Case C-105/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Public prosecutor v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva
Date: 2010-02-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, extradition, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal process, mutual recognition principle, refugee, right of asylum, rights of aliens








C_2010100EN.01003202.xml










17.4.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 100/32





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Public prosecutor v Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva
(Case C-105/10)
2010/C 100/48
Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Public prosecutor

Respondents: Malik Gataev, Khadizhat Gataeva

Questions referred







1.


How is the relationship between the provisions of Council Directive 2005/85/EC (1) (the Asylum Procedures Directive) and the provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (2) to be interpreted when a person whose surrender is requested under a European arrest warrant, who is a national of a third country, has applied for asylum in the executing Member State and the application for asylum is in progress at the same time as the case concerning the execution of the arrest warrant?






a)


Is precedence to be given to the right to remain in the Member State pending the examination of the application under Article 7(1) of the directive, or is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant constitutes grounds which displace the right under Article 7(1)? Can a surrender in accordance with the Framework Decision be refused being of a pending asylum application, even though Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision do not include this as grounds for refusal?










b)


Is Article 7(2) of the directive to be interpreted in such a way that it gives Member States a discretion to settle the question referred to in (a) above in national law in the manner desired by them?










c)


In particular, how is Article 7 of the directive to be interpreted regarding the above questions when a person whose surrender is requested under an arrest warrant has applied for asylum essentially on the same grounds as those on which he or she opposes the surrender?










d)


If asylum is granted, does it therefore follow that the executing Member State must refuse surrender? In the event of this situation, reference is also made to the fourth question referred for a preliminary ruling (points a — c).














2.


Is the Framework Decision, taking into account firstly the principle stated in Article 1(2) of that decision and secondly the provisions of Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union and the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted in such a way that, taking into account recitals 12 and 13 of the Framework Decision, in addition to the grounds for refusal set out in Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision, surrender can be refused also on other grounds based on the factors set out in the recitals?






a)


If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in this way, on what grounds may or on what grounds must the executing Member State then rely? Can a Member State in this case rely on the principles of interpretation in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights adopted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding extradition on the basis of an offence? Can a Member State also rely on grounds that broaden the grounds for refusal in comparison to the principles of interpretation adopted in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights?










b)


If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant can also be refused on grounds other than those set out in Articles 3 and 4, does it furthermore follow from this that the Framework Decision also permits a Member State to refuse to execute an arrest warrant that was issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence, on the basis of factors relating to the content or grounds of the judgment delivered in the State which issued the arrest warrant or the appropriateness of the court proceedings which resulted in the judgment, and requiring an investigation of these claims in the Member State which was asked to execute the arrest warrant? On what more precise conditions or grounds can such an investigation (“revision au fond”) become pertinent?










c)


Is the Framework Decision to be interpreted in such a way that, inter alia, it permits a Member State to refuse surrender on the basis of an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the trial in which the sentence was passed was not fair because the person convicted was subjected to persecution by the authorities of the country of the sentencing court, in the form of discriminatory prosecution?














3.


Can the provisions of the Framework Decision be interpreted in such a way that surrender can be refused altogether in a situation in which the surrender may be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons, for example reasons of health, in accordance with Article 23(4) of the Framework Decision, if in such a case the unreasonableness of the surrender cannot be eliminated by a stay of execution?










4.


If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that execution of the arrest warrant can be refused on grounds regarding which there are no explicit provisions in the Framework Decision, what conditions for such refusal must be imposed, particularly when the arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence?






a)


Are the provisions of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision to be observed correspondingly in that case? In other words, is refusal to execute an arrest warrant conditional on the person whose surrender is requested being a national or a permanent resident of the executing Member State and on that State undertaking itself to execute the sentence or measure in accordance with national legislation?










b)


Is refusal conditional at least on the State from which surrender is requested undertaking itself to execute the sentence or measure in accordance with its domestic law?










c)


If the Framework Decision is to be interpreted in such a way that in some cases it permits refusal to execute an arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence on grounds relating to the content or the grounds of the judgment delivered in the State that issued the arrest warrant or the appropriateness of the court proceedings which resulted in the judgment, is refusal then permitted without the conditions in (a) or (b) above?














5.


Regarding execution of the arrest warrant, what significance must or may be afforded to the fact that a person apprehended, who is a citizen of a third country, opposes the surrender by claiming that he or she is threatened with deportation to a third country in the country which issued the arrest warrant?






a)


What significance do grounds for opposition of this type have, taking into account the provisions of the Framework Decision and the obligations which a Member State issuing an arrest warrant has with respect to nationals of third countries by virtue of Union law, inter alia on the basis of Council Directives 2004/83/EC (3) and 2005/85/EC?










b)


In this context, can Article 28(4) of the Framework Decision, according to which a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant must not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person, be significant? In addition to surrender on the basis of an offence, can the ban referred to also concern other kinds of removal from a country, such as deportation, and on what conditions?














6.


Is the obligation of a national court to interpret national law in conformity with the Framework Decision, as set out in paragraphs 34 and 42 to 44 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-105/03 Pupino, valid irrespective of whether the interpretation required by the Framework Decision turns out to be to the advantage or to the disadvantage of an individual party, when the situations set out in paragraphs 44 to 45 of that judgment are not involved?






(1)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

(2)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)

(3)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12).