Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2021:454
Date: 2021-06-03
Language of the case: Slovak

Translation C-919/19–1 
Case C-919/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
16 December 2019 
Referring court:  
Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Slovak Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
22 October 2019 
Applicant:  
Generálna prokuratúra Slovenskej republiky  
Defendant: 
XY 
  
Najvyšsí súd Slovenskej republiky  
(Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic )      … 
ORDER 
The Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Supreme Court of the Slovak 
Republic) (‘the Najvyšší súd’) … [composition of the bench] in criminal 
proceedings against XY, the sentenced person, convicted for the exceptionally 
serious crime of robbery under Paragraph 173(1) and (2)(b) of the Trestní zákoník 
Českej republiky (Czech Criminal Code), in closed session on 22 October 2019 in 
Bratislava, 
hereby orders: 
Under Paragraph 318(1) of the Trestný poriadok (Slovak Code of Criminal 
Procedure) by analogy, in conjunction with Paragraph 244(4) thereof, the 
proceedings on the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the Krajský 
soud v Plzni (Regional Court, Plzeň, Czech Republic) dated 18 July 2017 ... [case 
number], together with the judgment of the Vrchní soud v Praze (High Court, 
Prague, Czech Republic) dated 20 September 2017 ... [case number], by which 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 10. 2019 – CASE C-919/19 
 
2  
XY was convicted of the exceptionally serious crime of robbery under 
Paragraph 173(1) and (2)(b) of the Czech Criminal Code and sentenced to a eight-
year custodial sentence in a closed prison [väznica so strážením] are stayed and 
an order for reference is made to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
concerning the interpretation of Article 4(1)(a), Article 4(2) and Article 9(1)(b) 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 (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27), as 
amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 
(OJ 2009 L 81, [p. 24]) (‘the Framework Decision’). 
Grounds 
(1) By a judgment of 17 May 2018, ... [case number], the Krajský súd v 
Košiciach (Regional Court, Košice, Slovak Republic) (‘the Krajský súd’) decided, 
under Paragraphs 15(1) and 17(1) of Zákon č. 549/2011 Z.z. o uznávaní a výkone 
rozhodnutí, ktorými sa ukladá trestná sankcia spojená s odňatím slobody v 
Európskej únii [Or. 2] a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 221/2006 Z.z. o výkone 
väzby (Law No 549/2011 on the recognition and enforcement of decisions 
imposing custodial sentences in the European Union, amending and consolidating 
Law No 221/2006 on custodial sentences), in the version in force until 31 
December 2019 (‘Law No 549/2011’), to recognise and enforce the judgment of 
the Krajský soud v Plzni (Regional Court, Plzeň) dated 18 July 2017, ... [case 
number], together with the judgment of the Vrchní soud v Praze (High Court, 
Prague) dated 20 October 2017, ... [case number], by which XY was convicted of 
the exceptionally serious crime of robbery under Paragraph 173(1) and (2)(b) of 
the Czech Criminal Code and sentenced to an eight-year custodial sentence to be 
served in a closed prison. Under Paragraph 48(4) of the Trestný zákon (Slovak 
Criminal Code), that court ruled that the sentenced person was to carry out that 
custodial sentence in a medium-security closed prison. 
(2) XY brought an appeal in due time against that judgment, in which he 
essentially stated his entire family (spouse, two daughters, son-in-law and 
grandchild) lives and works in Plzeň and the family members visit him every 
month while he is serving his sentence. He has no contact with his son or 
stepbrother, who live in the territory of the Slovak Republic because they are at 
odds with him. At the same time, he pointed out that his parents are no longer 
alive and therefore he has no family ties or close friends in Slovakia. He also 
maintains that by moving to Slovakia he would lose contact with his family who 
have nowhere to return to in Slovakia, whereas in the Czech Republic they (his 
family) have a roof over their head and work. For these reasons, XY applied to 
serve his sentence in the Czech Republic, attaching to the appeal a copy of the 
rental agreement for a flat in Plzeň. 
(3) By order of 28 August 2018 … [case number] the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej 
republiky (Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic) (‘Najvyšší súd’) stayed the 
GENERÁLNA PROKURATÚRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
3 
proceedings on recognition and enforcement pursuant to Paragraph 318(1) of the 
Trestný poriadok (Slovak Code of Criminal Procedure) by analogy, in conjunction 
with Paragraph 244(4) thereof, pending a judgment of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union on its earlier reference for a preliminary ruling made in a case 
similar in terms of the facts, conduced under reference number 2 Urto 1/2018; in 
the proceedings before the Court of Justice Case C-495/18. 
(4) Since, in the case before the Najvyšší súd bearing reference number 
2 Urto 1/2018 the Krajský soud v Ústi nad Labem (Regional Court, Ústí nad 
Labem, Czech Republic) withdrew the certificate issued pursuant to Article 4 of 
the Framework Decision and consequently, by order of 1 October 2019, the Court 
of Justice decided that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on the request 
for a preliminary ruling in Case C-495/18, the Najvyšší súd ordered in that case, 
by order of 22 October 2019, reference number 2 Urto 5/2018, pursuant to 
Paragraph 318(2) of the Trestný poriadok (Slovak Code of Criminal Procedure) 
by analogy, that the stayed proceedings be resumed. At the same time, however, it 
concluded that in the present case it is necessary to make a new reference for a 
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice for the reasons set out below. [Or. 3.] 
(5) On 12 February 2018, the Krajský sud received a certificate issued by the 
Krajský soud v Plzni (Regional Court, Plzeň) pursuant to Article 4 of the 
Framework Decision, with the judgments mentioned above [in paragraph 1] by 
which XY was sentenced under Paragraph 173(1) and (2)(b) of the Czech 
Criminal Code to an eight-year custodial sentence to be served in a closed prison 
for the exceptionally serious crime of robbery. In accordance with part (g) of that 
certificate, the judgments and the certificate were sent to the Slovak Republic as 
the executing State because the issuing authority was satisfied that enforcement in 
the executing State of the sentence imposed serves the purpose of facilitating the 
social rehabilitation of the sentenced person and the executing State is the State of 
which the sentenced person is a national and in which he lives. In addition, the 
certificate [part (d)(4) and part (l)] shows that the sentenced person arrived in the 
Czech Republic with his wife five months before the crime was committed and 
worked briefly at the company X in Plzeň, but that his employment was 
terminated and he was unemployed at the time the crime was committed. In the 
Czech Republic he initially stayed in a hostel and then with his family in a rented 
flat for a short time. According to the Krajský soud v Plzni (Regional Court, 
Plzeň), rehabilitation of the sentenced person will be more easily achievable for 
him in Slovakia because he is a Slovak national and has spent his whole life and is 
registered as permanently resident there. According to the Krajský soud v Plzni 
(Regional Court, Plzeň), he has no place of habitual residence in the Czech 
Republic because before committing the offence he lived in the Czech Republic 
for a very short time during which he established no professional, cultural or 
social links and did not make use of the opportunity of residing in the Czech 
Republic to integrate fully into society and create for himself a base which could 
be regarded as a place of habitual residence where he could live with his family. 
On the contrary, he used his residence in the Czech Republic to commit a violent 
crime very shortly after his arrival. According to the Krajský soud v Plzni 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 10. 2019 – CASE C-919/19 
 
4  
(Regional Court, Plzeň), the fact that the children of the sentenced person, who are 
also Slovak nationals, reside in the territory of the Czech Republic and may return 
to the territory of the Slovak Republic at any time, likewise has no effect on the 
creation of an obstacle to the sentenced person’s ‘habitual residence’ in the 
territory of the Czech Republic preventing his transfer. 
(6) In his statement on the transfer XY pointed out that in Slovakia he only has 
a stepbrother with whom he has no contact and after his release he will remain in 
the Czech Republic at a specific address in Plzeň where he is temporarily resident 
and where he has children and grandchildren who could not [if he was transferred 
to the Slovak Republic] visit him and with whom he would lose contract. 
(7) According to the register of inhabitants of the Slovak Republic XY … is a 
Slovak citizen and since 24 August 1998 has been registered as permanently 
resident [Or. 4] in the municipality of Mníšek nad Hnilcom ... in the vicinity of 
Gelnica (Slovak Republic). According to the report of the Obvodné oddelenie 
Policajného zboru v Spišskej Novej Vsi (district police department in Spišská 
Nová Ves, Slovakia) dated 5 March 2018, the appellant does not appear at all in 
the above municipality, has no contact with anyone, and has been with his family 
in France for about five years. According to the report of the mayor of the 
municipality of Mníšek nad Hnilcom, XY is registered as permanently resident in 
that municipality ... [address], however, only the son resides at that address with 
his grandmother XY, according to whom, although she does not maintain contact 
with them, her daughter X (the spouse of the appellant) and her two daughters are 
probably living in the Czech Republic. At present, XY is serving his sentence at a 
prison in Plzeň ... [prison address], in the Czech Republic. 
(8) Under Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011, it is possible to recognise and 
enforce a decision in the Slovak Republic if the fact or deed on the basis of which 
the decision was issued also constitutes an offence under Slovak law, subject to 
the provisions of Paragraph 4(2) and (3), and if the sentenced person is a Slovak 
citizen who habitually resides in the Slovak Republic or has in its territory proven 
family, social or professional links which may contribute to facilitating his 
rehabilitation in the course of the enforcement of the custodial sentence in the 
Slovak Republic. 
(9) It is apparent from the above that the recognition and enforcement of a 
decision of the issuing State is conditional, under Slovak legislation, on the fact 
that the sentenced person, who is a Slovak citizen, must have in the Slovak 
Republic (i) either his place of habitual residence, (ii) or proven family, social or 
professional links which may contribute to facilitating his rehabilitation in the 
course of the enforcement of the custodial sentence in the Slovak Republic. 
(10) Under Paragraph 3(g) of Law No 549/2011, for the purposes of that law 
‘habitual residence’ means permanent residence or temporary residence. 
GENERÁLNA PROKURATÚRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
5 
(11) Under Paragraph 2(2) of Zákon č. 253/1998 Z. z. o hlásení pobytu občanov 
Slovenskej republiky a registri obyvateľov Slovenskej republiky (Law No 
253/1998 on declaring the residence of Slovak citizens and the register of Slovak 
citizens, as amended) (‘the Law on declaring residence’), ‘residence’ for the 
purposes of keeping records of citizens’ residence is interpreted as permanent 
residence and temporary residence. 
(12) Under Paragraph 3(1) to (3) and the first sentence before the semicolon of 
Paragraph 3(7) of the Law on declaring residence, a citizen’s permanent 
residence, as a rule, is at his permanent address in the Slovak Republic. A citizen 
has only one place of permanent residence at a given time. A citizen may have his 
permanent residence [Or. 5] only in a building or in a part of a building which is 
identified by a house number [súpisné číslo] or a house number and orientational 
number [orientačné číslo] and which is intended as housing or accommodation or 
for private recreation, subject to contrary provision in that law. A flat is also 
considered to be part of a building. Registration of a citizen’s permanent residence 
cannot be relied on to found any right to the building mentioned in Paragraph 3(2) 
or ownership thereof and is for the purposes of record-keeping Every citizen is 
required to declare their place of permanent residence unless they are living 
abroad on a permanent basis. 
(13) Under Paragraph 6(1) of the Law on declaring residence, a citizen who is 
preparing to travel abroad with the intention of living there permanently is 
required before leaving the country to declare the termination of his permanent 
residence to the records office which holds the data on his permanent residence; in 
the declaration he must give the State and place of residence to which he has 
decided to travel and the date on which his residence abroad will commence, 
which is also the date on which his permanent residence [in the Slovak Republic] 
terminates. Pursuant to Paragraph 6(3), a citizen who is resident abroad and who 
decides during that period of residence to terminate his permanent residence in the 
Slovak Republic may declare such termination through the authority representing 
the Slovak Republic [in his State of residence] or through a person duly authorised 
to act on his behalf in the Slovak Republic. The authority representing the Slovak 
Republic or the duly authorised person must ensure delivery to the records office 
holding the data on the citizen’s permanent residence of the document notifying 
termination of permanent residence, with the certified signature of the citizen 
concerned, in which the State and place of his current residence abroad must be 
given. The date on which that document is received by the record office is the date 
on which the permanent residence is deemed to terminate. 
(14) Under Paragraph 8(1) of the Law on declaring residence, temporary 
residence means a citizen’s residence outside his place of permanent residence, [in 
a place] where the citizen lives temporarily, provided that such residence is of a 
duration of longer than 90 days; temporary residence also means the residence in 
the Slovak Republic of a citizen who is permanently living abroad, provided it is 
of a duration of longer than 90 days. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 10. 2019 – CASE C-919/19 
 
6  
(15) Under Paragraph 9 of the Law on declaring residence, a citizen who is 
permanently resident in the Slovak Republic and who is preparing to travel abroad 
for a period longer than 90 days has the right to declare that fact to the records 
office in the place of his permanent or temporary residence; in the declaration he 
must give the State and place of his residence and the envisaged period of 
residence. 
(16) It is apparent from the abovementioned legal provisions that any finding of 
either the permanent or the temporary residence of a Slovak citizen in the Slovak 
Republic, which for the purposes of Law No 549/2011 constitute habitual 
residence, is merely for record-keeping purposes (Paragraph 2(2) and 
Paragraph 3(3) of the Law on declaring residence) and such findings are not 
conditional upon the fact that the citizen must actually live in those places and 
thus have family, social, professional or other links to them. In the case of 
permanent residence, although the Law imposes on every citizen who is not 
permanently resident [Or. 6] abroad the obligation to declare their permanent 
residence (the phrase before the semi-colon in Paragraph 3(7) of the Law on 
declaring residence), together with the obligation to declare its termination if they 
are preparing to travel abroad with the intention of living there permanently 
(Paragraph 6(1) of the Law on declaring residence), there is no penalty set out 
therein for any failure to fulfil those requirements. 
(17) Under Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011, decisions of the issuing State 
on the imposition of a custodial sentence may therefore be recognised and 
enforced (where the condition as to double criminality is satisfied, subject to the 
law providing otherwise) also where the sentenced Slovak citizen does not in fact 
live in the Slovak Republic (but lives in the issuing State), yet has in the Slovak 
Republic a recorded permanent or temporary residence. Paradoxically, this applies 
equally in the situation in which a Slovak citizen permanently living abroad is 
registered merely as temporarily resident in the Slovak Republic. The condition as 
to the existence of proven family, social or professional links which might 
facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person is thus laid down in the 
alternative and, under Slovak law, must be satisfied only if the Slovak citizen does 
not have his habitual, that is to say, permanent or temporary, residence in the 
Slovak Republic. 
(18) The appellant’s objections, based on the fact that he does not live in the 
Slovak Republic and that any family or social links which might facilitate his 
social rehabilitation are in the issuing State, seem prima facie to be unfounded. 
(19) On the other hand, it cannot be disregarded that the Framework Decision 
was implemented into the Slovak legal order by Law No 549/2011. It is therefore 
true that European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the national 
court is required to take all provisions of national law into account and interpret 
them, as far as is possible, in accordance with the Framework Decision in order to 
achieve the result sought by it and to ensure its full effectiveness (see for example 
judgments of the Court of Justice of 5 September 2012, Lopes Da Silva Jorge, 
GENERÁLNA PROKURATÚRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
7 
C-42/11, EU:C:2012:517, and 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C-554/14, 
EU:C:2016:835). 
(20) Recital 9 of the Framework Decision states that enforcement of the sentence 
in the executing State should enhance the possibility of social rehabilitation of the 
sentenced person. In the context of satisfying itself that the enforcement of the 
sentence by the executing State will serve the purpose of facilitating the social 
rehabilitation of the sentenced person, the competent authority of the issuing State 
should take into account such elements as, for example, the person’s attachment to 
the executing State, whether he or she considers it the place of family, linguistic, 
cultural, social or economic and other links. [Or. 7.] 
(21) In accordance with recital 15 of the Framework Decision, that Framework 
Decision should be applied in accordance with the right of citizens of the Union to 
move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States conferred by 
Article 18 of the Treaty establishing European Community. 
(22) In accordance with recital 17 of the Framework Decision, where in that 
Framework Decision reference is made to the State in which the sentenced person 
‘lives’, that indicates the place to which that person is attached based on habitual 
residence and on elements such as family, social or professional ties. 
(23) Under Article 3(1) of the Framework Decision, the purpose of that 
Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a 
view to facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, is to 
recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence. 
(24) Under Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision, provided that the 
sentenced person is in the issuing State or in the executing State, and provided that 
that person has given his or her consent where required under Article 6, a 
judgment, together with the certificate for which the standard form is given in 
Annex I, may be forwarded to the Member State of nationality of the sentenced 
person in which he or she lives. 
(25) Under Article 4(2), the first sentence of Article 4(3), and Article 4(4) of the 
Framework Decision, the forwarding of the judgment and the certificate may take 
place where the competent authority of the issuing State, where appropriate after 
consultations between the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing 
States, is satisfied that the enforcement of the sentence by the executing State 
would serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced 
person. Before forwarding the judgment and the certificate, the competent 
authority of the issuing State may consult, by any appropriate means, the 
competent authority of the executing State. During such consultation, the 
competent authority of the executing State may present the competent authority of 
the issuing State with a reasoned opinion, that enforcement of the sentence in the 
executing State would not serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation 
and successful reintegration of the sentenced person into society. Where there has 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 10. 2019 – CASE C-919/19 
 
8  
been no consultation, such an opinion may be presented without delay after the 
transmission of the judgment and the certificate. The competent authority of the 
issuing State is to consider such opinion and decide whether to withdraw the 
certificate or not. 
(26) Under Article 6(3) of the Framework Decision, in all cases where the 
sentenced person is still in the issuing State, he or she is to be given an 
opportunity to state his or her opinion orally or in writing. … The opinion of the 
sentenced person [Or. 8] is to be taken into account when deciding the issue of 
forwarding the judgement together with the certificate. Where the person has 
availed him or herself of the opportunity provided in this paragraph, the opinion of 
the sentenced person shall be forwarded to the executing State, in particular with a 
view to Article 4(4). ... 
(27) Under Article 8(1) of the Framework Decision, the competent authority of 
the executing State is to recognise a judgment which has been forwarded in 
accordance with Article 4 and following the procedure under Article 5, and is to 
forthwith take all the necessary measures for the enforcement of the sentence, 
unless it decides to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition and non-
enforcement provided for in Article 9. 
(28) Under Article 9(1)(b) of the Framework Decision, the competent authority 
of the executing State may refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the 
sentence, if the criteria set forth in Article 4(1) are not met. 
(29) Under Article 9(3) of the Framework Decision, in the cases referred to in 
paragraph 1(a), (b), (c), (i), (k) and (l), before deciding not to recognise the 
judgment and enforce the sentence, the competent authority of the executing State 
is to consult the competent authority of the issuing State, by any appropriate 
means, and, where appropriate, is to ask it to supply any necessary additional 
information without delay. 
(30) According to the standard form certificate, which is set out in Annex I to the 
Framework Decision, it is necessary under section (d), point 4, to provide any 
other relevant information about the sentenced person’s family, social or 
professional ties to the executing State, if such information is available and 
appropriate. 
(31) It is apparent from the abovementioned provisions of the Framework 
Decision that its objective is to facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced 
person. The Najvyšší súd therefore considers that the criteria set out in 
Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision will be satisfied only when the 
sentenced person has in the Member State of nationality such family, linguistic, 
cultural, social or economic and or professional links that it is possible to 
reasonably assume from those links that enforcement of the sentence in that State 
will enhance the possibility of his social rehabilitation. From that perspective, 
therefore, the Slovak national legislation, under which a decision imposing a 
GENERÁLNA PROKURATÚRA SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY 
 
9 
custodial sentence on a Slovak citizen may be recognised and enforced also where 
such a citizen has in the Slovak Republic merely his formally-recorded permanent 
or temporary residence, without concurrent family, social, professional or other 
links which could facilitate his social rehabilitation, it not being meanwhile a 
situation in which the sentenced person is to be deported to the Slovak Republic 
after enforcement of the penal sentence (Article 4(1)(b) of the Framework 
Decision), does not [Or. 9] ensure the full effectiveness of the Framework 
Decision in the sense that the recognition and enforcement of decisions in such 
cases contributes (may contribute) to enhancing the possibility of the social 
rehabilitation of the sentenced person. 
(32) However, it should be noted that even though there will be, as from 
1 January 2020, a change to Slovak national legislation and it will be possible, in 
accordance with the new wording of Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011, to 
recognise in the Slovak Republic the judgment imposing the custodial sentence 
where the sentenced person is a national thereof and has his or her place of 
habitual residence in its territory, which will no longer be defined as his or her 
permanent or temporary place of residence, under Paragraph 32 of that Law (in 
the version in force from 1 January 2020) proceedings instituted before 1 January 
2020 will be completed pursuant to that Law in the version in force until 
31 December 2019, that is to say under the provisions referred to in paragraphs 8 
and 10 of the grounds for this judgment. 
(33) Having regard to the above, and also to the duty of a national court which is 
called upon within the exercise of its jurisdiction to apply provisions of European 
Union law to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own 
motion to apply any conflicting provision of national legislation, without it being 
necessary for that court to request or await the prior setting aside of such a 
provision by legislative or other constitutional means (see in particular judgments 
of the Court of Justice of 9 March 1978, Simmenthal, 106/77, EU:C:1978:49, 
paragraphs 21 and 24; of 19 November 2009, Filipiak, C-314/08, EU:C:2009:719, 
paragraph 81; of 22 June 2010, Melki and Abdeli, C-188/10 and C-189/10, 
EU:C:2010:363 , paragraph 43; [of 26 February 2013,] Åkerberg Fransson, 
C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 45), the Najvyšší súd has concluded that an 
interpretation of European Union law is essential for a decision in this case. It has 
therefore decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the 
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
Is Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision to be interpreted to the effect 
that the criteria set out therein are satisfied only when the sentenced person 
has, in the Member State of his nationality, such family, social, professional 
or other links that it is possible to reasonably assume from those links that 
enforcement in that State of the sentence may facilitate his social 
rehabilitation, and as therefore precluding national legislation such as 
Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011 [Zákon č. 549/2011 Z.z. o uznávaní a 
výkone rozhodnutí, ktorými sa ukladá trestná sankcia spojená s odňatím 
slobody v Európskej únii a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 221/2006 Z.z. o 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 22. 10. 2019 – CASE C-919/19 
 
10  
výkone väzby] (in the version in force until 31 December 2019) which, in such 
cases, enables a judgment to be recognised and enforced in the event of 
merely formally-recorded habitual residence in the executing State, 
regardless of whether the sentenced person has concrete links in that State 
which could enhance his social rehabilitation? [Or. 10.] 
If that question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 4(2) of the 
Framework Decision to be interpreted to the effect that the competent 
authority of the issuing State is required also in the situation provided for in 
Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision to satisfy itself, even before 
forwarding the judgment and certificate, that enforcement of the sentence by 
the executing State would serve the purpose of facilitating the social 
rehabilitation of the sentenced person and is, furthermore, required to 
provide the information gathered for that purpose in section (d), point 4, of 
the certificate specifically, where the sentenced person claims in the 
statement of his opinion provided for in Article 6(3) of the Framework 
Decision that he has concrete family, social or professional links in the issuing 
State? 
If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1)(b) of the 
Framework Decision be interpreted to the effect that where, in the situation 
set out in Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision, despite the consultation 
under Article 4(1)(3) of that Decision and any provision of other necessary 
information, it is not proven that there are such family, social or professional 
links from which it could reasonably be assumed that the enforcement in the 
executing State of the sentence may facilitate the social rehabilitation of the 
sentenced person, there is still a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce 
the judgment? 
… [information on the possibility of appeal] 
Bratislava, 22 October 2019 
… František Mozner 
President of the Bench