mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Czech

PI napadl své předání k výkonu evropského zatýkacího rozkazu, který byl na něj vydán, přičemž zejména poukázal na skutečnost, že státní zastupitelství ve Cvikově není „justičním orgánem“ ve smyslu čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584, příslušným k vydání takovéhoto evropského zatýkacího rozkazu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Soudní dvůr"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"napadl své předání k výkonu evropského zatýkacího rozkazu, přičemž zejména poukázal na skutečnost, že státní zastupitelství ve Cvikově není „justičním orgánem“ ve smyslu čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584";
  "napadl své předání k výkonu evropského zatýkacího rozkazu, přičemž zejména poukázal na skutečnost, že státní zastupitelství ve Cvikově není „justičním orgánem“ ve smyslu čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584"->"Soudní dvůr";
  "čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584"->"napadl své předání k výkonu evropského zatýkacího rozkazu, přičemž zejména poukázal na skutečnost, že státní zastupitelství ve Cvikově není „justičním orgánem“ ve smyslu čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Danish

PI gjorde indsigelse mod hans overgivelse på grundlag af fuldbyrdelsen af den europæiske arrestordre, idet PI bl.a. påberåbte sig den omstændighed, at anklagemyndigheden i Zwickau ikke er en »judiciel myndighed« som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584, der har kompetence til at udstede en sådan europæisk arrestordre.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Retten"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"påberåbte sig den omstændighed, at anklagemyndigheden i Zwickau ikke er en »judiciel myndighed« som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584";
  "påberåbte sig den omstændighed, at anklagemyndigheden i Zwickau ikke er en »judiciel myndighed« som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584"->"Retten";
  "artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584"->"påberåbte sig den omstændighed, at anklagemyndigheden i Zwickau ikke er en »judiciel myndighed« som omhandlet i artikel 6, stk. 1, i rammeafgørelse 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: German

PI trat seiner Übergabe in Vollstreckung des gegen ihn ergangenen Europäischen Haftbefehls u. a. unter Berufung darauf entgegen, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft Zwickau keine für die Ausstellung eines solchen Europäischen Haftbefehls zuständige „Justizbehörde“ im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 sei.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Justizbehörde"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"dass die Staatsanwaltschaft Zwickau keine für die Ausstellung eines solchen Europäischen Haftbefehls zuständige „Justizbehörde“ im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 sei.";
  "dass die Staatsanwaltschaft Zwickau keine für die Ausstellung eines solchen Europäischen Haftbefehls zuständige „Justizbehörde“ im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 sei."->"Justizbehörde";
  "Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 2002/584"->"dass die Staatsanwaltschaft Zwickau keine für die Ausstellung eines solchen Europäischen Haftbefehls zuständige „Justizbehörde“ im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 sei."[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Estonian

PI vaidlustas teda puudutava Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmiseks toimuva üleandmise, tuginedes eelkõige asjaolule, et Zwickau prokuratuur ei ole raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 tähenduses „õigusasutus“, mis on pädev tegema Euroopa vahistamismäärust.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Zwickau prokuratuur"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"vaidlustas teda puudutava Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmiseks toimuva üleandmise, tuginedes eelkõige asjaolule, et Zwickau prokuratuur ei ole raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 tähenduses „õigusasutus“";
  "vaidlustas teda puudutava Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmiseks toimuva üleandmise, tuginedes eelkõige asjaolule, et Zwickau prokuratuur ei ole raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 tähenduses „õigusasutus“"->"Zwickau prokuratuur";
  "raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 2002/584"->"vaidlustas teda puudutava Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmiseks toimuva üleandmise, tuginedes eelkõige asjaolule, et Zwickau prokuratuur ei ole raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 tähenduses „õigusasutus“"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Greek

Ο PI αντιτάχθηκε στην παράδοσή του κατ’ εκτέλεση του ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεώς του προβάλλοντας, μεταξύ άλλων, ότι η εισαγγελία του Zwickau δεν είναι «δικαστική αρχή», κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584, αρμόδια για την έκδοση ενός τέτοιου ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεως.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "δικαστική αρχή"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"ότι η εισαγγελία του Zwickau δεν είναι «δικαστική αρχή», κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584";
  "ότι η εισαγγελία του Zwickau δεν είναι «δικαστική αρχή», κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584"->"δικαστική αρχή";
  "άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584"->"ότι η εισαγγελία του Zwickau δεν είναι «δικαστική αρχή», κατά την έννοια του άρθρου 6, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: French

PI a contesté sa remise en exécution du mandat d’arrêt européen le concernant en invoquant, notamment, le fait que le parquet de Zwickau n’est pas une « autorité judiciaire », au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584, compétente pour émettre un tel mandat d’arrêt européen.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "La Cour"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"a contesté le fait que le parquet de Zwickau n’est pas une « autorité judiciaire », au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584";
  "a contesté le fait que le parquet de Zwickau n’est pas une « autorité judiciaire », au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584"->"La Cour";
  "l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584 2002/584"->"a contesté le fait que le parquet de Zwickau n’est pas une « autorité judiciaire », au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Croatian

PI je osporio svoju predaju radi izvršenja europskog uhidbenog naloga pozivajući se, osobito, na činjenicu da Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu nije „pravosudno tijelo” u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584, nadležno za izdavanje takvog europskog uhidbenog naloga.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"PI je osporio svoju predaju radi izvršenja europskog uhidbenog naloga pozivajući se, osobito, na činjenicu da Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu nije „pravosudno tijelo” u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584";
  "PI je osporio svoju predaju radi izvršenja europskog uhidbenog naloga pozivajući se, osobito, na činjenicu da Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu nije „pravosudno tijelo” u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584"->"Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu";
  "članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584"->"PI je osporio svoju predaju radi izvršenja europskog uhidbenog naloga pozivajući se, osobito, na činjenicu da Državno odvjetništvo u Zwickauu nije „pravosudno tijelo” u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Italian

PI ha contestato la sua consegna in esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo che lo riguarda invocando, in particolare, il fatto che la procura di Zwickau non è un’«autorità giudiziaria», ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584, competente a emettere un tale mandato d’arresto europeo.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la procura di Zwickau"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"ha contestato la sua consegna in esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo che lo riguarda invocando, in particolare, il fatto che la procura di Zwickau non è un’«autorità giudiziaria», ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584";
  "ha contestato la sua consegna in esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo che lo riguarda invocando, in particolare, il fatto che la procura di Zwickau non è un’«autorità giudiziaria», ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584"->"la procura di Zwickau";
  "articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584"->"ha contestato la sua consegna in esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo che lo riguarda invocando, in particolare, il fatto che la procura di Zwickau non è un’«autorità giudiziaria», ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Latvian

PI apstrīdēja savu nodošanu, izpildot attiecībā uz viņu izsniegto Eiropas apcietināšanas orderi, norādot tostarp uz to, ka Cvikavas prokuratūra nav “tiesu iestāde” Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta izpratnē, kas būtu kompetenta izsniegt šādu Eiropas apcietināšanas orderi.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Cvikavas prokuratūra"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"apstrīdēja savu nodošanu, norādot tostarp uz to, ka Cvikavas prokuratūra nav “tiesu iestāde” Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta izpratnē";
  "apstrīdēja savu nodošanu, norādot tostarp uz to, ka Cvikavas prokuratūra nav “tiesu iestāde” Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta izpratnē"->"Cvikavas prokuratūra";
  "Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta 2002/584"->"apstrīdēja savu nodošanu, norādot tostarp uz to, ka Cvikavas prokuratūra nav “tiesu iestāde” Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta izpratnē"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

PI nesutinka būti perduotas pagal dėl jo išduotą Europos arešto orderį, remdamasis, be kita ko, tuo, kad Cvikau prokuratūra nėra „teisminė institucija“, kaip tai suprantama pagal Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį, turinti kompetenciją išduoti tokį Europos arešto orderį.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Cvikau prokuratūra"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"Cvikau prokuratūra nėra „teisminė institucija“, kaip tai suprantama pagal Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį";
  "Cvikau prokuratūra nėra „teisminė institucija“, kaip tai suprantama pagal Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį"->"Cvikau prokuratūra";
  "Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį 2002/584"->"Cvikau prokuratūra nėra „teisminė institucija“, kaip tai suprantama pagal Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

PI vitatta az európai elfogatóparancs végrehajtásaként történő átadását többek között arra hivatkozva, hogy a zwickaui ügyészség nem minősül a 2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése értelmében vett, ilyen európai elfogatóparancs kibocsátására hatáskörrel rendelkező „igazságügyi hatóságnak”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "igazságügyi hatóságnak"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"Vitatta, hogy a zwickaui ügyészség nem minősül a 2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése értelmében vett, ilyen európai elfogatóparancs kibocsátására hatáskörrel rendelkező „igazságügyi hatóságnak”.";
  "Vitatta, hogy a zwickaui ügyészség nem minősül a 2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése értelmében vett, ilyen európai elfogatóparancs kibocsátására hatáskörrel rendelkező „igazságügyi hatóságnak”."->"igazságügyi hatóságnak";
  "2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése 2002/584"->"Vitatta, hogy a zwickaui ügyészség nem minősül a 2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése értelmében vett, ilyen európai elfogatóparancs kibocsátására hatáskörrel rendelkező „igazságügyi hatóságnak”."[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Maltese

PI kkontesta l-konsenja tiegħu fl-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew fuq il-bażi li l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau ma huwiex “awtorità ġudizzjarja” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584, li huwa responsabbli għall-ħruġ ta’ mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew bħal dan.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"kkontesta l-konsenja tiegħu fl-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew fuq il-bażi li l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau ma huwiex “awtorità ġudizzjarja” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584";
  "kkontesta l-konsenja tiegħu fl-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew fuq il-bażi li l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau ma huwiex “awtorità ġudizzjarja” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584"->"l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau";
  "Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584"->"kkontesta l-konsenja tiegħu fl-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew fuq il-bażi li l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Zwickau ma huwiex “awtorità ġudizzjarja” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Dutch

PI heeft zijn overlevering op grond van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel betwist, en daartoe onder meer betoogd dat het openbaar ministerie van Zwickau geen „rechterlijke autoriteit” is in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584, die bevoegd is voor het uitvaardigen van een dergelijk Europees aanhoudingsbevel.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechterlijke autoriteit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"betwist, en daartoe onder meer betoogd dat het openbaar ministerie van Zwickau geen „rechterlijke autoriteit” is in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584";
  "betwist, en daartoe onder meer betoogd dat het openbaar ministerie van Zwickau geen „rechterlijke autoriteit” is in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584"->"rechterlijke autoriteit";
  "artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584 2002/584"->"betwist, en daartoe onder meer betoogd dat het openbaar ministerie van Zwickau geen „rechterlijke autoriteit” is in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Polish

PI sprzeciwił się jego przekazaniu na podstawie dotyczącego go europejskiego nakazu aresztowania w szczególności poprzez powołanie się na fakt, że prokuratura w Zwickau nie jest „organem sądowym” w rozumieniu art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584, właściwym do wydania europejskiego nakazu aresztowania.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "organem sądowym"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"sprzeciwił się jego przekazaniu na podstawie dotyczącego go europejskiego nakazu aresztowania w szczególności poprzez powołanie się na fakt, że prokuratura w Zwickau nie jest „organem sądowym” w rozumieniu art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584";
  "sprzeciwił się jego przekazaniu na podstawie dotyczącego go europejskiego nakazu aresztowania w szczególności poprzez powołanie się na fakt, że prokuratura w Zwickau nie jest „organem sądowym” w rozumieniu art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584"->"organem sądowym";
  "art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584"->"sprzeciwił się jego przekazaniu na podstawie dotyczącego go europejskiego nakazu aresztowania w szczególności poprzez powołanie się na fakt, że prokuratura w Zwickau nie jest „organem sądowym” w rozumieniu art. 6 ust. 1 decyzji ramowej 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

PI contestou a sua entrega em execução do mandado de detenção europeu que lhe é relativo invocando, nomeadamente, o facto de a Procuradoria de Zwickau não ser uma «autoridade judiciária», na aceção do artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584, competente para emitir esse mandado de detenção europeu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Procuradoria de Zwickau"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"contestou a sua entrega em execução do mandado de detenção europeu que lhe é relativo invocando, nomeadamente, o facto de a Procuradoria de Zwickau não ser uma «autoridade judiciária», na aceção do artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584";
  "contestou a sua entrega em execução do mandado de detenção europeu que lhe é relativo invocando, nomeadamente, o facto de a Procuradoria de Zwickau não ser uma «autoridade judiciária», na aceção do artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584"->"Procuradoria de Zwickau";
  "artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584 2002/584"->"contestou a sua entrega em execução do mandado de detenção europeu que lhe é relativo invocando, nomeadamente, o facto de a Procuradoria de Zwickau não ser uma «autoridade judiciária», na aceção do artigo 6.o, n.o 1, da Decisão‑Quadro 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Romanian

PI a contestat predarea sa în vederea executării mandatului european de arestare care îl privea, invocând în special faptul că Parchetul din Zwickau nu este o „autoritate judiciară” în sensul articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decizia‑cadru 2002/584, competentă pentru a emite un astfel de mandat european de arestare.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Parchetul"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decisia‑cadru 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"a contestat predarea sa în vederea executării mandatului european de arestare care îl privea, invocând în special faptul că Parchetul din Zwickau nu este o „autoritate judiciară” în sensul articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decizia‑cadru 2002/584";
  "a contestat predarea sa în vederea executării mandatului european de arestare care îl privea, invocând în special faptul că Parchetul din Zwickau nu este o „autoritate judiciară” în sensul articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decizia‑cadru 2002/584"->"Parchetul";
  "articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decisia‑cadru 2002/584"->"a contestat predarea sa în vederea executării mandatului european de arestare care îl privea, invocând în special faptul că Parchetul din Zwickau nu este o „autoritate judiciară” în sensul articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decizia‑cadru 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Slovak

PI sa bránil odovzdaniu v rámci výkonu európskeho zatykača vydaného na neho, pričom predovšetkým tvrdil, že prokuratúra v Zwickau nie je „súdnym orgánom“ v zmysle článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584, ktorý by mal právomoc vydať takýto európsky zatykač.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "súdnym orgánom"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"bránil odovzdaniu v rámci výkonu európskeho zatykača vydaného na neho, pričom predovšetkým tvrdil, že prokuratúra v Zwickau nie je „súdnym orgánom“ v zmysle článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584";
  "bránil odovzdaniu v rámci výkonu európskeho zatykača vydaného na neho, pričom predovšetkým tvrdil, že prokuratúra v Zwickau nie je „súdnym orgánom“ v zmysle článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584"->"súdnym orgánom";
  "článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584"->"bránil odovzdaniu v rámci výkonu európskeho zatykača vydaného na neho, pričom predovšetkým tvrdil, že prokuratúra v Zwickau nie je „súdnym orgánom“ v zmysle článku 6 ods. 1 rámcového rozhodnutia 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

PI je nasprotoval svoji predaji z izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje, pri čemer je med drugim navajal, da državno tožilstvo v Zwickauu ni „pravosodni organ“ v smislu člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa, pristojen za izdajo evropskega naloga za prijetje.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Sodišče"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"nasprotoval svoji predaji z izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje, pri čemer je med drugim navajal, da državno tožilstvo v Zwickauu ni „pravosodni organ“ v smislu člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa.";
  "nasprotoval svoji predaji z izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje, pri čemer je med drugim navajal, da državno tožilstvo v Zwickauu ni „pravosodni organ“ v smislu člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa."->"Sodišče";
  "člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584"->"nasprotoval svoji predaji z izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje, pri čemer je med drugim navajal, da državno tožilstvo v Zwickauu ni „pravosodni organ“ v smislu člena 6(1) Okvirnega sklepa."[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Finnish

PI vastusti luovuttamistaan hänestä annetun eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen nojalla vedoten muun muassa siihen, ettei Zwickaun syyttäjäviranomaista voitu pitää puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuna oikeusviranomaisena, jolla on toimivalta antaa eurooppalainen pidätysmääräys.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Tuomioistuin"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"vedoten muun muassa siihen, ettei Zwickaun syyttäjäviranomaista voitu pitää puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuna oikeusviranomaisena";
  "vedoten muun muassa siihen, ettei Zwickaun syyttäjäviranomaista voitu pitää puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuna oikeusviranomaisena"->"Tuomioistuin";
  "puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa 2002/584"->"vedoten muun muassa siihen, ettei Zwickaun syyttäjäviranomaista voitu pitää puitepäätöksen 2002/584 6 artiklan 1 kohdassa tarkoitettuna oikeusviranomaisena"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 May 2019.
OG and PI.
Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court and High Court (Ireland).
References for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Legal position — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Ministry of Justice to issue an instruction in a specific case — No guarantee of independence.
Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Swedish

PI bestred att han skulle överlämnas för verkställighet av den europeiska arresteringsordern. Han gjorde därvid bland annat gällande att åklagarmyndigheten i Zwickau inte är en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584 med behörighet att utfärda en sådan europeisk arresteringsorder..

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "PI"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584 2002/584"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "PI"->"bestred att han skulle överlämnas för verkställighet av den europeiska arresteringsordern. Han gjorde därvid bland annat gällande att åklagarmyndigheten i Zwickau inte är en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584";
  "bestred att han skulle överlämnas för verkställighet av den europeiska arresteringsordern. Han gjorde därvid bland annat gällande att åklagarmyndigheten i Zwickau inte är en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584"->"Domstolen";
  "artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584 2002/584"->"bestred att han skulle överlämnas för verkställighet av den europeiska arresteringsordern. Han gjorde därvid bland annat gällande att åklagarmyndigheten i Zwickau inte är en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584"[dir=none];
    
}
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019.
CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Connecting flights — Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers — Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State).
Case C-502/18. (2019)
Language: English

The passengers concerned, 11 in number, each made a reservation with České aerolinie for flights from Prague (Czech Republic) to Bangkok (Thailand) via Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates).
The first of those connecting flights, operated by České aerolinie and connecting Prague and Abu Dhabi, was carried out according to the flight plan and the plane arrived on time at its destination. However, the second flight, operated, under a code-share agreement, by Etihad Airways, which is not a ‘Community carrier’, within the meaning of Article 2(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, and connecting Abu Dhabi and Bangkok, arrived 488 minutes late.
Since České aerolinie refused to pay the passengers concerned the compensation provided for in Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004, they brought an action before the Czech first instance court with jurisdiction to hear an action against that carrier. That court upheld their request for compensation, holding, in particular, that, even though it had not performed the flight which was subject to the long delay, České aerolinie could be obliged to pay that compensation pursuant to the last sentence of Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Czech first instance court"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Passengers"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "České aerolinie"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The last sentence of Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
   "Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "Passengers"->"Czech first instance court"[label="Brought an action"];
   "Czech first instance court"->"Upheld the request for compensation";
   "Upheld the request for compensation"->"Passengers";
   "Upheld the request for compensation"->"The last sentence of Article 3(5) of Regulation No 261/2004"[dir=none];
   "České aerolinie"->"Refused to pay the compensation";
   "Refused to pay the compensation"->"Passengers";
   "Refused to pay the compensation"->"Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 261/2004"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019.
CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Connecting flights — Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers — Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State).
Case C-502/18. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

Всеки един от въпросните единадесет на брой пътници е направил чрез České aerolinie една резервация за полет от Прага (Чешка република) до Банкок (Тайланд) през Абу Даби (Обединени арабски емирства).
Първият полет от този директно свързан полет, изпълняван от České aerolinie от Прага до Абу Даби, е извършен съгласно графика на полета и е пристигнал навреме в дестинацията си. За сметка на това вторият полет, от Абу Даби до Банкок, изпълняван в рамките на споразумение за съвместно опериране от Etihad Airways, което не е „въздушен превозвач от Общността“ по смисъла на член 2, буква в) от Регламент № 261/2004, е пристигнал с 488 минути закъснение.
Тъй като České aerolinie е отказало да им изплати обезщетението, предвидено в член 7, параграф 1, буква в) от Регламент № 261/2004, въпросните пътници са подали пред компетентния първоинстанционен чешки съд иск срещу този превозвач. Посочената юрисдикция е уважила искането им за обезщетение, като по-специално е приела, че макар да не е извършило полета, който е имал голямо закъснение, České aerolinie е било длъжно да заплати посоченото обезщетение в приложение на член 3, параграф 5, последно изречение от Регламент № 261/2004.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "първоинстанционен чешки съд"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "пътници"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "České aerolinie"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "член 3, параграф 5, последно изречение от Регламент № 261/2004 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
  "член 7, параграф 1, буква в) от Регламент № 261/2004 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "пътници"->"първоинстанционен чешки съд"[label="са подали пред компетентния първоинстанционен чешки съд иск срещу този превозвач."];
  "първоинстанционен чешки съд"->"уважила искането им за обезщетение";
  "уважила искането им за обезщетение"->"пътници";
  "уважила искането им за обезщетение"->"член 3, параграф 5, последно изречение от Регламент № 261/2004 261/2004"[dir=none];
  "České aerolinie"->"отказало да им изплати обезщетението";
  "отказало да им изплати обезщетението"->"пътници";
  "отказало да им изплати обезщетението"->"член 7, параграф 1, буква в) от Регламент № 261/2004 261/2004"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 11 July 2019.
CS and Others v České aerolinie a.s.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Městský soud v Praze.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Transport — Common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Article 5(1)(c) — Article 7(1) — Right to compensation — Connecting flights — Flights consisting of two flights operated by different air carriers — Long delay in relation to the second flight with points of departure and arrival outside the European Union and operated by a carrier established in a non-Member State).
Case C-502/18. (2019)
Language: Czech

Každý z jedenácti dotyčných cestujících si zarezervoval u Českých aerolinií let z Prahy (Česká republika) do Bangkoku (Thajsko) přes Abú Dhabí (Spojené arabské emiráty).
V rámci tohoto letu s mezipřistáním provozovaly České aerolinie jeho první úsek z Prahy do Abú Dhabí, který proběhl v souladu s letovým plánem a bez zpoždění na příletu v místě určení. Naproti tomu druhý úsek letu, provozovaný v rámci dohody o sdílení kódů společností Etihad Airways, která není „leteckým dopravcem Společenství“ ve smyslu čl. 2 písm. c) nařízení č. 261/2004, a sice úsek z Abú Dhabí do Bangkoku, byl na příletu opožděn o 488 minut.
Vzhledem k tomu, že České aerolinie odmítly zaplatit dotyčným cestujícím náhradu upravenou v čl. 7 odst. 1 písm. c) nařízení č. 261/2004, podali tito cestující proti shora uvedenému dopravci žalobu k příslušnému českému soudu prvního stupně. Tento soud jejich nároku na náhradu vyhověl, neboť měl mimo jiné za to, že i když úsek letu, během něhož došlo k významnému zpoždění, neprovedly České aerolinie, bylo možné jejich povinnost k zaplacení této náhrady založit na čl. 3 odst. 5 poslední větě nařízení č. 261/2004.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "českému soudu prvního stupně"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "cestující"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "České aerolinie"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "čl. 3 odst. 5 poslední větě nařízení č. 261/2004. 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
  "čl. 7 odst. 1 písm. c) nařízení č. 261/2004 261/2004"[shape=trapezium];
    
  "cestující"->"českému soudu prvního stupně"[label="podali tito cestující proti shora uvedenému dopravci žalobu"];
  "českému soudu prvního stupně"->"Tento soud jejich nároku na náhradu vyhověl";
  "Tento soud jejich nároku na náhradu vyhověl"->"cestující";
  "Tento soud jejich nároku na náhradu vyhověl"->"čl. 3 odst. 5 poslední větě nařízení č. 261/2004. 261/2004"[dir=none];
  "České aerolinie"->"České aerolinie odmítly zaplatit dotyčným cestujícím náhradu";
  "České aerolinie odmítly zaplatit dotyčným cestujícím náhradu"->"cestující";
  "České aerolinie odmítly zaplatit dotyčným cestujícím náhradu"->"čl. 7 odst. 1 písm. c) nařízení č. 261/2004 261/2004"[dir=none];
}