Openbaar Ministerie v Paweł Dworzecki.
Date: 2016-05-24
22


In the second place, as regards the test for urgency, it is necessary, according to the case-law of the Court, to take into consideration the fact that the person involved in the main proceedings is currently deprived of his liberty and that the question as to whether he may continue to be held in custody depends on the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015 in Lanigan, C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, paragraph 24). In addition, the situation of the person concerned must be assessed as it existed at the time when consideration was given to whether the request for a preliminary ruling should be dealt with under the urgent procedure (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 February 2016 in N., C‑601/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:84, paragraph 40).
26


It should be recalled, as a preliminary point, that the purpose of the Framework Decision, as is apparent in particular from Article 1(1) and (2), and likewise from recitals 5 and 7, thereof, is to replace the multilateral system of extradition based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 with a system of surrender between judicial authorities of convicted or suspected persons for the purpose of executing judgments or conducting prosecutions, that system of surrender being based on the principle of mutual recognition (judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 75 and the case-law cited).
27


Framework Decision 2002/584 thus seeks, by the establishment of a new simplified and more effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the objective set for the European Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice by basing itself on the high degree of confidence which should exist between the Member States (judgment of 5 April 2016 in Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 76 and the case-law cited).
28


The Court has consistently held that it follows from the need for a uniform application of EU law, and from the principle of equality, that the terms of a provision of EU law, which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope, must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of that provision and the purpose of the legislation in question (judgments of 17 July 2008 in Kozłowski, C‑66/08, EU:C:2008:437, paragraph 42, and of 15 October 2015 in Axa Belgium, C‑494/14, EU:C:2015:692, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited).
31


That interpretation is borne out, moreover, by the origins of Framework Decision 2009/299. As is apparent from recitals 2 and 4 of that framework decision, the EU legislature, having noted that the lack of uniform regulation of questions linked with decisions rendered following a trial in which the person concerned did not appear in person could, in particular, hamper judicial cooperation, considered it necessary to provide clear and common grounds for non-recognition of decisions rendered following a trial in which the person concerned had not appeared in person, but without regulating the forms and methods, including procedural requirements, which are a matter for the laws of the Member States, that are used to achieve the results specified in that framework decision.
37


In the light of the objectives pursued by Framework Decision 2009/299, as set out in paragraph 31 of this judgment, it must be considered that the methods of effecting service of the summons provided for in Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, by their precise and common nature, are designed to ensure a high level of protection and to allow the executing authority to surrender the person concerned notwithstanding his failure to attend the trial which led to his conviction, while fully respecting the rights of the defence.
42


In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, although the right of the accused to appear in person at his trial is an essential component of the right to a fair trial, that requirement is not absolute. The accused may waive that right of his own free will, either expressly or tacitly, provided that the waiver is established in an unequivocal manner, is attended by minimum safeguards commensurate to the gravity of the criminal offence with which the accused is charged and does not run counter to any important public interest. In particular, breach of the right to a fair trial has not been established, even where the accused did not appear in person, if he was informed of the date and place of the trial or was defended by a legal counsellor whom he had instructed to defend him (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2013 in Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 49).
50


Furthermore, as the scenarios described in Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584 were conceived as exceptions to an optional ground for non-recognition, the executing judicial authority may in any event, even after having found that they did not cover the situation at issue, take into account other circumstances that enable it to be assured that the surrender of the person concerned does not mean a breach of his rights of defence.
51


In the context of such an assessment of the optional ground for non-recognition, the executing judicial authority may thus have regard to the conduct of the person concerned. It is at this stage of the surrender procedure that particular attention might be paid to any manifest lack of diligence on the part of the person concerned, notably where it transpires that he sought to avoid service of the information addressed to him.