CELEX: 62018CN0310
Language: en
Date: 2018-05-11 00:00:00
Title: Case C-310/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev

201807130162004122018/C 268/303102018CJC26820180730EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180511242521Case C-310/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev
 ---documentbreak--- C2682018EN2410120180511EN0030241252Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 May 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Еmil Milev
   (Case C-310/18)2018/C 268/30Language of the case: Bulgarian
      Referring court
   
   Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad
   
      Party to the main proceedings
   
   Еmil Milev
   
      Questions referred
   
   
            (1)
         
         
            Is national case-law according to which the continuation of a coercive measure of ‘remand in custody’ (four months after the accused’s arrest) is subject to the existence of ‘reasonable grounds’, understood as a mere ‘prima facie’ finding that the accused may have committed the criminal offence in question, compatible with Article 3, the second sentence of Article 4(1), Article 10, the fourth and fifth sentences of recital 16 and recital 48 of Directive 2016/343 (
                  1
               ) and with Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]?
            Or, if it is not, is national case-law according to which the term ‘reasonable suspicion’ means a strong likelihood that the accused committed the criminal offence in question compatible with the abovementioned provisions?
         
      
            (2)
         
         
            Is national case-law according to which the court determining an application to vary a coercive measure of ‘remand in custody’ that has already been adopted is required to state the reasons for its decision without comparing the inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, even if the accused’s lawyer has submitted arguments to that effect — the only reason for that restriction being that the judge must preserve his impartiality in case that case should be assigned to him for the purposes of the substantive examination —, compatible with the second sentence of Article 4(1), Article 10, the fourth and fifth sentences of recital 16 and recital 48 of Directive 2016/43 and with Article 47 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union]?
            Or, if it is not, is national case-law according to which the court is to carry out a more detailed and specific examination of the evidence and to give a clear answer to the arguments put forward by the accused’s lawyer, even if it thus takes the risk that it will be unable to examine the case or deliver a final decision on guilt if the case is assigned to it for the purposes of the substantive examination, — which implies that another judge will examine the substance of the case — compatible with the abovementioned provisions?
         
      (
         1
      )	Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1).