Case C-203/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III (Slovakia) lodged on 11 May 2020 — criminal proceedings against AB and Others, other parties HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave
Date: 2020-05-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, barring of penalties by limitation, general legal principle, public prosecution, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2020230EN.01001901.xml










13.7.2020   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 230/19






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Bratislava III (Slovakia) lodged on 11 May 2020 — criminal proceedings against AB and Others, other parties HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave
(Case C-203/20)
(2020/C 230/25)
Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Okresný súd Bratislava III

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendants: AB, CD, EF, GH, IJ, LM, NO, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG and JL

Other parties: HI and Krajská prokuratúra v Bratislave

Questions referred







1.


Does the ne bis in idem principle preclude the issuance of a European arrest warrant within the meaning of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, and taking into account Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, where the criminal case has been finally closed by a judicial decision to acquit or to discontinue the case, if those decisions have been adopted on the basis of an amnesty that has been revoked by the legislature after the decisions became final and the domestic legal order provides that revocation of such an amnesty entails annulment of decisions of public authorities, where they have been adopted and substantiated on the basis of amnesties or pardons, and the legal obstacles of criminal prosecutions that were based on an amnesty thus revoked have disappeared, without a specific judicial decision or judicial proceedings?










2.


Does a provision of a national law that annuls directly — without a decision of a national court — the decision of a national court discontinuing criminal proceedings, which is, under national law, a final decision entailing acquittal and on the basis of which the criminal proceedings have been finally discontinued following the amnesty granted in accordance with a national law, comply with the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union?










3.


Does a provision of national law limiting review by the Constitutional Court of the Resolution of the Národná rada Slovenskej republiky (National Council of the Slovak Republic), which revoked an amnesty or individual pardons and was adopted under Article 86(i) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, merely to an assessment of the resolution’s constitutionality, without taking into account binding acts adopted by the European Union, in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty on European Union, comply with the principle of sincere cooperation within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union, Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the right to a fair trial, guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence, guaranteed in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?






(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.