Case C-579/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Grounds for optional non-execution — Article 4(6) — Member State’s undertaking to enforce the sentence in accordance with its domestic law — Implementation — Obligation of conforming interpretation)
Date: 2017-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU police cooperation, European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, extradition, foreign national, imprisonment, mutual recognition principle, residence permit








C_2017283EN.01000302.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/3





Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against Daniel Adam Popławski
(Case C-579/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(6) - Member State’s undertaking to enforce the sentence in accordance with its domestic law - Implementation - Obligation of conforming interpretation))
(2017/C 283/04)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

Daniel Adam Popławski

intervener: Openbaar Ministerie

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted to the effect that it precludes legislation of a Member State implementing that provision which, in a situation where the surrender of a foreign national in possession of a residence permit of indefinite duration in the territory of that Member State is sought by another Member State in order to execute a custodial sentence imposed on that national by a decision which has become final, first, does not authorise such a surrender, and secondly, merely lays down the obligation for the judicial authorities of the first Member State to inform the judicial authorities of the second Member State that they are willing to take over the enforcement of the judgment, where, on the date of the refusal to surrender, the execution has not in fact been taken over and where, furthermore, in the event that taking over that execution subsequently proves to be impossible, such a refusal may not be challenged.










2.


The provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584 do not have direct effect. However, the competent national court, by taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, is obliged to interpret the provisions of national law at issue in the main proceeding, so far as is possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of that framework decision, which in the present case means that, in the event of a refusal to execute a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the surrender of a person who has been finally judged in the issuing Member State and given a custodial sentence, the judicial authorities of the executing Member State are themselves required to ensure that the sentence pronounced against that person is actually executed.










3.


Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted to the effect that it does not authorise a Member State to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the surrender of a person who has been finally judged and given a custodial sentence, on the sole ground that that Member State intends to prosecute that person in relation to the same acts as those for which that judgment was pronounced.






(1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.