Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Interpretation requested in respect of the adoption of national legislation compatible with European Union law where the facts are outside the scope of European Union law

(Art. 35 EU)

2. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Framework Decision 2001/220 – Victim – Concept – Legal persons – Not included

(Council Framework Decision 2001/220, Arts 1(a), and 10(1))

3. European Union – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Framework Decision 2001/220 – Mediation expressly provided by national legislation for certain offences

(Council Framework Decision 2001/220, Art. 10)

Summary

1. The Court has jurisdiction to answer a question referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 35 TEU even where the facts of the main proceedings are outside the scope of European Union law, provided that the domestic legislation has adopted the same solutions as those adopted in European Union law and applies those solutions to a situation which is not covered by European Union law. The legal order of the European Union clearly has an interest in ensuring that, to forestall future divergences of interpretation, any provision of European Union law should be interpreted uniformly, irrespective of the circumstances in which the provision is to apply.

(see para. 33)

2. Articles 1(a) and 10 of Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘victim’ does not extend to legal persons for the purposes of the promotion of mediation in criminal proceedings in Article 10(1).

It follows from the very wording of Article 1(a) of that Framework Decision, which, for its purposes, defines a victim as a natural person who has suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering or economic loss, directly caused by acts or omissions that are in violation of the criminal law of a Member State, that that provision of the Framework Decision applies only to natural persons who have suffered such harm.

The fact that some Member States provide for penal mediation when the victim is a legal person does not call into question that conclusion. Inasmuch as it does not undertake a complete harmonisation of the field in question, the Framework Decision neither prevents the Member States from applying its provisions also when the victim is a legal person nor obliges them to do so. Nor does an interpretation of the Framework Decision as applying solely to natural persons constitute discrimination against legal persons, given that the European Union legislature could legitimately establish a body of rules designed to protect only natural persons, since such persons are objectively in a situation which differs from that of legal persons because of their greater vulnerability and because of the nature of the interests which can be harmed by offences which can be committed only against natural persons, such as the victim’s life and physical well-being.

(see paras 26, 28-31, operative part 1)

3. Article 10 of Framework Decision 2001/220 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to make recourse to mediation possible for all offences the substantive components of which, as defined by national legislation, correspond essentially to those of offences for which mediation is expressly provided by that legislation.

Article 10 of the Framework Decision does no more than require Member States to seek to promote mediation in criminal cases for offences which they consider appropriate, and consequently the choice of the offences for which mediation is to be available is for the Member States to determine. It follows that, in deciding to enable the mediation procedure to be applied solely in cases of certain offences, such as offences against the person, transport safety or offences against property, a choice which essentially rests on grounds of legal policy, a national legislature does not exceed its discretion.

(see paras 37-38, 40, operative part 2)