Case C-388/08 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against Artur Leymann, Aleksei Pustovarov (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 27 — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Specialty principle — Consent procedure)
Date: 2008-12-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: criminal procedure, extradition, international criminal law, interpretation of the law, legal process, mutual recognition principle, restriction of liberty

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/23

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
oikeus — Finland) — Criminal proceedings against Artur
Leymann, Aleksei Pustovarov

(Case C-388/08 PPU) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Frame-
work Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 27 — European
arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member
States — Specialty principle — Consent procedure)

(2009/C 44/38)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Artur Leymann, Aleksei Pustovarov

Re:

of the offence and do not lead to grounds for non-execution under
Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision.

2. In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a modifica-
tion of the description of the offence concerning the kind of narco-
tics concerned is not such, of itself, as to define an ‘offence other’
than that for which the person was surrendered within the meaning
of Article 27(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584.

3. The exception provided for in Article 27(3)(c) of Framework Deci-
sion 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, where there
is an ‘offence other’ than that for which the person was surrendered,
consent must be requested, in accordance with Article 27(4) of the
Framework Decision, and obtained if a penalty or a measure invol-
ving the deprivation of liberty is to be executed. The person surren-
dered can be prosecuted and sentenced for such an offence before
that
consent has been obtained, provided that no measure
restricting liberty is applied during the prosecution or when judg-
ment is given for that offence. The exception in Article 27(3)(c)
does not, however, preclude a measure restricting liberty from being
imposed on the person surrendered before
consent has been
obtained, where that restriction is lawful on the basis of other
charges which appear in the European arrest warrant.

(1) OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Inter-
pretation of Article 27(2), (3) and (4) 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) — Description of the offence on
which the prosecution is based altered in relation to the descrip-
tion on which the arrest warrant was based — Concept of
‘offence other than that for which he or she was surrendered’ —
Whether or not necessary to initiate the consent procedure

Operative part of the judgment

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 Decem-
ber 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Deniz Sahin v
Bundesminister für Inneres

(Case C-551/07) (1)

the Rules of Procedure — Directive
(Article 104(3) of
2004/38/EC — Articles 18 EC and 39 EC — Right to respect
for family life — Right of residence of a national of a
non-member country who entered the territory of a Member
State as an asylum seeker and subsequently married a
national of another Member State)

than that

1. In order to establish whether the offence under consideration is an
‘offence other’
for which the person was surrendered
within the meaning of Article 27(2) of Council Framework Deci-
sion 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States,
requiring the implementation of the consent procedure referred to in
Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of that Framework Decision, it must
the offence,
be ascertained whether
according to the legal description given by the issuing State, are
those in respect of which the person was surrendered and whether
there is a sufficient correspondence between the information given
in the arrest warrant and that contained in the later procedural
document. Modifications concerning the time or place of the offence
are allowed, in so far as they derive from evidence gathered in the
course of the proceedings conducted in the issuing State concerning
the conduct described in the arrest warrant, do not alter the nature

the constituent elements of

(2009/C 44/39)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)