Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:818
Date: 2016-10-27
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Preliminary reference - urgent procedure
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 27 October 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions — Person deprived of freedom, the resolution of the dispute being likely to affect that deprivation of freedom (Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, art. 107) 2. Acts of the institutions — Directives — Implementation by Member States — Obligations of Member States during the period of transposition — Obligation not to adopt measures that could compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by the Directive — Obligation on the national courts, immediately upon entry into force of the directive and so far as possible, to interpret national law so as not to compromise the achievement of the objective pursued 3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Reinforcement of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to attend one’s trial in criminal proceedings — Directive 2016/343 — Obligations of Member States during the period of transposition — Obligation not to adopt measures that could compromise the attainment of the result prescribed by the Directive — Opinion of a supreme court finding a contradiction between the European Convention on Human Rights and a national rule prohibiting, during the trial stage of the proceedings and when the court is reviewing a provisional remand in custody, examination of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused person committed the offence — Discretion of national courts to decide whether or not to apply the European Convention on Human Rights — Lawfulness (European Parliament and Council Directive 2016/343) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 26) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 30-32) 3. The opinion delivered by a supreme court at the beginning of the transposition period of Directive 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, which confers on the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an action brought against a custody decision the ability to decide whether, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, the continued custody of an accused must be subject to a review by the court of whether, in addition, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he committed the offence with which he is charged is not likely seriously to compromise, after the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of the directive, the attainment of the objectives prescribed by that directive. That opinion, which found that there was a conflict between the provisions of the ECHR and those of national criminal procedural law prohibiting, during the trial stage of the proceedings and when the court is reviewing a provisional remand in custody, examination of whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused person committed the offence, does not require the national court hearing actions against the continuation of custody to adopt, during the trial stage of the criminal proceedings, a particular decision. On the contrary, that opinion leaves those courts free to apply the provisions of the ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, or those of the national criminal procedural law. (see paras 34, 36, operative part)