Case C-1/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Valentín Salmerón Sánchez
Date: 2010-01-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: civil rights, family, interpretation of the law, legal process, right to justice, victim








C_2010063EN.01003202.xml










13.3.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 63/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona (Spain) lodged on 4 January 2010 — Criminal proceedings against Valentín Salmerón Sánchez
(Case C-1/10)
2010/C 63/53
Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: Valentín Salmerón Sánchez

Other parties: Ministerio Fiscal and Dorotea López León

Questions referred







1.


Should the right of the victim to be understood, referred to in recital (8) of the preamble to the Framework Decision, (1) be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities responsible for the prosecution and punishment of conduct which has an identifiable victim have a positive obligation to allow the victim to express her assessment, thoughts and opinion on the direct effects on her life which may be caused by the imposition of penalties on the offender with whom she has a family relationship or a strong emotional relationship?










2.


Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the duty of States to recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims creates the obligation to take into account their opinions when the penalties arising from proceedings may jeopardise fundamentally and directly the development of their right to freedom of personal development and the right to private and family life?










3.


Should Article 2 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as meaning that the State authorities may not disregard the freely expressed wishes of victims where the imposition or maintenance in force of an injunction to stay away from the victim when the offender is a member of their family are opposed by the victim and where no objective circumstances indicating a risk of re-offending are established, where it is possible to identify a level of personal, social, cultural and emotional competence which precludes any possibility of subservience to the offender or, rather, as meaning that such an order should be held appropriate in every case in the light of the specific characteristics of such crimes?










4.


Should Article 8 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA providing that States are to guarantee a suitable level of protection for victims be interpreted as permitting the general and mandatory imposition of injunctions to stay away from the victim or orders prohibiting communication as ancillary penalties in all cases in which a person is a victim of crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those offences, or, on the other hand, does Article 8 require that an assessment of each individual case be undertaken to allow the identification, on a case-by-case basis, of the suitable level of protection having regard to the competing interests?










5.


Should Article 10 of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA be interpreted as permitting a general exclusion of mediation in criminal proceedings relating to crimes committed within the family, in the light of the specific characteristics of those crimes or, on the other hand, should mediation also be permitted in proceedings of that kind, assessing the competing interests on a case-by-case basis?






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1).