# C_2019280EN.01000201.xml

| 19.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 280/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski

(Case C-573/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decisions - Lack of direct effect - Primacy of EU law - Consequences - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 4(6) - Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA - Article 28(2) - Declaration by a Member State allowing it to continue to apply existing legal instruments on the transfer of sentenced persons applicable before 5 December 2011 - Late declaration - Consequences)

(2019/C 280/02)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

Daniel Adam Popławski

Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 28(2) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a declaration made pursuant to that provision by a Member State, after that framework decision was adopted, is not capable of producing legal effects.

| 2. | The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of a framework decision, such as the framework decisions at issue in the main proceedings, the legal effects of which are preserved in accordance with Article 9 of Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions, annexed to the treaties, since those provisions do not have direct effect. The authorities of the Member States, including the courts, are nevertheless required to interpret their national law, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with EU law, which enables them to ensure an outcome that is compatible with the objective pursued by the framework decision concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 412, 4.12.2017.

---