to give a ruling on the legality of a pre-trial detention decision, that court from comparing the elements of incriminating and exculpatory evidence presented to it and giving reasons for its decision, not only stating the evidence relied on, but also ruling on the objections of the defence counsel of the person concerned, provided that that decision does not present the person detained as being guilty.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 11.3.2019.

---