View of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2008:455
Date: 2018-08-06
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty on European Union (1992)
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs
Procedure: Preliminary reference - urgent procedure
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 1. Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Jurisdiction of the Court – Preliminary rulings – Question on the interpretation of a framework decision adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty (Art. 234 EC; Arts 35 EU and 46(b) EU) 2. Preliminary rulings – Reference to the Court – Determination of the questions to refer – Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court (Art. 35 EU) 3. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 31) 4. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 32) 1. The fact that an order for reference concerning the interpretation of a framework decision adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty does not mention Article 35 EU but refers to Article 234 EC cannot of itself make the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the EU Treaty neither expressly nor by implication lays down the form in which the national court must present its reference for a preliminary ruling. (see para. 38) 2. Since, under Article 35 EU, it is for the national court or tribunal, not the parties to the main proceedings, to bring a matter before the Court, the right to determine the questions to be put to the Court devolves on the national court alone and the parties may not change their tenor. To answer questions formulated by the parties to the main proceedings would moreover be incompatible with the function given to the Court by that article and with its duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, bearing in mind that under that provision only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties. (see paras 46-47) 3. Article 31 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of the framework decision. (see para. 63, operative part 1) 4. Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004. Making conventions such as that convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union applicable does not interfere with the European arrest warrant system laid down by the framework decision, since, in accordance with Article 31(1) of that decision, such a convention can be used only where the European arrest warrant system does not apply. The purpose of making conventions in the field of extradition applicable after 1 January 2004 can therefore only be to improve the extradition system in circumstances in which the European arrest warrant system does not apply. (see paras 74-75, 81, operative part 2)