Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2019:427
Date: 2019-05-16
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 8 May 2018 — Openbaar Ministerie v SF (Case C-314/18) Language of the case: Dutch Referring court Rechtbank Amsterdam Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie Defendant: SF Questions referred Must Articles 1(3) and 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 1 and Articles 1(a) and (b), 3(3) and (4) and 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 2 be interpreted as meaning that the issuing Member State, in its capacity as issuing State, in a case in which the executing Member State has made the surrender of one of its own nationals for the purpose of prosecution subject to the guarantee set out in Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, providing that the person concerned, after being heard, is to be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State, is in fact required — after the conviction involving a custodial sentence or detention order has become legally enforceable — to return the person concerned only once ‘any other proceedings in respect of the offence for which extradition was sought’ — such as confiscation proceedings — ‘are concluded’? Must Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA be interpreted as meaning that a Member State, when it has surrendered one of its own nationals on the basis of the guarantee referred to in Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, may, in its capacity as the executing State for the recognition and execution of the judgment delivered against that person — in derogation from Article 8(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — consider whether the custodial sentence imposed on that person corresponds to the sentence which it would itself have imposed for the offence concerned and, if necessary, may adjust that imposed custodial sentence accordingly? ____________ 1 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1). 2 Council Framework Decision 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).