Case C-306/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of I.B. (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4 — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4(6) — Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence — Article 5 — Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State — Article 5(1) — Sentence imposed in absentia — Article 5(3) — Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution — Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution — Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) — Compatibility)
Date: 2010-10-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation, legal process, restriction of liberty








C_2010346EN.01001602.xml










18.12.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 346/16





Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium)) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of I.B.
(Case C-306/09) (1)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4 - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(6) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence - Article 5 - Guarantees to be provided by the issuing Member State - Article 5(1) - Sentence imposed in absentia - Article 5(3) - Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution - Surrender subject to the condition that the requested person be returned to the Member State of execution - Joint application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) - Compatibility)
2010/C 346/27
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour constitutionnelle

Party to the main proceedings

I.B.

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 4(6) and 5(3) 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) and of Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty — Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant and guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State — Possibility for the executing Member State to make the surrender of a person residing on its territory subject to the condition that that person, after having been heard in the issuing Member State, be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order that may have been imposed on him in the issuing Member State — Particular situation of a person already sentenced in the issuing Member State but under a decision made in absentia against which that person still has a remedy — Possible effect on the decision to be taken by the judicial authorities of the executing Member State, arising from a risk of infringement of the fundamental rights of the person concerned and, in particular, of his right to a private and family life

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing Member State has implemented Articles 5(1) and Article 5(3) of that framework decision in its domestic legal system, the execution of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence imposed in absentia within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the framework decision, may be subject to the condition that the person concerned, a national or resident of the executing Member State, should be returned to the executing State in order, as the case may be, to serve there the sentence passed against him, following a new trial organised in his presence in the issuing Member State.


(1)  OJ C 233, 26.9.2009, p. 11.