# C_2023071EN.01001202.xml

| 27.2.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 12 January 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — criminal proceedings against MV

(Case C-583/22 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA - Article 3(1) - Principle of assimilation of earlier convictions handed down in another Member State - Obligation to ensure that the effects attached to those convictions are equivalent to those attached to previous national convictions - National rules concerning subsequent formation of a cumulative sentence - Multiple offences - Determination of an aggregate sentence - Maximum of 15 years for non-life custodial sentences - Article 3(5) - Exception - Offence committed before the handing down or execution of sentences in another Member State)

(2023/C 71/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Party in the main proceedings

MV

Intervening party: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1) and (5) of 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
  must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not required, in criminal proceedings brought against a person, to attach to previous convictions handed down in another Member State, against that person and in respect of different facts, effects equivalent to those attached to previous national convictions in accordance with the rules of the national law concerned relating to the formation of a cumulative sentence where, first, the offence giving rise to those previous proceedings was committed before the previous convictions were handed down and, secondly, taking account of the previous convictions in accordance with those rules of national law would prevent the national court hearing the proceedings from imposing a sentence that could be executed against the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1) and (5) of 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

must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is not required, in criminal proceedings brought against a person, to attach to previous convictions handed down in another Member State, against that person and in respect of different facts, effects equivalent to those attached to previous national convictions in accordance with the rules of the national law concerned relating to the formation of a cumulative sentence where, first, the offence giving rise to those previous proceedings was committed before the previous convictions were handed down and, secondly, taking account of the previous convictions in accordance with those rules of national law would prevent the national court hearing the proceedings from imposing a sentence that could be executed against the person concerned.

| 2. | The second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675
  must be interpreted as meaning that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in another Member State, within the meaning of that provision, does not require the national court to establish and give specific reasons for the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility of imposing a subsequent cumulative sentence which is laid down for earlier national convictions. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second subparagraph of Article 3(5) of Framework Decision 2008/675

must be interpreted as meaning that the taking into account of previous convictions handed down in another Member State, within the meaning of that provision, does not require the national court to establish and give specific reasons for the disadvantage resulting from the impossibility of imposing a subsequent cumulative sentence which is laid down for earlier national convictions.

---

(1)  OJ C 424, 7.11.2022.

---