# C_2009233EN.01001102.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 31 July 2009 — I.B. v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-306/09)

2009/C 233/19

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour consitutionnelle

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: I.B.

Applicant:

Defendant: Conseil des ministres

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a sentence imposed in absentia, without the convicted person having been informed of the date and place of the hearing, and against which that person still has a remedy, to be considered to be, not an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) but an arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a sentence imposed in absentia, without the convicted person having been informed of the date and place of the hearing, and against which that person still has a remedy, to be considered to be, not an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, (1) but an arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision?

1

| 2. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are Article 4(6) and Article 5(6) of the Framework Decision to be interpreted as not permitting the Member States to make the surrender to the judicial authorities of the issuing State of a person residing on their territory who is the subject, in the circumstances described in the first question, of an arrest warrant for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, subject to a condition that that person be returned to the executing State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed by a final judgment against that person in the issuing State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are Article 4(6) and Article 5(6) of the Framework Decision to be interpreted as not permitting the Member States to make the surrender to the judicial authorities of the issuing State of a person residing on their territory who is the subject, in the circumstances described in the first question, of an arrest warrant for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, subject to a condition that that person be returned to the executing State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed by a final judgment against that person in the issuing State?

| 3. | If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, do the articles in question contravene Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, the principles of equality and non-discrimination? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, do the articles in question contravene Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, in particular, the principles of equality and non-discrimination?

| 4. | If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision to be interpreted as preventing the judicial authorities of a Member State from refusing the execution of a European arrest warrant if there are valid grounds for believing that its execution would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the person concerned, as enshrined by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the reply to the first question is in the negative, are Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision to be interpreted as preventing the judicial authorities of a Member State from refusing the execution of a European arrest warrant if there are valid grounds for believing that its execution would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the person concerned, as enshrined by Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

1

---