Case C-495/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Slovak Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — YX
Date: 2018-07-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: carrying out of sentence, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, residence, social rehabilitation








C_2018352EN.01002602.xml










1.10.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 352/26






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky (the Slovak Republic) lodged on 30 July 2018 — YX
(Case C-495/18)
(2018/C 352/32)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: YX

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision (1) to be interpreted to the effect that the criteria set out therein are satisfied only when the sentenced person has, in the Member State of his nationality, such family, social, professional or other links that it is possible to reasonably assume from those links that enforcement in that State of the sentence may facilitate his social rehabilitation, and as therefore precluding national legislation such as Paragraph 4(1)(a) of Law No 549/2011 [Zákon č. 549/2011 o uznávaní a výkone rozhodnutí, ktorými sa ukladá trestná sankcia spojená s odňatím slobody v Európskej únii a o zmene a doplnení zákona č. 221/2006 o výkone väzby v znení neskorších predpisov] which, in such cases, enables a judgment to be recognised and enforced in the event of merely formally-recorded habitual residence in the executing State, regardless of whether the sentenced person has concrete links in that State which could enhance his social rehabilitation.










2.


If that question is answered in the affirmative, is Article 4(2) of the Framework Decision to be interpreted to the effect that the competent authority of the issuing State is required also in the situation provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision to satisfy itself, even before forwarding the judgment and certificate, that enforcement of the sentence by the executing State would serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person and is, furthermore, required to provide the information gathered for that purpose in section (d), point 4, of the certificate specifically, where the sentenced person claims in the statement of his opinion provided for in Article 6(3) of the Framework Decision that he has concrete family, social or professional links in the issuing State.










3.


If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, must Article 9(1)(b) of the Framework Decision be interpreted to the effect that where, in the situation set out in Article 4(1)(a) of the Framework Decision, despite the consultation under Article 4(1)(3) of that Decision and any provision of other necessary information, it is not proven that there are such family, social or professional links from which it could reasonably be assumed that the enforcement in the executing State of the sentence may facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, there is still a ground for refusing to recognise and enforce the judgment.






(1)  Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).