Order — ECLI:EU:C:2024:779
Date: 2024-09-20
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice;Fundamental rights;European Convention on Human Rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Preliminary reference - urgent procedure
Origin: Italy

Summary C-504/24 PPU - 1 
Case C-504/24 PPU [Anacco] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
19 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte d’appello di Roma (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
18 July 2024 
Criminal proceedings against: 
RT 
      
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Procedure for the execution, in Italy, of a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) issued 
by the Belgian authorities against a requested person in proceedings brought for 
the abduction and detention of a minor. The problem derives from the fact that 
that person was lawfully convicted in Belgium in absentia, without a lawyer 
having participated on her behalf in the relevant proceedings. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
Pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, an interpretation is sought of Articles 6 TFEU, 
Articles 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
(‘Charter’), Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), 
Articles 1 and 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, Article 6 of 
Directive 2012/13/EU and Article 3 of Directive 2013/48/EU, in order to ascertain 
whether they preclude Articles 2, 6 and 18 ter of legge italiana del 22 aprile 2005, 
n. 69 (Italian Law No 69 of 22 April 2005). 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-504/24 PPU 
 
2  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
‘Must 
(a) Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, Articles 48(2) and 52(3) and 
(4) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 
(b) Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention on Human Rights, 
(c) Article 1(3) and Article 4a of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 
of 13 June 2002, 
(d) Article 6 of Directive 2012/13/EU, and 
(e) Article 3 of Directive 2013/48/EU 
be interpreted, taken together, as precluding national legislation such as the Italian 
legislation, provided for in Articles 2, 6 and 18 ter of Legge n. 69 del 22 aprile 
2005 (Law No 69 of 22 April 2005), which does not permit the Corte di appello 
(Court of Appeal, Italy), as the competent judicial body of the requested State, to 
refuse the surrender of a person to the issuing State in the execution of an EAW 
issued on the basis of a conviction imposing a custodial sentence delivered, in the 
issuing State, following a criminal trial which took place in the absence of a 
lawyer of choice appointed by the accused or appointed by the court of its own 
motion, and in any event without an actual defence, including in cases where – 
after the execution of the EAW – the convicted person has the right to be served 
the conviction and may lodge an objection or appeal against that conviction.’ 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
TEU: Article 6. 
Charter: Articles 48(2) and 52(3) and (4). 
ECHR: Article 6(3)(c) 
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002: Articles 1 (3) and 
4a. 
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 
2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings: Article 6. 
ANACCO 
 
3 
Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 
October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in 
European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party 
informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and 
with consular authorities while deprived of liberty: Article 3. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legge del 22 aprile 2005, n. 69, Disposizioni per conformare il diritto interno alla 
decisione quadro 2002/584/GAI del Consiglio, del 13 giugno 2002, relativa al 
mandato d’arresto europeo e alle procedure di consegna tra Stati membri (Law No 
69 of 22 April 2005 laying down provisions to bring national law into line with 
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European 
arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States). In 
particular: 
Article 2(1): ‘Under no circumstances may the execution of an EAW entail an 
infringement of the overriding principles of the constitutional order of the State or 
of the inalienable rights of the individual recognised by the Constitution, of the 
fundamental rights and the fundamental legal principles enshrined in Article 6 of 
the Treaty on European Union or of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 
signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, rendered enforceable by Law No 848 of 4 
August 1955 and the Additional Protocols thereto’; 
Article 6 (1) and (1bis): «1. The European arrest warrant shall contain the 
following information: 
(a) the identity and nationality of the requested person; 
(b) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the 
issuing judicial authority; 
(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, protective measure or any other 
enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of 
Articles 7 and 8 of this Law; 
(d) the nature and legal classification of the offence; 
(e) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, 
including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the 
requested person; 
(f) the penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or, in other cases, the 
prescribed scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing State; 
(g) if possible, other consequences of the offence. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-504/24 PPU 
 
4  
1 bis. Where it has been issued for the purpose of executing a sentence or a 
detention order depriving the person of his or her liberty, applied following a trial 
at which the person concerned did not appear in person, the EAW must also 
contain an indication of at least one of the following conditions: 
(a) the person concerned was promptly summoned in person or by other means 
capable of ensuring unequivocally that he or she was aware of the date and place 
of the trial, which resulted in the decision rendered in absentia and of the fact that 
the decision could have been taken even in his or her absence; 
(b) the person concerned, who was informed of his or her trial, was represented 
at the trial resulting in that decision by a lawyer, appointed by the person himself 
or herself or by the court; 
(c) the person concerned, after being served the decision the enforcement of 
which is sought and informed of his or her right to a retrial or of the possibility of 
lodging an appeal, in which he or she has the right to participate and which allows 
the merits of the decision to be re-examined, also through the production of new 
evidence, the possibility of the decision being overturned, has expressly declared 
that he or she does not contest that decision or has not requested the retrial of the 
case or lodged an appeal within the time limit set; 
(d) the person concerned has not personally been served with the decision, but 
shall receive it personally and without delay after the surrender in the issuing 
Member State and shall be expressly informed of the right to a retrial or to lodge 
an appeal, in which he or she has the right to participate and which allows the 
merits of the case to be reviewed, as well as, also through the production of new 
evidence, the possibility of that decision being overturned, and of the time limits 
within which he or she will be able to apply for a retrial or lodge an appeal. 
2. If the European arrest warrant does not contain the information referred to in 
points (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of paragraph 1, or evidence of at least one of the 
conditions referred to in paragraph 1bis, the judicial authority shall take measures 
in accordance with Article 16. It shall also take measures when taking the view 
that it is necessary to obtain additional evidence in order to verify whether one of 
the cases provided for in Articles 18, 18bis, 18ter and 19 applies.’ 
Article 18 ter: «1. Where the EAW has been issued for the purpose of 
executing a sentence or a detention order applied following a trial at which the 
person concerned did not appear in person, the Court of Appeal may also refuse 
surrender if the EAW does not indicate any of the conditions referred to in 
Article 6(1 bis) and the issuing State has given no indication of those conditions 
even after a request has been made under Article 16. 
2. In the cases referred to in paragraph 1, the Court of Appeal may, in any 
event, give rise to surrender if it is determined with certainty that the person 
concerned was aware of the trial or willingly avoided being made aware of the 
trial. 
ANACCO 
 
5 
3. Where the conditions referred to in point (d) of Article 6(1 bis) are met, the 
person requested to be surrendered, who was not previously informed of the 
criminal proceedings brought against him or her, may request the transmission of 
a copy of the conviction on which the EAW is based. The request does not under 
any circumstances constitute a ground for postponement of the surrender 
procedure or of the decision to execute the EAW. The Court of Appeal shall 
immediately forward the request to the issuing authority.’ 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 RT, a singer whose international renown led to her being appointed Goodwill 
Ambassador in 2016 on behalf of the UNHCR, is currently being held in a prison 
in Rome, pending the execution of an EAW issued by the Belgian authorities. The 
decision to detain her is based on the fact that, in 2020, RT had evaded 
enforcement of previous detention orders issued by Belgian and French courts. 
2 Those measures were taken as a result of RT’s refusal to comply with a decision 
of the Belgian courts, whereby custody of the daughter of RT, UMTG, who was 
born in Brussels on 3 November 2015 from her marriage to JG, from whom the 
singer separated in 2018, was to be given to her father, in Belgium. Since the 
separation, UMTG has lived with her mother, in Mali. 
3 The EAW, the execution of which is requested by the Belgian authorities from the 
Italian authorities, was issued at the conclusion of proceedings in which RT did 
not appear, although she was duly summoned, and during which she was not 
assisted by a lawyer. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
4 RT seeks release and, therefore, the request for execution of the EAW should be 
rejected, on the ground that she was convicted in absentia and without the 
technical assistance of a lawyer. 
5 The Belgian authorities stated that RT, convicted in absentia after having been 
duly summoned to appear, could lodge an objection before the Tribunal de 
Bruxelles (Court of first instance, Brussels, Belgium). If that objection were held 
to be admissible, it would lead to the setting aside of the conviction and the 
hearing of new proceedings with the same rights as she would have had during the 
first proceedings. Otherwise, RT could lodge an appeal before the Cour d’appel de 
Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium), in the event of surrender. In both 
cases, she would be assisted by a lawyer of choice or by a lawyer appointed by the 
Court under the Legal Aid Service, she would have an appropriate period of time 
to prepare her defence and could request release. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - CASE C-504/24 PPU 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
6 The referring court’s doubts arise from the fact that, on the basis of sound Italian 
case-law, based on the interpretation of the Constitution and the Italian legislation 
by both the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) and the Corte di 
Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), even if the accused is declared in 
absentia, a lawyer of choice or appointed by the Court, or a stand-in lawyer 
appointed by the court, must necessarily be present during the proceedings seeing 
that, if a lawyer is not in attendance, the trial cannot take place (reference is made 
to a ‘technical’ defence, in so far as it is provided, precisely, by a lawyer), failing 
which the proceedings will be declared null and void. The Italian legislation 
which incorporated the EAW Framework Decision into the Italian legal system by 
applying EU law did not however expressly require compliance with that 
condition. 
7 The Italian court has no doubts as to the lawfulness of the EAW at issue under 
Belgian law. It is perfectly aware that Article 187 of the Code d’instruction 
criminelle (Belgian Code of Criminal Procedure) provides that: ‘Si la personne 
citée, ou l’avocat qui la représente, ne comparaît pas au jour et à l’heure fixés 
dans la citation, elle sera jugée par défaut’ (‘If the person summoned or the 
lawyer representing that person, does not enter an appearance on the day and at 
the time referred to in the sums, that person shall be subject to a default 
judgment’) and that, therefore, once the regularity of the summons is guaranteed, 
the proceedings will be considered to be fully valid, even in the absence of a 
lawyer (an unacceptable situation in the Italian legal system). Yet it takes the view 
that it is absolutely essential to ask the Court of Justice for a ruling confirming 
that the situation in which it would find itself if it had to comply with the current 
Italian legislation (which, in implementing the Framework Decision in this area, 
obliges it to execute an EAW validly issued by the authority of another Member 
State) is compatible with compliance with the fundamental principles set out in 
the TFEU, the Charter and the ECHR on the rights of the defence, which, as 
interpreted by the highest Italian courts, appear to consider the presence of at least 
the accused’s lawyer, if he or she is absent, to be essential. The referring court is 
extremely doubtful, given the aspects of unconstitutionality affecting the current 
legislative situation, which, in its view, are also relevant under EU law. 
8 The need for a clear interpretation on this point is due to the fact that the surrender 
of RT to Belgium could be refused and RT would have to be released if the 
relevant provisions of EU law were to be interpreted as precluding legislation such 
as the Italian legislation which, in the case of an EAW issued in the execution of a 
conviction, does not provide for the possibility for the requested State to refuse 
that surrender if the criminal proceedings have taken place in the absence of a 
lawyer of choice appointed by the accused or a lawyer appointed by the court. 
Furthermore, as regards the determination of the exact content of the rights of the 
defence in relation to a ‘technical’ defence, the referring court also recalls that a 
preliminary ruling procedure is currently pending before the Court of Justice of 
ANACCO 
 
7 
the European Union (Case C-40/24), brought by the Supreme Court of Cassation 
by order of 29 September 2023. 
9 Given that the main proceedings concern the areas covered by Title V TFEU, 
relating to the area of freedom, security and justice and that, in particular, RT is 
currently in custody, the referring court asks the Court to deal with its request for 
a preliminary ruling under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.