# C_2004300EN.01003503.xml

| 4.12.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/35

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie van Belgie by decision of that court of 5 October 2004 in the case of Léopold Henri Van Esbroeck against Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-436/01)

(2004/C 300/68)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Cassatie van Belgie (Court of Cassation (Belgium)) of 5 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Léopold Henri Van Esbroeck against Openbaar Ministerie on the following questions:

| ‘1. | Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen agreement be construed as meaning that it may apply in proceedings before a Belgian court in regard to a person against whom a prosecution is brought in Belgium after 25 March 2001 before a criminal court in respect of the same offences for which that person was convicted by judgment of Norwegian criminal court of 2 October 2000, and where the sentence imposed has already been served, in a situation where, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Agreement of 18 May 1999 concluded by the Council of the European Union with the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement is to be implemented and applied by Norway only as from 25 March 2001?’
  If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

‘1.

Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen agreement be construed as meaning that it may apply in proceedings before a Belgian court in regard to a person against whom a prosecution is brought in Belgium after 25 March 2001 before a criminal court in respect of the same offences for which that person was convicted by judgment of Norwegian criminal court of 2 October 2000, and where the sentence imposed has already been served, in a situation where, pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Agreement of 18 May 1999 concluded by the Council of the European Union with the Republic of Ireland and the Kingdom of Norway concerning the latters' association with the implementation, application and development of the Schengen acquis, Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement is to be implemented and applied by Norway only as from 25 March 2001?’

If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative:

| ‘2. | Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of any kind, including cannabis, and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Schengen agreement, or where the Schengen acquis is implemented and applied, are deemed to be the “same offences” as mentioned in Article 54 aforesaid?’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

Must Article 54 of the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement, read with Article 71 thereof, be construed as meaning that offences of possession for the purposes of export and import in respect of the same narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of any kind, including cannabis, and which are prosecuted as exports and imports respectively in different countries which have signed the Schengen agreement, or where the Schengen acquis is implemented and applied, are deemed to be the “same offences” as mentioned in Article 54 aforesaid?’

---