Case C-505/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 — WS v Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2019-07-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, Interpol, Schengen Agreement, arrest, charge, criminal proceedings, data protection, imprisonment, personal data, third country








C_2019357EN.01001202.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/12






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2019 — WS v Federal Republic of Germany
(Case C-505/19)
(2019/C 357/18)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wiesbaden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: WS

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Questions referred







1.


Is Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (‘the CISA’) (1) in conjunction with Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (‘the CFR’) to be interpreted as meaning that even the initiation of criminal proceedings for the same act is prohibited in all the Contracting States to the Schengen Agreement if a German public prosecutor’s office discontinues initiated criminal proceedings once the accused has fulfilled certain obligations and, in particular, paid a certain sum of money determined by the public prosecutor’s office?










2.


Does Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘the TFEU’) result in a prohibition on the Member States implementing arrest requests by third States in the scope of an international organisation such as the International Criminal Police Organisation — Interpol — if the person concerned by the arrest request is a Union citizen and the Member State of which he is a national has communicated concerns regarding the compatibility of the arrest request with the prohibition of double jeopardy to the international organisation and therefore also to the remaining Member States?










3.


Does Article 21(1) TFEU preclude even the initiation of criminal proceedings and temporary detention in the Member States of which the person concerned is not a national if this is contrary to the prohibition of double jeopardy?










4.


Are Article 4(1)(a) and Article 8(1) of Directive (EU) 2016/680 (2) in conjunction with Article 54 of the CISA and Article 50 of the CFR to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States are obliged to introduce legislation ensuring that, in the event of proceedings whereby further prosecution is barred in all the Contracting States to the Schengen Agreement, further processing of red notices of the International Criminal Police Organisation — Interpol — intended to lead to further criminal proceedings is prohibited?










5.


Does an international organisation such as the International Criminal Police Organisation — Interpol — have an adequate data protection level if there is no adequacy decision under Article 36 of Directive 2016/680 and/or there are no appropriate safeguards under Article 37 of that Directive?










6.


Are the Member States only allowed to further process data filed at the International Criminal Police Organisation — Interpol — in a red notice by third States when a third State has used the red notice to disseminate an arrest and extradition request and applied for an arrest which is not in breach of European law, in particular the prohibition of double jeopardy?






(1)  Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19).

(2)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ 2016 L 119, p. 89).