Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2019.
TC.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping a person in detention — Article 17 — Time limits for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant — National legislation providing for automatic suspension of detention 90 days after arrest — Interpretation in conformity with EU law — Suspension of time limits — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Differing interpretations of national legislation — Clarity and predictability.
Case C-492/18 PPU. (2019)
Language: English

TC applied for his detention to be suspended as from 4 July 2018, that being the date on which 90 days had elapsed since his arrest.
The referring court states that, under Article 22(4) of the OLW, it must, in principle, suspend the detention pending surrender of the requested person once the period of 90 days for adopting a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired. In adopting that provision, the Netherlands legislature proceeded on the basis that Framework Decision 2002/584 imposes such a suspension.
However, the referring court notes that it is apparent from the judgment of 16 July 2015, Lanigan (C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474), that that premiss is incorrect and does not sufficiently take into account the obligations, under EU primary law, of the court seised of an application for execution of a European arrest warrant, including in particular the obligation, as a court of last instance in that type of case, to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, if the reply to that question is necessary for its decision, and to stay the proceedings with regard to surrender if there is a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing Member State, within the meaning of the judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198).
Therefore, the referring court indicates that it has developed case-law which enables it to interpret Article 22(4) of the OLW in conformity both with Framework Decision 2002/584 and with the OLW, in that proceedings with regard to surrender are to be stayed in the circumstances referred to in the previous paragraph. That interpretation does not mean that Article 22(4) of the OLW is disapplied, given that the period for ruling on the surrender is suspended.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"It has an obligation to stay the proceedings with regard to surrender if there is a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing Member State.";
   "It has an obligation to stay the proceedings with regard to surrender if there is a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing Member State."->"TC";
   "It has an obligation to stay the proceedings with regard to surrender if there is a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the issuing Member State." ->"Interpret Article 22(4) of the OLW in conformity both with Framework Decision 2002/584 and with the OLW"[dir=none];
   "TC"->"Applied to suspend his detention from 04/07/2018";
   "Applied to suspend his detention from 04/07/2018"->"The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)";
   "Applied to suspend his detention from 04/07/2018"->"On 04/07/2018, 90 days had elapsed since his arrest.";
}