Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:733
Date: 2013-11-14
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 14 November 2013 1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties — Principle of mutual recognition — Scope — Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution — Restrictive interpretation (Council Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 6, 7(1) and (2), and 20(3)) 2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties — Court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters — Concept — Autonomous interpretation — Court or tribunal satisfying the essential characteristics of criminal procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Council Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(a)(iii)) 3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties — Decision made by an authority of the issuing State other than a court — Opportunity for the person concerned to have the case tried by a court — Scope — Access to a court having full jurisdiction to examine the case — Prior administrative phase — No effect (Council Framework Decision 2005/214, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(a)(iii)) 1. The principle of mutual recognition, which underpins Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, means that, in accordance with Article 6 of Framework Decision 2005/214, the Member States are, as a rule, obliged to recognise a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty which has been transmitted in accordance with Article 4 of the Framework Decision without any further formality being required, and to take without delay all the measures necessary for its enforcement. Accordingly, the grounds for refusal to recognise or enforce such a decision must be interpreted restrictively. Such an interpretation is all the more appropriate since mutual confidence between Member States, which is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation within the Union, is coupled with appropriate safeguards. (see paras 29, 30) 2. The term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, set out in Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is an autonomous concept of EU law and must be interpreted as covering any court or tribunal which applies a procedure that satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure. The Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat in den Ländern (Austria) fulfils those criteria and must for that reason be regarded as coming within the scope of that term. For the purposes of interpreting the term ‘court’ contained in Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214, it is appropriate to rely on the criteria identified by the Court of Justice for determining whether a referring body is a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU. To that end, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent. As regards the words ‘having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, in order to ensure that the Framework Decision is effective, it is appropriate to rely on an interpretation in which the classification of offences by the Member States is not conclusive. To that end, the court having jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision must apply a procedure which satisfies the essential characteristics of criminal procedure, without, however, it being necessary for that court to have jurisdiction in criminal matters alone. Such criminal procedure is subject to compliance with the procedural safeguards appropriate to criminal matters, which include, amongst others, in particular, the principle nulla poena sine lege, the principle that culpability should arise only where there is capacity or criminal responsibility, and the principle that the penalty must be in proportion to the degree of responsibility and to the facts. (see paras 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 42, operative part 1) 3. Article 1(a)(iii) of Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that a person is to be regarded as having had the opportunity to have a case tried before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters in the situation where, prior to bringing his appeal, that person was required to comply with a pre-litigation administrative procedure. Such a court must have full jurisdiction to examine the case as regards both the legal assessment and the factual circumstances. Framework Decision 2005/214 also applies to financial penalties imposed by administrative authorities. Consequently, a prior administrative phase may be required, depending on the particular features of the judicial systems of the Member States. However, access to a court having jurisdiction in criminal matters, within the meaning of the Framework Decision, must not be made subject to conditions which make such access impossible or excessively difficult. In this connection, the fact that the person concerned has not brought an appeal, and that, consequently, the financial penalty at issue has become final has no bearing on the application of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision since it is sufficient under that provision that the person concerned ‘has had an opportunity’ to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters. (see paras 46, 48, 49, operative part 2)