Case C-515/21: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 20 August 2021 — PH v Minister for Justice and Equality
Date: 2021-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, carrying out of sentence, imprisonment, offence, right to justice, rights of the defence








C_2022119EN.01001701.xml










14.3.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 119/17






Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (Ireland) made on 20 August 2021 — PH v Minister for Justice and Equality
(Case C-515/21)
(2022/C 119/23)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: PH

Respondent: Minister for Justice and Equality

Questions referred







1.


Where the surrender of the requested person is sought for the purpose of serving a custodial sentence which was suspended ab initio but which was subsequently ordered to be enforced as a result of the subsequent conviction of the requested person for a further criminal offence, in circumstances where the order for enforcement was mandatory by reason of that conviction, are the proceedings leading to that subsequent conviction and/or the proceedings leading to the making of the enforcement order part of the ‘trial resulting in the decision’ for the purposes of Article 4a(I) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1)?










2.


In the circumstances set out in question 1 above, is the executing judicial authority entitled and/or obliged to inquire into whether the proceedings leading to the subsequent conviction and/or the proceedings leading to the enforcement order, all of which were conducted in the absence of the requested person, were conducted in compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, whether the absence of the requested person from those proceedings involved a violation of the rights of the defence and/or of the requested person's right to a fair trial?










3.








(a)


In the circumstances set out in question 1 above, if the executing judicial authority is satisfied that the proceedings leading to the subsequent conviction and enforcement order were not conducted in compliance with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, that the absence of the requested person involved a violation of the rights of the defence and/or of the requested person's right to a fair trial, is the executing judicial authority entitled and/or obliged (a) to refuse surrender of the requested person on the basis that such surrender would be contrary to Article 6 of the Convention and/or Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and/or (b) to require the issuing judicial authority as a condition of surrender to provide a guarantee that the requested person will, upon surrender, be entitled to a retrial or appeal, in which they will have a right to participate and which allows for the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be re-examined which may lead to the original decision being reversed, in respect of the conviction leading to the enforcement order?










(b)


For the purposes of question 3 (a) above, is the applicable test whether the surrender of the requested person would breach the essence of their fundamental rights under Article 6 of the Convention and/or Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter and, if so, is the fact that the proceedings leading to the subsequent conviction and enforcement order were conducted in absentia, and that, in event of his surrender, the requested person will not have a right to a retrial or appeal, sufficient to permit the executing judicial authority to conclude that surrender would breach the essence of those rights?










(1)  2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision (OJ 2002, L 190, p. 1).