# C_2021128EN.01000802.xml

| 12.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/8

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against X; other Party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

(Case C-665/20)

(2021/C 128/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: X

Other Party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a certain discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the EAW? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a certain discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the EAW?

| 2. | Should the concept of ‘the same acts’ in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA be interpreted in the same way as in Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and, if not, how should that concept be interpreted in the former provision? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should the concept of ‘the same acts’ in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA be interpreted in the same way as in Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and, if not, how should that concept be interpreted in the former provision?

| 3. | Should the condition laid down in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA that the ‘sentence has been served ... or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country’ be interpreted as covering a situation in which the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a custodial sentence that he or she has served in part in the sentencing country and the remainder of which has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that country, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to convicted persons who have committed serious acts, such as the requested person, and is not based on rational criminal policy considerations? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should the condition laid down in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA that the ‘sentence has been served ... or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country’ be interpreted as covering a situation in which the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a custodial sentence that he or she has served in part in the sentencing country and the remainder of which has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that country, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to convicted persons who have committed serious acts, such as the requested person, and is not based on rational criminal policy considerations?

---

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

---