Case C-66/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant — Interpretation of the terms resident and staying in the executing Member State)
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, extradition, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings

C 223/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.8.2008

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 July 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Belgium

(Case C-543/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil
its obligations —
Directive 2002/73/EC — Equal treatment for men and women
— Access to employment — Vocational training and promo-
tion — Working conditions — Failure to transpose within the
period prescribed)

(2008/C 223/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

for

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 July 2008
(reference
from the
preliminary
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Germany) — Proceedings
concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant
issued against Szymon Kozłowski

ruling

a

(Case C-66/08) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Frame-
work Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant
and
surrender procedures between Member States —
Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of a Euro-
pean arrest warrant — Interpretation of the terms ‘resident’
and ‘staying’ in the executing Member State)

(2008/C 223/29)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek, acting as Agent)

Referring court

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to
adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to
comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council
Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of
equal
for men and women as regards access to
employment, vocational training and promotion, and working
conditions (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 15).

treatment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

of

1. Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council
Council
Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employ-
ment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions,
the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive;

September

amending

2002

23

2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart

Parties to the main proceedings

Szymon Kozłowski

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stutt-
gart — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework
Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European
arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Possibility for the executing
judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant
issued for the purpose of execution of a sentence of imprison-
ment in relation to a person staying or residing in the Member
State of execution — Concepts of ‘residence’ and ‘staying’ —
Interpretation of Article 6(1) EU in conjunction with
Articles 12 EC and 17 EC — National legislation which allows
requested persons to be treated differently by the executing judi-
cial authority, where they do not consent to their surrender,
depending whether they are a national of the Member State of
execution or of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of
13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender
procedures between Member States, is to be interpreted to the effect
that:

— a requested person is ‘resident’

in the executing Member State
when he has established his actual place of residence there and he
is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that
State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a
similar degree to those resulting from residence;

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/19

— in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the
requested person and the executing Member State which lead to
the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’
within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial
authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors
characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular,
the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family
and economic
connections which that person has with the
executing Member State.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Republic of Lithuania) — Pro-
ceedings brought by Inga Rinau

(Case C-195/08 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enfor-
cement of judgments — Enforcement in matrimonial matters
and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC)
No 2201/2003 — Application for non-recognition of a deci-
sion requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in
ruling
another Member State — Urgent preliminary

procedure)

(2008/C 223/30)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Once a non-return decision has been taken and brought to the
attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of
issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility,
repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, that that decision has
been suspended, overturned, set aside or,
in any event, has not
become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering
return, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken
place. Since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity
of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the
standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition
to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted
and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of
the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the
child.

2. Except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to
Articles 11(8) and 40 to 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003, any
interested party can apply for non-recognition of a judicial decision,
even if no application for recognition of
the decision has been
submitted beforehand.

3. Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003,

the person against whom enforcement

in so far as it
provides that neither
is
sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to
make any submissions on the application,
is not applicable to
proceedings initiated for non-recognition of a judicial decision if no
application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of
that decision. In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking
recognition, is entitled to make such submissions.

Language of the case: Lithuanian

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Lithuania

Party to the main proceedings

Inga Rinau

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis
Teismas — Interpretation of Articles 21, 23, 24, 31(1), 40(2)
and 42 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of
27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition
and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the
matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC)
No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Application for non-
recognition in Member State A of a decision delivered by a
court in Member State B ordering the return of a child, who is
regarded as being unlawfully held by her mother in Member
State A, to her father, who is resident in Member State B and
has been awarded custody of the child

Appeal brought on 22 May 2008 by Philippe Guigard
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05
Guigard v Commission

(Case C-214/08 P)

(2008/C 223/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and
C. Bernard-Glanz)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European