CELEX: 62020CN0665
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-665/20: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against X; other Party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie

12.4.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 128/8
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 7 December 2020 — European arrest warrant issued against X; other Party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
      (Case C-665/20)
      (2021/C 128/11)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Referring court
      
      Rechtbank Amsterdam
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         European arrest warrant issued against: X
      
         Other Party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Should Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a certain discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the EAW?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Should the concept of ‘the same acts’ in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA be interpreted in the same way as in Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and, if not, how should that concept be interpreted in the former provision?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  Should the condition laid down in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA that the ‘sentence has been served … or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country’ be interpreted as covering a situation in which the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a custodial sentence that he or she has served in part in the sentencing country and the remainder of which has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that country, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to convicted persons who have committed serious acts, such as the requested person, and is not based on rational criminal policy considerations?
               
            
         (1)  Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).