Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:29
Date: 2016-01-20
Language of the case: Hungarian
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 9 June 2016 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identification of the relevant aspects of EU law — Reformulation of the questions (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States and Decision establishing a European Criminal Records Information System — Scope (Framework Decision 2009/315; Council Decision 2009/316) 3. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation 4. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings — Directive 2010/64 — Scope — National special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision convicting a person handed down by a court of another Member State — Not included (European Parliament and Council Directive 2010/64, Art. 1(1)) 5. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal records between Member States and Decision establishing a European Criminal Records Information System — National special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision convicting a person handed down by a court of another Member State — Not permissible (Framework Decision 2009/315; Council Decision 2009/316) 1. See the text of the decision. (see para. 28) 2. A case in which the competent authorities of a Member State (convicting Member State), first, inform, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Framework Decision 2009/315, through ECRIS, established by Decision 2009/316, the competent authorities of another Member State (Member State of nationality) of a criminal conviction handed down by a court of the first Member State against a national of that second Member State with a view to the storage by the latter of the information thus forwarded, in accordance with Article 5(1) of that framework decision and, secondly, send to the authorities of the Member State of nationality, at their request, the judgment given by that court with a view to its recognition by that Member State and the entry of that conviction in its criminal record comes within the scope of Framework Decision 2009/315 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Decision 2009/316 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). (see paras 29-31) 3. See the text of the decision. (see para. 35) 4. Article 1(1) of Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that that directive is not applicable to a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence. In the first place, Directive 2010/64 lays down rules concerning the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant. In accordance with Article 1(2) of that directive, that right is to apply to the person suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence until the conclusion of the proceedings, which is understood to mean the final determination of the question whether that person has committed the offence, including, where applicable, sentencing and the resolution of any appeal. A national special procedure, which has as its purpose the recognition of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State, takes place, by definition, after the final determination of whether the suspected or accused person committed the offence and, where applicable, after the sentencing of that person. In the second place, as, inter alia, Article 3(1) and (2) and recitals 14, 17 and 22 of Directive 2010/64 state, that directive seeks to ensure, for suspected or accused persons who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings, the right to interpretation and translation by facilitating the application of that right in order to ensure that they are able to exercise their rights of defence and, therefore, to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings. Where the person concerned has already obtained the translation of the judgment handed down in their regard, a new translation of that judgment with a view to its recognition by the Member State in which that person is a national is not necessary for the protection of that person’s rights of defence or right to effective judicial protection and was not, therefore, justified in the light of the objectives pursued by Directive 2010/64. (see paras 36-40, 56, operative part) 5. Framework Decision 2009/315 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States and Decision 2009/316 on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) must be interpreted as precluding the implementation of a national special procedure for the recognition by the court of a Member State of a final judicial decision handed down by a court of another Member State convicting a person for the commission of an offence prior to the entry of that conviction in the criminal record. In accordance with that framework decision and that decision, the central authority of the Member State of the person’s nationality must enter in the criminal record convictions handed down by the courts of the convicting Member State directly on the basis of the transmission by the central authority of the convicting Member State, via ECRIS, of the codified information relating to those convictions. In that regard, whilst, in accordance with Article 4(4) of the framework decision, the Member State of nationality may request from the convicting Member State a copy of the conviction, such a transmission takes place only where particular circumstances so dictate and cannot, therefore, be required as a matter of course for the purpose of entering that conviction in the criminal record of the Member State of nationality. It follows that the entry of such convictions cannot depend on the prior application of a procedure for judicial recognition of those convictions still less on the communication to that Member State of the decision convicting the person concerned for the purpose of such recognition. Such an interpretation is borne out by the objectives pursued by Framework Decision 2009/315 and by Decision 2009/316 which are to establish a rapid and effective system for the exchange of information relating to criminal convictions handed down in the various EU Member States. A procedure for the recognition of decisions imposing convictions handed down by the courts of other Member States prior to the entry of those convictions in the criminal record, which, moreover, requires the transmission and translation of those decisions, is likely to delay considerably that entry, complicate the exchange of information between Member States and jeopardise the attainment of those objectives. In addition, such a procedure conflicts with the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions in criminal matters laid down in Article 82(1) TFEU. That principle precludes the recognition by a Member State of the decisions handed down by the courts of another Member State being conditional on the application, in the first of those Member States, of a judicial procedure for that purpose. (see paras 45, 46, 48-50, 52-56, operative part)