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: Swedish

OG överklagade till High Court (Överdomstolen i brottmål, Irland) och gjorde gällande att den europeiska arresteringsordern inte var giltig. Enligt OG är åklagarmyndigheten i Lübeck inte en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "OG"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "High Court"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "OG"->"överklagade";
  "överklagade"->"High Court";
  "åklagarmyndigheten i Lübeck inte en ”rättslig myndighet” i den mening som avses i artikel 6.1 i rambeslut 2002/584. 2002/584"->"överklagade"[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: English

In support of that contention, OG relied on a legal opinion of a German lawyer which stated, inter alia, that under German law the public prosecutor’s office does not enjoy the autonomous or independent status of a court of law, but is subject to an administrative hierarchy headed by the Minister for Justice, so that there is a risk of political involvement in surrender proceedings. Furthermore, the public prosecutor’s office is not a judicial authority with competence to order detention or arrest of any person except in exceptional circumstances. Only a judge or court has those powers. It is the public prosecutor’s office which is responsible for executing a national arrest warrant issued by a judge or court, where appropriate, by issuing a European arrest warrant. Accordingly, no ‘judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, was involved in the issuing of the European arrest warrant in respect of OG.
In those circumstances, the High Court sought further information from the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck, via the Central Authority for Ireland, in relation to the evidence presented by OG as to whether that public prosecutor’s office is a ‘judicial authority’, having regard, in particular, to the judgments of 10 November 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), and of 10 November 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The Central Authority for Ireland"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The High Court"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck"->"The High Court"[label="Reply 08/12/2016"];
   "The Central Authority for Ireland"->"Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck";
   "The High Court"->"Seek information";
   "Seek information"->"The Central Authority for Ireland";
   "Seek information"->"Whether that public prosecutor’s office is a ‘judicial authority’ to the judgments of 10 November 2016, Poltorak, and of 10 November 2016, Özçelik"[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: Bulgarian

В подкрепа на това твърдение OG се позовава на правно становище, изготвено от германски адвокат, от което по-специално се установява, че в германското право прокуратурата не се ползва с автономен или независим статут на юрисдикция, а е част от йерархична административна структура, ръководена от министъра на правосъдието, така че съществува риск от политическо вмешателство в процедурите за предаване. Освен това прокуратурата не била съдебен орган, компетентен да разпореди задържане или арестуване на лице, освен в извънредни случаи. С такава компетентност разполагали единствено съдия или юрисдикция. От своя страна прокуратурата била компетентна да изпълни национална заповед за арест, издадена от съдия или юрисдикция, и ако е необходимо, да издаде европейска заповед за арест. Следователно при издаването на европейската заповед за арест срещу OG не е взел участие съдебен орган по смисъла на член 6, параграф 1 от Рамково решение 2002/584.
При тези обстоятелства High Court (Висш съд) е поискал от прокуратурата на Любек чрез централния орган на Ирландия допълнителна информация във връзка с представените от OG доказателства относно качеството на съдебен орган на тази прокуратура, по-специално с оглед на решение от 10 ноември 2016 г., Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), и решение от 10 ноември 2016 г., Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "централния орган на Ирландия"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Висш съд"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "прокуратурата на Любек"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "прокуратурата на Любек"->"Висш съд"[label="отговор 08/12/2016"];
  "централния орган на Ирландия"->"прокуратурата на Любек";
  "Висш съд"->"поискал допълнителна информация";
  "поискал допълнителна информация"->"централния орган на Ирландия";
  "поискал допълнителна информация"->"относно качеството на съдебен орган на тази прокуратура, по-специално с оглед на решение от 10 ноември 2016 г., Poltorak, и решение от 10 ноември 2016 г., Özçelik, Özçelik"[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: Spanish

En apoyo de esta alegación, OG esgrimió un dictamen jurídico elaborado por un abogado alemán, del que en particular se desprende que, en Derecho alemán, el Ministerio Fiscal no posee un estatuto autónomo o independiente como los tribunales, sino que está integrado en una jerarquía administrativa dirigida por el ministro de Justicia, de modo que existe riesgo de injerencia política en los procedimientos de entrega. Además, el Ministerio Fiscal no es una autoridad judicial con competencia para ordenar la detención o la captura de una persona, salvo en casos excepcionales. Solo los jueces y tribunales disponen de esta competencia. El Ministerio Fiscal es competente, por su parte, para ejecutar una orden de detención nacional dictada por un juez o un tribunal, en su caso emitiendo una orden de detención europea. El referido dictamen concluye que, en consecuencia, en la emisión de la orden de detención europea dictada contra OG no ha participado ninguna «autoridad judicial», en el sentido del artículo 6, apartado 1, de la Decisión Marco 2002/584.
En estas circunstancias, la High Court (Tribunal Superior) se dirigió a la Fiscalía de Lübeck, a través de la autoridad central irlandesa, para obtener información adicional sobre los documentos aportados por OG en relación con la condición de «autoridad judicial» de dicha fiscalía, en particular a la luz de las sentencias de 10 de noviembre de 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) y Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la autoridad central irlandesa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la High Court (Tribunal Superior)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Fiscalía de Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Fiscalía de Lübeck"->"la High Court (Tribunal Superior)"[label="En apoyo de esta alegación 08/12/2016"];
  "la autoridad central irlandesa"->"Fiscalía de Lübeck";
  "la High Court (Tribunal Superior)"->"para obtener información adicional";
  "para obtener información adicional"->"la autoridad central irlandesa";
  "para obtener información adicional"->"la condición de «autoridad judicial» de dicha fiscalía, en particular a la luz de las sentencias de 10 de noviembre de 2016, Poltorak y de 10 de noviembre de 2016, Özçelik"[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: Czech

Na podporu tohoto tvrzení vycházel OG z právního stanoviska vypracovaného jedním německým advokátem, z něhož zejména vyplývalo, že státní zastupitelství nepožívá v německém právu autonomie ani nezávislosti soudu, ale zapadá do správní hierarchie, na jejímž vrcholu se nachází ministr spravedlnosti, takže existuje nebezpečí politického zasahování do řízení o předávání osob. Kromě toho státní zastupitelství není podle něj justičním orgánem s pravomocí nařídit zadržení či zatčení osoby, s výjimkou mimořádných okolností. Touto pravomocí je nadán pouze soudce nebo soud. Státní zastupitelství má pravomoc k výkonu vnitrostátního zatýkacího rozkazu vydaného soudcem nebo soudem, případně prostřednictvím vydání evropského zatýkacího rozkazu. Z toho důvodu se na vydání evropského zatýkacího rozkazu na OG nepodílel žádný „justiční orgán“ ve smyslu čl. 6 odst. 1 rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584.
Za těchto podmínek požádal High Court (Vrchní soud) prostřednictvím irského ústředního orgánu státní zastupitelství v Lübecku o doplňující informace týkající se důkazů předložených OG ohledně postavení tohoto státního zastupitelství jako „justičního orgánu“, zejména s ohledem na rozsudky ze dne 10. listopadu 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), a ze dne 10. listopadu 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "irského ústředního orgánu"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Vrchní soud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "státní zastupitelství v Lübecku"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "státní zastupitelství v Lübecku"->"Vrchní soud"[label="doplňující informace 08/12/2016"];
  "irského ústředního orgánu"->"státní zastupitelství v Lübecku";
  "Vrchní soud"->"požádal ... o doplňující informace";
  "požádal ... o doplňující informace"->"irského ústředního orgánu";
  "požádal ... o doplňující informace"->"Postavení tohoto státního zastupitelství jako „justičního orgánu“, zejména s ohledem na rozsudky ze dne 10. listopadu 2016, Poltorak a ze dne 10. listopadu 2016, Özçelik, Özçelik"[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

Til støtte for dette anbringende henviste OG til en juridisk udtalelse fra en tysk advokat, hvoraf det navnlig fremgik, at den offentlige anklager i henhold til tysk ret ikke har en domstols selvstændige og uafhængige status, men henhører under et administrativt hierarki under justitsministerens ledelse, hvorfor der er risiko for politisk indblanding i sager om overgivelse. Desuden er den offentlige anklager ikke en judiciel myndighed med kompetence til at træffe afgørelse om frihedsberøvelse eller anholdelse af en person, bortset fra i særlige sager. Alene en dommer eller en retsinstans har denne kompetence. Den offentlige anklager har selv kompetence til at fuldbyrde en national arrestordre, der er udstedt af en dommer eller en retsinstans, eventuelt ved udstedelse af en europæisk arrestordre. Følgelig var ingen »judiciel myndighed« som omhandlet i rammeafgørelse 2002/584 involveret i udstedelsen af den europæiske arrestordre mod OG.
Under disse omstændigheder henvendte High Court (ret i første instans) sig til anklagemyndigheden i Lübeck via den centrale myndighed i Irland for at indhente yderligere oplysninger vedrørende de forhold, som OG havde anført, for så vidt angår denne anklagemyndigheds kvalificering som »judiciel myndighed«, henset til bl.a. dom af 10. november 2016, Poltorak (C-452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), og af 10. november 2016, Özçelik (C-453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "den centrale myndighed i Irland"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "High Court"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "anklagemyndigheden i Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "anklagemyndigheden i Lübeck"->"High Court"[label="Til støtte for dette anbringende henviste OG til en juridisk udtalelse 08/12/2016"];
  "den centrale myndighed i Irland"->"anklagemyndigheden i Lübeck";
  "High Court"->"indhente yderligere oplysninger";
  "indhente yderligere oplysninger"->"den centrale myndighed i Irland";
  "indhente yderligere oplysninger"->"hvorvidt denne anklagemyndigheds kvalificering som »judiciel myndighed«, henset til bl.a. dom af 10. november 2016, Poltorak, og af 10. november 2016, Özçelik"[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

Zur Stützung dieses Vorbringens legte OG ein Rechtsgutachten eines deutschen Anwalts vor, aus dem u. a. hervorgeht, dass die Staatsanwaltschaft nach deutschem Recht nicht die autonome oder unabhängige Stellung eines Gerichts innehabe, sondern zu einer Verwaltungshierarchie unter der Leitung des Justizministers gehöre, so dass die Gefahr einer politischen Einflussnahme auf die Übergabeverfahren bestehe. Zudem sei die Staatsanwaltschaft keine Justizbehörde und dürfe, abgesehen von außergewöhnlichen Umständen, nicht die Inhaftierung oder die Festnahme einer Person anordnen. Dazu sei nur ein Richter oder ein Gericht befugt. Die Staatsanwaltschaft sei für die Vollstreckung eines von einem Richter oder einem Gericht erlassenen nationalen Haftbefehls zuständig, gegebenenfalls durch Ausstellung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls. Infolgedessen sei an der Ausstellung des Europäischen Haftbefehls von OG keine „Justizbehörde“ im Sinne von Art. 6 Abs. 1 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 beteiligt gewesen.
Unter diesen Umständen wandte sich der High Court (Hoher Gerichtshof) über die irische zentrale Behörde an die Staatsanwaltschaft Lübeck und ersuchte sie um weitere Informationen zu dem Vorbringen von OG in Bezug auf die Einstufung der Staatsanwaltschaft als „Justizbehörde“, insbesondere in Anbetracht der Urteile vom 10. November 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), und vom 10. November 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "die irische zentrale Behörde"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "der High Court (Hoher Gerichtshof)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Staatsanwaltschaft Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Staatsanwaltschaft Lübeck"->"der High Court (Hoher Gerichtshof)"[label="Vorbringen 08/12/2016"];
  "die irische zentrale Behörde"->"Staatsanwaltschaft Lübeck";
  "der High Court (Hoher Gerichtshof)"->"ersuchte sie um weitere Informationen";
  "ersuchte sie um weitere Informationen"->"die irische zentrale Behörde";
  "ersuchte sie um weitere Informationen"->"die Einstufung der Staatsanwaltschaft als „Justizbehörde“, insbesondere in Anbetracht der Urteile vom 10. November 2016, Poltorak, und vom 10. November 2016, Özçelik., Özçelik"[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

Selle väite toetuseks esitas OG õigusliku arvamuse, mille on koostanud Saksa advokaat ja millest nähtub muu hulgas, et Saksa õiguses ei ole prokuratuuril kohtule omast autonoomset ja sõltumatut staatust, vaid see kuulub haldushierarhiasse, mille tipus on justiitsiministeerium, mistõttu esineb üleandmismenetlustesse poliitilise sekkumise oht. Lisaks ei ole prokuratuur õigusasutus, kes on pädev andma korraldust isiku kinnipidamiseks või vahistamiseks, välja arvatud erakorralistel asjaoludel. See pädevus on ainult kohtunikul või kohtul. Prokuratuur on omakorda pädev täitma kohtuniku või kohtu välja antud riiklikku vahistamismäärust, tehes vajaduse korral Euroopa vahistamismääruse. OG suhtes tehtud Euroopa vahistamismääruse väljaandmisse ei olnud seega kaasatud ühtegi „õigusasutust“ raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 6 lõike 1 tähenduses.
Neil asjaoludel pöördus High Court (kõrge kohus) Iirimaa keskasutuse vahendusel Lübecki prokuratuuri poole, et saada lisateavet asjaolude kohta, mille OG esitas seoses selle prokuratuuri „õigusasutuse“ staatuse kohta, arvestades eelkõige 10. novembri 2016. aasta kohtuotsust Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) ja 10. novembri 2016. aasta kohtuotsust Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Iirimaa keskasutus"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "High Court (kõrge kohus)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Lübecki prokuratuur"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Lübecki prokuratuur"->"High Court (kõrge kohus)"[label="Selle väite toetuseks esitas OG õigusliku arvamuse 08/12/2016"];
  "Iirimaa keskasutus"->"Lübecki prokuratuur";
  "High Court (kõrge kohus)"->"et saada lisateavet";
  "et saada lisateavet"->"Iirimaa keskasutus";
  "et saada lisateavet"->"asjaolude kohta, mille OG esitas seoses selle prokuratuuri „õigusasutuse“ staatuse kohta, arvestades eelkõige 10. novembri 2016. aasta kohtuotsust Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) ja 10. novembri 2016. aasta kohtuotsust Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860)., Özçelik"[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

Au soutien de cette allégation, OG s’est fondé sur un avis juridique établi par un avocat allemand, dont il ressortait, notamment, que, en droit allemand, le ministère public ne bénéficierait pas du statut autonome ou indépendant d’une juridiction, mais relèverait d’une hiérarchie administrative dirigée par le ministre de la Justice, de sorte qu’il existerait un risque d’ingérence politique dans les procédures de remise. En outre, le ministère public ne serait pas une autorité judiciaire ayant la compétence d’ordonner la détention ou l’arrestation d’une personne, hormis dans des cas exceptionnels. Seul un juge ou une juridiction disposerait de cette compétence. Le ministère public serait, pour sa part, compétent pour exécuter un mandat d’arrêt national délivré par un juge ou une juridiction, le cas échéant, en émettant un mandat d’arrêt européen. Par conséquent, aucune « autorité judiciaire », au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 1, de la décision-cadre 2002/584, n’aurait été impliquée dans la délivrance du mandat d’arrêt européen à l’encontre d’OG.
Dans ces conditions, la High Court (Haute Cour) s’est adressée au parquet de Lübeck, par l’intermédiaire de l’autorité centrale irlandaise, aux fins d’obtenir des informations supplémentaires relatives aux éléments soumis par OG en ce qui concerne la qualité d’« autorité judiciaire » de ce parquet, au regard notamment des arrêts du 10 novembre 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), et du 10 novembre 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l’autorité centrale irlandaise"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la High Court (Haute Cour)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "parquet de Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "parquet de Lübeck"->"la High Court (Haute Cour)"[label="Au soutien de cette allégation, OG s’est fondé sur un avis juridique établi par un avocat allemand 08/12/2016"];
  "l’autorité centrale irlandaise"->"parquet de Lübeck";
  "la High Court (Haute Cour)"->"aux fins d’obtenir des informations supplémentaires";
  "aux fins d’obtenir des informations supplémentaires"->"l’autorité centrale irlandaise";
  "aux fins d’obtenir des informations supplémentaires"->"la qualité d’« autorité judiciaire » de ce parquet, au regard notamment des arrêts du 10 novembre 2016, Poltorak, et du 10 novembre 2016, Özçelik, Özçelik"[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

OG se, u prilog toj tvrdnji, pozvao na pravno mišljenje njemačkog odvjetnika iz kojega proizlazi, osobito, da državno odvjetništvo u njemačkom pravu ne uživa autonoman ili neovisan položaj suda, nego je dio upravne hijerarhije kojom upravlja ministarstvo pravosuđa, slijedom čega postoji rizik političkog uplitanja u postupke predaje. Usto, državno odvjetništvo nije pravosudno tijelo ovlašteno određivati zadržavanje ili uhićenje, osim u iznimnim slučajevima. Takvu ovlast ima samo sudac ili sud. Državno odvjetništvo nadležno je izvršiti nacionalni uhidbeni nalog koji je izdao sudac ili sud, po potrebi, izdavanjem europskog uhidbenog naloga. Slijedom toga, u izdavanje europskog uhidbenog naloga protiv osobe OG nije bilo uključeno „pravosudno tijelo” u smislu članka 6. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2002/584.
U tim se okolnostima High Court (Visoki sud) putem središnjeg irskog tijela obratio Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku kako bi dobio dodatne informacije o dokazima koje je osoba OG podnijela u vezi sa svojstvom „pravosudnog tijela” tog državnog odvjetništva, osobito s obzirom na presude od 10. studenoga 2016., Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) i od 10. studenoga 2016., Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "središnje irsko tijelo"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Visoki sud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku"->"Visoki sud"[label="U prilog toj tvrdnji 08/12/2016"];
  "središnje irsko tijelo"->"Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku";
  "Visoki sud"->"obratio Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku kako bi dobio dodatne informacije";
  "obratio Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku kako bi dobio dodatne informacije"->"središnje irsko tijelo";
  "obratio Državnom odvjetništvu u Lübecku kako bi dobio dodatne informacije"->"Dodatne informacije o dokazima koje je osoba OG podnijela u vezi sa svojstvom „pravosudnog tijela” tog državnog odvjetništva, osobito s obzirom na presude od 10. studenoga 2016., Poltorak i od 10. studenoga 2016., Özçelik, Özçelik"[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

A sostegno di tale affermazione, OG si è basato su un parere giuridico redatto da un avvocato tedesco, da cui emergeva, in particolare, che, nel diritto tedesco, il pubblico ministero non beneficerebbe dello status autonomo o indipendente di un organo giurisdizionale, ma rientrerebbe in una gerarchia amministrativa diretta dal Ministro della Giustizia, ragion per cui esisterebbe un rischio di ingerenza politica nelle procedure di consegna. Inoltre, il pubblico ministero non sarebbe un’autorità giudiziaria competente a ordinare la detenzione o l’arresto di una persona, salvo casi eccezionali. Solo un giudice o un organo giurisdizionale disporrebbe di tale competenza. Il pubblico ministero, dal canto suo, sarebbe competente a eseguire un mandato d’arresto nazionale spiccato da un giudice o da un tribunale, eventualmente emettendo un mandato d’arresto europeo. Di conseguenza, nessuna «autorità giudiziaria», ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della decisione quadro 2002/584, sarebbe stata coinvolta nell’emissione del mandato d’arresto europeo nei confronti di OG.
In tali circostanze, la High Court (Alta Corte) si è rivolta alla procura di Lubecca, per il tramite dell’autorità centrale irlandese, al fine di ottenere maggiori informazioni sugli elementi dedotti da OG circa la qualità di «autorità giudiziaria» di tale procura, alla luce, in particolare, delle sentenze del 10 novembre 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) e del 10 novembre 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l’autorità centrale irlandese"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Alta Corte"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "procura di Lubecca"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "procura di Lubecca"->"Alta Corte"[label="Risposta 08/12/2016"];
  "l’autorità centrale irlandese"->"procura di Lubecca";
  "Alta Corte"->"ottenere maggiori informazioni";
  "ottenere maggiori informazioni"->"l’autorità centrale irlandese";
  "ottenere maggiori informazioni"->"Circa la qualità di «autorità giudiziaria» di tale procura, alla luce, in particolare, delle sentenze del 10 novembre 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) e del 10 novembre 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860)., Özçelik"[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

Šī apgalvojuma pamatojumam OG balstījās uz kāda Vācijas advokāta sagatavotu juridisko atzinumu, no kura tostarp izrietot, ka saskaņā ar Vācijas tiesībām prokuratūrai neesot autonoma vai neatkarīga statusa, kā tas ir tiesas gadījumā, bet tā ietilpstot administratīvajā hierarhijā, kuras augšgalā ir tieslietu ministrs, un tādējādi pastāvot politiskas iejaukšanās nodošanas procedūrās risks. Turklāt prokuratūra neesot tiesu iestāde, kuras kompetencē ir izdot rīkojumu par kādas personas aizturēšanu vai apcietināšanu, izņemot ārkārtējus gadījumus. Tikai tiesnesim vai tiesai esot šāda kompetence. Prokuratūrai turpretī esot kompetence izpildīt tiesneša vai tiesas pieņemtu valsts lēmumu par apcietinājuma piemērošanu, attiecīgā gadījumā izsniedzot Eiropas apcietināšanas orderi. Līdz ar to Eiropas apcietināšanas ordera attiecībā uz OG izsniegšanā neesot bijusi iesaistīta nekāda “tiesu iestāde” Pamatlēmuma 2002/584 6. panta 1. punkta izpratnē.
Šādos apstākļos High Court (Augstā tiesa) ar Īrijas centrālās iestādes starpniecību vērsās Lībekas prokuratūrā, lai saņemtu papildu informāciju par OG norādītajiem apstākļiem saistībā ar šīs prokuratūras “tiesu iestādes” statusu, tostarp ņemot vērā 2016. gada 10. novembra spriedumu Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) un 2016. gada 10. novembra spriedumu Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Īrijas centrālās iestādes"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "High Court (Augstā tiesa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Lībekas prokuratūrā"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Lībekas prokuratūrā"->"High Court (Augstā tiesa)"[label="Papildu informāciju 08/12/2016"];
  "Īrijas centrālās iestādes"->"Lībekas prokuratūrā";
  "High Court (Augstā tiesa)"->"saņemtu papildu informāciju";
  "saņemtu papildu informāciju"->"Īrijas centrālās iestādes";
  "saņemtu papildu informāciju"->"Šādos apstākļos High Court (Augstā tiesa) ar Īrijas centrālās iestādes starpniecību vērsās Lībekas prokuratūrā, lai saņemtu papildu informāciju par OG norādītajiem apstākļiem saistībā ar šīs prokuratūras “tiesu iestādes” statusu, tostarp ņemot vērā 2016. gada 10. novembra spriedumu Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) un 2016. gada 10. novembra spriedumu Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860)., Özçelik"[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

Grįsdamas šį teiginį OG rėmėsi Vokietijos advokato parengta teisine nuomone, kurioje, be kita ko, teigiama, kad pagal Vokietijos teisę prokuratūra neturi savarankiško ar nepriklausomo teismo statuso, ji priklauso teisingumo ministro vadovaujamai administracinei hierarchinei sistemai, todėl kyla politinio kišimosi į perdavimo procedūras rizika. Be to, prokuratūra nėra teisminė institucija, turinti įgaliojimus nurodyti sulaikyti ar suimti asmenį, išskyrus išskirtines aplinkybes. Tokią kompetenciją turi tik teisėjas arba teismas. Prokuratūra savo ruožtu kompetentinga vykdyti teisėjo arba teismo išduotą nacionalinį arešto orderį, jei reikia, išduodama Europos arešto orderį. Taigi „teisminė institucija“, kaip tai suprantama pagal Pagrindų sprendimo 2002/584 6 straipsnio 1 dalį, nedalyvavo išduodant Europos arešto orderį dėl OG.
Tokiomis aplinkybėmis High Court (Aukštasis teismas) per Airijos centrinę instituciją kreipėsi į Liubeko prokuratūrą su prašymu pateikti papildomos informacijos, susijusios su OG pateiktais duomenimis dėl šios prokuratūros kvalifikavimo kaip „teisminės institucijos“, be kita ko, atsižvelgiant į 2016 m. lapkričio 10 d. Sprendimą Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) ir 2016 m. lapkričio 10 d. Sprendimą Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Airijos centrinę instituciją"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Aukštasis teismas"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Liubeko prokuratūra"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Liubeko prokuratūra"->"Aukštasis teismas"[label="kreipėsi į Liubeko prokuratūrą su prašymu pateikti papildomos informacijos 08/12/2016"];
  "Airijos centrinę instituciją"->"Liubeko prokuratūra";
  "Aukštasis teismas"->"kreipėsi į Liubeko prokuratūrą su prašymu pateikti papildomos informacijos";
  "kreipėsi į Liubeko prokuratūrą su prašymu pateikti papildomos informacijos"->"Airijos centrinę instituciją";
  "kreipėsi į Liubeko prokuratūrą su prašymu pateikti papildomos informacijos"->"ar šios prokuratūros kvalifikavimo kaip „teisminės institucijos“, be kita ko, atsižvelgiant į 2016 m. lapkričio 10 d. Sprendimą Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) ir 2016 m. lapkričio 10 d. Sprendimą Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860)., Özçelik"[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

Ezen állítás alátámasztására OG egy német ügyvéd által elkészített jogi véleményre hivatkozik, amelyből kitűnik többek között, hogy a német jog szerint az ügyészség nem rendelkezik önálló vagy valamely bíróságtól független jogállással, hanem az igazságügyi miniszter által vezetett közigazgatási hierarchiába tartozik, ezért fennáll az átadási eljárások politikai befolyásolásának kockázata. Továbbá az ügyészség nem olyan igazságügyi hatóság, amelynek hatáskörébe tartozik valamely személy előzetes fogva tartásának vagy a letartóztatásának elrendelése, bizonyos kivételes helyzeteket leszámítva. Ilyen hatáskörrel kizárólag valamely bíró vagy bíróság rendelkezik. Az ügyészség a maga részéről a bíró vagy bíróság által kibocsátott nemzeti elfogatóparancs végrehajtásáért felel, adott esetben európai elfogatóparancs kibocsátása révén. Következésképpen az OG‑val szembeni elfogatóparancs kibocsátásában a 2002/584 kerethatározat 6. cikkének (1) bekezdése értelmében vett semmiféle „igazságügyi hatóság” nem működött közre.
Ilyen körülmények között a High Court (felsőbíróság) az ír központi hatóságon keresztül a lübecki ügyészséghez fordult annak érdekében, hogy további tájékoztatást kérjen az OG által előterjesztett információkkal kapcsolatban ezen ügyészség „igazságügyi hatóság” minőségét illetően, különös tekintettel a 2016. november 10‑iPoltorak ítéletre (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) és a 2016. november 10‑iÖzçelik ítéletre (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "ír központi hatóság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "High Court (felsőbíróság)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "lübecki ügyészség"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "lübecki ügyészség"->"High Court (felsőbíróság)"[label="Válasz 08/12/2016"];
  "ír központi hatóság"->"lübecki ügyészség";
  "High Court (felsőbíróság)"->"további tájékoztatást kérjen";
  "további tájékoztatást kérjen"->"ír központi hatóság";
  "további tájékoztatást kérjen"->"ezen ügyészség „igazságügyi hatóság” minőségét illetően, különös tekintettel a 2016. november 10‑iPoltorak ítéletre (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858) és a 2016. november 10‑iÖzçelik ítéletre (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860), Özçelik"[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

Insostenn ta’ din l-allegazzjoni, OG ibbaża ruħu fuq parir legali mħejji minn avukat Ġermaniż, li minnu rriżulta, b’mod partikolari, li, taħt il-liġi Ġermaniża, l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ma jgawdix mill-istatus awtonomu jew indipendenti ta’ qorti, iżda jaqa’ taħt ġerarkija amministrattiva mmexxija mill-Ministru għall-Ġustizzja, b’tali mod li hemm riskju ta’ ndħil politiku fil-proċeduri ta’ konsenja. Barra minn hekk, l-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ma huwiex awtorità ġudizzjarja bis-setgħa li tordna d-detenzjoni jew l-arrest ta’ persuna, għajr f’każijiet eċċezzjonali. Imħallef jew qorti biss għandhom din il-kompetenza. L-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur, min-naħa tiegħu, huwa kompetenti li jeżegwixxi mandat ta’ arrest nazzjonali maħruġ minn imħallef jew qorti, jekk meħtieġ, billi joħroġ mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew. Għalhekk, l-ebda “awtorità ġudizzjarja” fis-sens tal-Artikolu 6(1) tad-Deċiżjoni Qafas 2002/584, ma kienet involuta fil-ħruġ tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew kontra OG.
F’dawk iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-High Court (il-Qorti Għolja) indirizzat lill-Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Lübeck, permezz tal-Awtorità Ċentrali Irlandiża, sabiex jikseb informazzjoni addizzjonali relatata mal-provi mressqa minn OG fir-rigward tal-kwalità ta’ “awtorità ġudizzjarja” ta’ dik il-prosekuzzjoni, b’mod partikolari fid-dawl tas-sentenzi tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), u tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l-Awtorità Ċentrali Irlandiża"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-High Court (il-Qorti Għolja)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Lübeck"->"il-High Court (il-Qorti Għolja)"[label="Informazzjoni addizzjonali 08/12/2016"];
  "l-Awtorità Ċentrali Irlandiża"->"Uffiċċju tal-Prosekutur ta’ Lübeck";
  "il-High Court (il-Qorti Għolja)"->"jikseb informazzjoni";
  "jikseb informazzjoni"->"l-Awtorità Ċentrali Irlandiża";
  "jikseb informazzjoni"->"kwalità ta’ “awtorità ġudizzjarja” ta’ dik il-prosekuzzjoni, b’mod partikolari fid-dawl tas-sentenzi tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2016, Poltorak, u tal-10 ta’ Novembru 2016, Özçelik, Özçelik"[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

Tot staving van deze stelling heeft OG zich gebaseerd op een juridisch advies van een Duitse advocaat waaruit met name bleek dat het openbaar ministerie naar Duits recht niet de autonome of onafhankelijke status heeft van een rechterlijke instantie maar deel uitmaakt van een door de minister van Justitie geleide administratieve hiërarchie, zodat er een risico is van politieke inmenging in de overleveringsprocedures. Bovendien is het openbaar ministerie volgens hem geen rechterlijke autoriteit die bevoegd is om de hechtenis of de aanhouding van een persoon te gelasten, behoudens in uitzonderlijke gevallen. Alleen een rechter of een rechterlijke instantie heeft deze bevoegdheid. Het openbaar ministerie is bevoegd voor de tenuitvoerlegging van een door een rechter of een rechterlijke instantie uitgevaardigd nationaal aanhoudingsbevel, in voorkomend geval door een Europees aanhoudingsbevel uit te vaardigen. Bijgevolg is geen enkele „rechterlijke autoriteit” in de zin van artikel 6, lid 1, van kaderbesluit 2002/584 betrokken geweest bij het uitvaardigen van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel tegen OG.
In die omstandigheden heeft de High Court zich via de Ierse centrale autoriteit tot het openbaar ministerie van Lübeck gewend teneinde aanvullende informatie te ontvangen over de door OG verstrekte gegevens met betrekking tot de hoedanigheid van „rechterlijke autoriteit” van dit openbaar ministerie, met name in het licht van de arresten van 10 november 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), en 10 november 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "de Ierse centrale autoriteit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "de High Court"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "het openbaar ministerie van Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "het openbaar ministerie van Lübeck"->"de High Court"[label="Antwoord 08/12/2016"];
  "de Ierse centrale autoriteit"->"het openbaar ministerie van Lübeck";
  "de High Court"->"aanvullende informatie te ontvangen";
  "aanvullende informatie te ontvangen"->"de Ierse centrale autoriteit";
  "aanvullende informatie te ontvangen"->"de hoedanigheid van „rechterlijke autoriteit” van dit openbaar ministerie, met name in het licht van de arresten van 10 november 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), en 10 november 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860)., Özçelik"[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

În susținerea acestei afirmații, OG s‑a întemeiat pe un aviz juridic redactat de un avocat german, din care reieșea printre altele că, în dreptul german, Ministerul Public nu ar beneficia de statutul autonom sau independent al unei instanțe, ci ar face parte dintr‑o ierarhie administrativă condusă de ministrul justiției, astfel încât ar exista un risc de ingerințe politice în procedurile de predare. În plus, Ministerul Public nu ar fi o autoritate judiciară cu competența de a dispune detenția sau arestarea unei persoane, cu excepția unor cazuri extraordinare. Doar un judecător sau o instanță ar dispune de această competență. În ceea ce privește Ministerul Public, el ar fi competent să execute un mandat de arestare național emis de un judecător sau de o instanță, dacă este cazul, prin emiterea unui mandat european de arestare. În consecință, nicio „autoritate judiciară” în sensul articolului 6 alineatul (1) din Decizia‑cadru 2002/584 nu ar fi fost implicată în emiterea mandatului european de arestare împotriva lui OG.
În aceste condiții, High Court (Înalta Curte) s‑a adresat Parchetului din Lübeck, prin intermediul autorității centrale irlandeze, pentru a obține informații suplimentare referitoare la elementele prezentate de OG în ceea ce privește calitatea de „autoritate judiciară” a acestui parchet, în special având în vedere Hotărârea din 10 noiembrie 2016, Poltorak (C‑452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858), și Hotărârea din 10 noiembrie 2016, Özçelik (C‑453/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:860).

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "autorității centrale irlandeze"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Înalta Curte"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Parchetului din Lübeck"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Parchetului din Lübeck"->"Înalta Curte"[label="Răspuns 08/12/2016"];
  "autorității centrale irlandeze"->"Parchetului din Lübeck";
  "Înalta Curte"->"pentru a obține informații";
  "pentru a obține informații"->"autorității centrale irlandeze";
  "pentru a obține informații"->"calitatea de „autoritate judiciară” a acestui parchet, în special având în vedere Hotărârea din 10 noiembrie 2016, Poltorak, și Hotărârea din 10 noiembrie 2016, Özçelik"[dir=none];
}