# C_2019328EN.01002101.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 1 July 2019 — Criminal proceedings against Oriol Junqueras Vies

(Case C-502/19)

(2019/C 328/22)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Oriol Junqueras Vies

Other parties:

Ministerio Fiscal

Abogacía del Estado

Partido Político Vox

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1) apply before the commencement of ‘sessions’ to a person accused of serious offences, who has been remanded in custody pursuant to a court order made in respect of acts preceding the commencement of an electoral process in which that person was declared an elected representative of the European Parliament but who, by court order, has been refused a special prison licence which would enable him to comply with the conditions laid down by the national electoral legislation referred to in Article 8 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 9 of Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (1) apply before the commencement of ‘sessions’ to a person accused of serious offences, who has been remanded in custody pursuant to a court order made in respect of acts preceding the commencement of an electoral process in which that person was declared an elected representative of the European Parliament but who, by court order, has been refused a special prison licence which would enable him to comply with the conditions laid down by the national electoral legislation referred to in Article 8 of the Act concerning the election of the members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage?

| 2. | If the answer is in the affirmative, where, because the newly elected member has not complied with the conditions laid down in the electoral legislation (a failure resulting from the limitation of his freedom of movement owing to the fact that he has been remanded in custody in proceedings for serious offences), the body designated in the national electoral legislation has notified the European Parliament that that person has not acquired the status of Member of the Parliament and will not do so until such time as he complies with those conditions, does the broad interpretation of the term ‘sessions’ continue to apply notwithstanding the temporary interruption of his expectation of taking his seat? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer is in the affirmative, where, because the newly elected member has not complied with the conditions laid down in the electoral legislation (a failure resulting from the limitation of his freedom of movement owing to the fact that he has been remanded in custody in proceedings for serious offences), the body designated in the national electoral legislation has notified the European Parliament that that person has not acquired the status of Member of the Parliament and will not do so until such time as he complies with those conditions, does the broad interpretation of the term ‘sessions’ continue to apply notwithstanding the temporary interruption of his expectation of taking his seat?

| 3. | If the answer is that the broad interpretation should continue to apply, where the newly elected member was in temporary custody in proceedings for serious offences sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the electoral process, is the judicial authority which ordered that that person be remanded in custody obliged, in the light of the phrase ‘while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament’ in Article 9 of Protocol No 7, to lift the custody measure absolutely, almost automatically, to enable compliance with the formalities and the requirement of travel to the European Parliament, or should account be taken of a balancing exercise in the specific case between, on the one hand, the rights and interests arising from the interests of justice and due process and, on the other, those relating to the concept of immunity, as regards the need to ensure the functioning and independence of the Parliament and the elected representative’s right to hold public office? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer is that the broad interpretation should continue to apply, where the newly elected member was in temporary custody in proceedings for serious offences sufficiently in advance of the commencement of the electoral process, is the judicial authority which ordered that that person be remanded in custody obliged, in the light of the phrase ‘while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament’ in Article 9 of Protocol No 7, to lift the custody measure absolutely, almost automatically, to enable compliance with the formalities and the requirement of travel to the European Parliament, or should account be taken of a balancing exercise in the specific case between, on the one hand, the rights and interests arising from the interests of justice and due process and, on the other, those relating to the concept of immunity, as regards the need to ensure the functioning and independence of the Parliament and the elected representative’s right to hold public office?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 C 326, p. 266.

---