Source: https://johan-callewaert.eu/judgment-of-the-cjeu-in-the-case-of-centraal-justitieel-incassobureau/
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 22:10:04
Document Index: 317808171

Matched Legal Cases: ['CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', 'CJEU ', '§ 30', '§ 37', 'CJEU ', '§ 83', 'CJEU ', '§ 2', '§ 53', 'CJEU ']

Judgment of the CJEU in the case of Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau | Prof. Dr. iur. Johan Callewaert
Judgment of the CJEU in the case of Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau
In the case of Centraal Justitieel Incassobureau (5.12.2019) the CJEU interpreted Framework Decision 2005/214 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Two issues of interest from a Convention perspective are worth mentioning in this connection.
First, while the CJEU stresses that according to the principle of mutual recognition Member States are, as a rule, obliged to recognise a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty which has been transmitted in compliance with the Framework Decision and that, therefore, the grounds for refusal to recognise or enforce such a decision, as listed in Article 7(1) and (2) of the Framework Decision, must be interpreted restrictively (§ 30), it states at the same time:
It must be noted that, in accordance with Article 3 of the Framework Decision, that decision may not have the effect of amending the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 TEU, which is why Article 20(3) of the Framework Decision also provides that the competent authority of the Member State of execution may refuse to recognise and execute a decision requiring payment of a financial penalty in the event of infringement of fundamental rights or fundamental legal principles defined by Article 6 of the Treaty. (§ 37)
This reasoning bears obvious similarities to Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C 404/15 and C 659/15 PPU, 5.4.2016) which concerned the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant (2002/584) and in which the CJEU also stated that over and beyond the exhaustive list of grounds for non-execution of a European arrest warrant, “as is stated in Article 1(3) thereof, the Framework Decision is not to have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights as enshrined in, inter alia, the Charter” (§ 83).
This requirement makes sense in light of the fact that mutual recognition itself can be made the subject of an application before the ECHR against the Member State which, for instance, enforced a financial penalty or executed a European arrest warrant (see e.g. Pirozzi v. Belgium, 21055/11, 17.4.2018, mentioned on the “Recent case-law” page).
Secondly, in light of this requirement to comply with fundamental rights the CJEU examined whether the presumption of liability underpinning the Netherlands Highway Code on the basis of which the financial penalty had been imposed in the present case was compatible with the presumption of innocence laid down in Article 48 of the EU-Charter. Referring to Article 52(3) of the EU-Charter, it thereby relied on the case-law of the ECHR relating to the presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (§§ 53-55).
Centraal-Justitieel-IncassobureauDownload PDF
This entry was posted in Court of Justice of the EU, Recent Case Law on 05/02/2020 by johan-callewaert.
← Kolloquium Speyer: Sitzung vom 23. Januar 2020 Judgment of the CJEU in the case of Deutsche Umwelthilfe →
European Court of Human Rights (13)
Recent Case Law (26)
Virtual informal meeting on EU accession to the Convention 07/07/2020
International child abduction: judgment of the ECHR in the case of Michnea v. Romania 07/07/2020