Case C-288/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger
Date: 2005-10-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, Schengen Agreement, enforcement of ruling, interpretation of the law, legal process, penalty

C 257/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.10.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesge-
richtshof by order of that court of 30 June 2005 in crim-
inal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger

(Case C-288/05)

(2005/C 257/03)

warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) into national law, the (first)
State in which judgment was given is in a position at
any time to enforce its judgment which, under national
law, is final and binding;

(b) the fact that a request for judicial assistance by the State
in which judgment was given, with a view to extraditing
the convicted person or enforcing judgment within that
State, could not automatically be complied with because
judgment was given in absentia?

(Language of the case: German)

(1) OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof of 30
June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for
a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against Jürgen
Kretzinger on the following questions concerning the interpre-
tation of Article 54 of
the Convention implementing the
Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Govern-
the
ments of
Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the
gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (‘CISA’):

the Benelux Economic Union,

the States of

1. Is it a criminal prosecution of ‘the same acts’ within the
meaning of Article 54 of the CISA (1) if a defendant has
been convicted by an Italian court of importing contraband
foreign tobacco into Italy and of being in possession of it
there, as well as of failing to pay duty at the border on
importing the tobacco, and is subsequently convicted by a
German court — in connection with his earlier receipt of
the same goods in Greece — of being party to evasion in
relation to the (technically) Greek import duty that arose
when the goods were previously imported by third parties,
in so far as the defendant had intended from the outset to
transport the goods to Great Britain via Italy, after taking
delivery of them in Greece?

2. Has a penalty ‘been enforced’ or is it ‘actually in the process
of being enforced’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the
CISA

(a) if the defendant was given a custodial sentence, the
enforcement of which was suspended in accordance
with the law of the State in which judgment was given;

(b) if the defendant was for a short time taken into police
custody and/or held on remand pending trial, and that
detention would count towards any subsequent enforce-
ment of the penalty of imprisonment under the law of
the State in which judgment was given?

3. Is the interpretation of the notion of enforcement for the

purposes of Article 54 of the CISA affected by

(a) the fact that, having transposed the Council Framework
Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, by order
of that court of 1 April 2005 in Asociación Nacional de
Forestales v Transformación Agraria S.A
Empresas

(TRAGSA) and Administración del Estado

(Case C-295/05)

(2005/C 257/04)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de
lo Contencioso-Administrativo, (Supreme Court, Chamber for
contentious administrative proceedings) of 1 April 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2005, for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings between Asociación Nacional
(National Association of Forestry
de Empresas Forestales
Companies) and Transformación Agraria S.A (TRAGSA) and
Administración del Estado on the following questions:

1. Does Article 86(1) of the Treaty [establishing the European
Community] permit a Member State to grant ex lege to a
public undertaking a legal regime which allows it to execute
public works without being subject to the general rules on
the award of public contracts by tender, where there are no
special circumstances of urgency or public interest, both
below and above the financial threshold laid down by the
European Directives in this regard?