mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
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: Swedish

Den hänskjutande domstolen, Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam, Nederländerna), prövade den europeiska arresteringsordern vid en förhandling den 31 maj 2018. Efter förhandlingen beslutade Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam) att TC skulle vara fortsatt frihetsberövad och förlängde fristen för att verkställa den aktuella europeiska arresteringsordern med 30 dagar. Genom beslut av den 14 juni 2018 förordnade den domstolen att det skulle hållas ny förhandling och att ärendet skulle vilandeförklaras i avvaktan på EU-domstolens svar på den begäran om förhandsavgörande som hade framställts den 17 maj 2018 i det mål som sedermera kom att avgöras genom domen av den 19 september 2018, RO (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:733). Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam) preciserade att tidsfristen för att besluta om verkställighet skulle avbrytas och inte längre löpa från och med den 14 juni 2018 till dess att dom hade meddelats i målet RO.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam, Nederländerna))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "EU-domstolens"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam, Nederländerna))"->"beslut av den 14 juni 2018 14/06/2018";
  "beslut av den 14 juni 2018 14/06/2018"->"TC";
  "beslut av den 14 juni 2018 14/06/2018"->"tidsfristen för att besluta om verkställighet skulle avbrytas och inte längre löpa från och med den 14 juni 2018 till dess att dom hade meddelats."[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Rechtbank Amsterdam (Domstolen i Amsterdam, Nederländerna))"->"EU-domstolens"[label="begäran om förhandsavgörande som hade framställts den 17/05/2018"];
}
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, the subject of the European arrest warrant at issue, is a British national living in Spain who is suspected of having been involved, as a senior member of an organised crime group, in the importation, supply and sale of hard drugs, including 300 kg of cocaine. Under United Kingdom law, the maximum sentence for that offence is life imprisonment.
TC was arrested in the Netherlands on 4 April 2018. The 60-day period for adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant at issue, provided for in Article 22(1) of the OLW and in Article 17(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, started to run from that date.
The referring court, the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands), examined the European arrest warrant at issue at the hearing on 31 May 2018. At the end of that hearing, it ordered that TC be kept in detention and extended the time limit for taking a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant at issue by 30 days. By interim decision of 14 June 2018, the referring court reopened the investigation, stayed the proceedings pending the reply by the Court of Justice to the request for a preliminary ruling made on 17 May 2018 in the case that has since resulted in the judgment of 19 September 2018, RO (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:733), and stated that the decision period was to be suspended from 14 June 2018 until delivery of the judgment in that case.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"Interim decision 14/06/2018";
   "Interim decision 14/06/2018"->"TC";
   "Interim decision 14/06/2018"->"The decision period was to be suspended from 14/06/2018 until delivery of the judgment."[dir=none];
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"Court of Justice"[label="Request for a preliminary ruling made on 17/05/2018"];

   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"Hearing 31/05/2018";
   "Hearing 31/05/2018"->"TC";
   "Hearing 31/05/2018"->"Extended the time limit for taking a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant at issue by 30 days."[dir=none];
}
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: Estonian

TC, kelle suhtes on kõnealune vahistamismäärus tehtud, on Hispaanias elav Briti kodanik, keda kahtlustatakse selles, et ta osales organiseeritud kuritegeliku ühenduse prominentse liikmena tugeva toimega narkootikumide (sealhulgas 300 kilogrammi kokaiini) importimises, laialiveos ja müügis. Selle teo eest Ühendkuningriigi õiguses ette nähtud maksimaalne karistus on eluaegne vangistus.
TC vahistati Madalmaades 4. aprillil 2018. OLW artikli 22 lõikes 1 ja raamotsuse 2002/584 artikli 17 lõikes 3 ette nähtud 60‑päevane kõnealuse Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmise otsuse tegemise tähtaeg hakkas kulgema sellest kuupäevast.
Eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus, Madalmaad) vaatas kõnealuse Euroopa vahistamismääruse läbi 31. mail 2018 toimunud istungil. Selle tulemusel tegi ta määruse TC vahi alla jätmiseks ja pikendas kõnealuse Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmisotsuse tegemise tähtaega 30 päeva võrra. 14. juuni 2018. aasta vaheotsusega uuendas rechtbank (kohus) kohtuliku arutamise ja peatas menetluse, et oodata ära Euroopa Kohtu vastus 17. mail 2018 esitatud eelotsusetaotlusele – kohtuasjas, milles vahepeal on tehtud 19. septembri 2018. aasta kohtuotsus RO (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:733) –, ning täpsustas, et otsuse tegemise tähtaeg on alates 14. juunist 2018 kuni selle kohtuotsuse kuulutamiseni peatatud.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus, Madalmaad)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Euroopa Kohut"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus, Madalmaad)"->"14. juuni 2018. aasta vaheotsusega 14/06/2018";
  "14. juuni 2018. aasta vaheotsusega 14/06/2018"->"TC";
  "14. juuni 2018. aasta vaheotsusega 14/06/2018"->"otsuse tegemise tähtaeg on alates 14. juunist 2018 kuni selle kohtuotsuse kuulutamiseni peatatud.."[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus, Madalmaad)"->"Euroopa Kohut"[label="17. mail 2018 esitatud eelotsusetaotlusele 17/05/2018"];

  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus, Madalmaad)"->"kohtuliku arutamise 31/05/2018";
  "kohtuliku arutamise 31/05/2018"->"TC";
  "kohtuliku arutamise 31/05/2018"->"pikendas kõnealuse Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmisotsuse tegemise tähtaega 30 päeva võrra.."[dir=none];
}
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: Croatian

TC, protiv kojeg je izdan predmetni europski uhidbeni nalog, britanski je državljanin s prebivalištem u Španjolskoj koji je osumnjičen da je kao vrlo važan član zločinačkog udruženja sudjelovao u uvozu, distribuciji i prodaji teških droga, uključujući 300 kg kokaina. Za to je kazneno djelo maksimalna kazna predviđena pravom Ujedinjene Kraljevine doživotni zatvor.
TC je uhićen u Nizozemskoj 4. travnja 2018. Rok od šezdeset dana za donošenje odluke o izvršenju predmetnog europskog uhidbenog naloga, propisan člankom 22. stavkom 1. OLW‑a i člankom 17. stavkom 3. Okvirne odluke 2002/584, počeo je teći tog dana.
Sud koji je uputio zahtjev, rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu, Nizozemska), ispitao je predmetni europski uhidbeni nalog na raspravi održanoj 31. svibnja 2018. Na kraju rasprave naložio je zadržavanje osobe TC i produljio rok za donošenje odluke o izvršenju predmetnog europskog uhidbenog naloga za trideset dana. Međuodlukom od 14. lipnja 2018. taj je sud preotvorio raspravu te je prekinuo postupak do odgovora Suda na zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 17. svibnja 2018. upućen u predmetu u kojem je u međuvremenu donesena presuda od 19. rujna 2018., RO (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:733), te je pobliže izjavio da rok za donošenje odluke prestaje teći od 14. lipnja 2018. do objave potonje presude.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Suda"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"Međuodlukom 14/06/2018";
  "Međuodlukom 14/06/2018"->"TC";
  "Međuodlukom 14/06/2018"->"rok za donošenje odluke prestaje teći od 14. lipnja 2018. do objave potonje presude.."[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"Suda"[label="zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je 17. svibnja 2018. upućen 17/05/2018"];

  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"rasprava 31/05/2018";
  "rasprava 31/05/2018"->"TC";
  "rasprava 31/05/2018"->"Produljio rok za donošenje odluke o izvršenju predmetnog europskog uhidbenog naloga za trideset dana.."[dir=none];
}
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: Slovenian

TC, zoper katerega je bil izdan zadevni evropski nalog za prijetje, je britanski državljan s prebivališčem v Španiji, ki je osumljen, da je kot eden od vodilnih v kriminalni organizaciji sodeloval pri uvozu, distribuciji in prodaji trdih drog, med drugim 300 kilogramov kokaina. Za to kaznivo dejanje je najvišja zagrožena kazen po pravu Združenega kraljestva kazen dosmrtnega zapora.
TC je bil 4. aprila 2018 prijet na Nizozemskem. Tega dne je začel teči 60-dnevni rok za sprejetje odločitve o izvršitvi zadevnega evropskega naloga za prijetje iz člena 22(1) OLW in člena 17(3) Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584.
Predložitveno sodišče, rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu, Nizozemska) je na obravnavi 31. maja 2018 preučilo zadevni evropski nalog za prijetje. Po koncu te obravnave je odredilo pridržanje TC v priporu in rok za sprejetje odločitve o izvršitvi zadevnega evropskega naloga za prijetje podaljšalo za 30 dni. To sodišče je z vmesnim sklepom z dne 14. junija 2018 ponovno odprlo ustni postopek in ga prekinilo do odgovora Sodišča na vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, ki je bilo predloženo 17. maja 2018 v zadevi, v kateri je bila medtem izdana sodna z dne 19. septembra 2018, RO (C‑327/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:733), ter pojasnilo, da je bil rok za sprejetje odločitve od 14. junija 2018 odložen do izreka zadnjenavedene sodbe.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "TC"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sodišča"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"vmesnim sklepom 14/06/2018";
  "vmesnim sklepom 14/06/2018"->"TC";
  "vmesnim sklepom 14/06/2018"->"da je bil rok za sprejetje odločitve od 14. junija 2018 odložen do izreka zadnjenavedene sodbe.."[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"Sodišča"[label="zahtevo za predhodno odločanje, ki je bilo predloženo 17. maja 2018 17/05/2018"];

  "rechtbank Amsterdam (sodišče v Amsterdamu, Nizozemska)"->"obravnavi 31/05/2018";
  "obravnavi 31/05/2018"->"TC";
  "obravnavi 31/05/2018"->"in rok za sprejetje odločitve o izvršitvi zadevnega evropskega naloga za prijetje podaljšalo za 30 dni.."[dir=none];
}
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

In those circumstances, the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘In a case in which:
–the executing Member State has transposed Article 17 of [Framework Decision 2002/584] in such a way that the detention pending surrender of the requested person must in all cases be suspended once the 90-day period for taking a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant has expired and
–the courts of that Member State have interpreted domestic law as meaning that the decision period is suspended as soon as the executing judicial authority decides to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling or to await the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling by another executing judicial authority or to postpone the decision on surrender owing to a real danger of inhuman or degrading detention conditions in the issuing Member State,
does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the [Charter]?’

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "Court of Justice"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"Stay the proceedings"[dir=none];
   "The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)"->"Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"Court of Justice";
   "Question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling"->"Does the maintenance of the detention pending surrender of a requested person who represents a flight risk once that detention has continued for more than 90 days after that person’s arrest contravene Article 6 of the [Charter]?";
}
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: Bulgarian

При тези условия Rechtbank Amsterdam (Първоинстанционен съд Амстердам) решава да спре производството и да отправи до Съда следния преюдициален въпрос:
„Нарушава ли член 6 от [Хартата] продължаването на задържането за целите на предаването на издирвано лице, което има опасност да се укрие, за срок, който превишава 90-те дни, считано от задържането на това лице, когато:
–изпълняващата държава членка е транспонирала член 17 от [Рамково решение 2002/584] в смисъл, че задържане за целите на предаването на издирваното лице трябва винаги да бъде преустановено, когато срокът от 90 дни, определен за постановяване на окончателно решение с предмет изпълнение на европейската заповед за арест, е бил превишен, и когато
–съдебните органи на тази държава членка са тълкували националното законодателство в смисъл, че срокът за постановяване на решението се спира, когато изпълняващият съдебен орган реши да отправи преюдициално запитване до Съда на Европейския съюз или да изчака отговора на преюдициално запитване, отправено от друг изпълняващ съдебен орган, или пък да отложи решението за предаване поради реална опасност от нечовешки или унизителни условия на задържане на издирваното лице в издаващата държава членка?“.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Първоинстанционен съд Амстердам)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Съда"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Първоинстанционен съд Амстердам)"->"спре производството"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Първоинстанционен съд Амстердам)"->"преюдициален въпрос";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"Съда";
  "преюдициален въпрос"->"на Европейския съюз или да изчака отговора на преюдициално запитване, отправено от друг изпълняващ съдебен орган, или пък да отложи решението за предаване поради реална опасност от нечовешки или унизителни условия на задържане на издирваното лице в издаващата държава членка?";
}
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: Spanish

En estas circunstancias, el rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primera Instancia de Ámsterdam) decidió suspender el procedimiento y plantear al Tribunal de Justicia la cuestión prejudicial siguiente:
«¿Es contrario al artículo 6 de la [Carta] el mantenimiento de la detención a efectos de la entrega de una persona reclamada que presenta riesgo de fuga, durante un período superior a noventa días contados a partir de su detención, si:
–el Estado miembro de ejecución ha transpuesto el artículo 17 de la Decisión Marco 2002/584/JAI en el sentido de que la detención a efectos de la entrega de la persona reclamada debe suspenderse siempre a partir del momento en que haya expirado el plazo de 90 días establecido para adoptar una decisión definitiva sobre la ejecución de la orden de detención europea, y
–las autoridades judiciales de dicho Estado miembro han interpretado la legislación nacional en el sentido de que el plazo para resolver queda suspendido a partir del momento en que la autoridad judicial de ejecución decide plantear al Tribunal de Justicia una petición de decisión prejudicial o bien esperar a la respuesta a una petición de decisión prejudicial formulada por otra autoridad judicial de ejecución, o incluso aplazar la decisión sobre la entrega en virtud de un riesgo real de condiciones de detención inhumanas o degradantes en el Estado miembro de emisión?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primera Instancia de Ámsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justicia"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primera Instancia de Ámsterdam)"->"suspender el procedimiento"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunal de Primera Instancia de Ámsterdam)"->"la cuestión prejudicial siguiente";
  "la cuestión prejudicial siguiente"->"Tribunal de Justicia";
  "la cuestión prejudicial siguiente"->"una petición de decisión prejudicial o bien esperar a la respuesta a una petición de decisión prejudicial formulada por otra autoridad judicial de ejecución, o incluso aplazar la decisión sobre la entrega en virtud de un riesgo real de condiciones de detención inhumanas o degradantes en el Estado miembro de emisión?";
}
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: Czech

Za těchto okolností se rechtbank Amsterdam (soud prvního stupně v Amsterodamu) rozhodl přerušit řízení a položit Soudnímu dvoru následující předběžnou otázku:
„Je ponechání vyžádané osoby, u níž existuje nebezpečí útěku, ve vazbě za účelem předání po dobu přesahující 90 dní od jejího zatčení v rozporu s článkem 6 [Listiny], pokud:
–vykonávající členský stát provedl článek 17 [rámcového rozhodnutí 2002/584] v tom smyslu, že výkon vazby za účelem předání vyžádané osoby musí být přerušen vždy, když dojde k překročení lhůty 90 dní stanovené pro přijetí pravomocného rozhodnutí o výkonu evropského zatýkacího rozkazu, a
–justiční orgány tohoto členského státu vyložily vnitrostátní právní předpis v tom smyslu, že běh lhůty pro rozhodnutí se staví v okamžiku, kdy se vykonávající justiční orgán rozhodne předložit Soudnímu dvoru Evropské unie žádost o rozhodnutí o předběžné otázce nebo vyčkat na odpověď na předběžnou otázku položenou jiným vykonávajícím justičním orgánem nebo přijetí rozhodnutí o předání odložit z důvodu skutečného nebezpečí, že výkon vazby bude ve vystavujícím členském státě probíhat za nelidských nebo ponižujících podmínek?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (soud prvního stupně v Amsterodamu))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Soudnímu dvoru"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (soud prvního stupně v Amsterodamu))"->"přerušit řízení"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (soud prvního stupně v Amsterodamu))"->"předběžnou otázku Soudnímu dvoru";
  "předběžnou otázku Soudnímu dvoru"->"Soudnímu dvoru";
  "předběžnou otázku Soudnímu dvoru"->"otázce nebo vyčkat na odpověď na předběžnou otázku položenou jiným vykonávajícím justičním orgánem nebo přijetí rozhodnutí o předání odložit z důvodu skutečného nebezpečí, že výkon vazby bude ve vystavujícím členském státě probíhat za nelidských nebo ponižujících podmínek?";
}
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: Danish

På denne baggrund har rechtbank Amsterdam (retten i første instans i Amsterdam) besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge Domstolen følgende præjudicielle spørgsmål:
»Såfremt
–den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat har gennemført artikel 17 i rammeafgørelse [2002/584] på en sådan måde, at varetægtsfængslingen i udleveringsøjemed af den eftersøgte person altid skal suspenderes, når fristen på 90 dage for at træffe endelig afgørelse om fuldbyrdelse af den europæiske arrestordre overskrides, og
–de judicielle myndigheder i denne medlemsstat har fortolket national ret således, at fristen for at træffe afgørelse udsættes, når den fuldbyrdende judicielle myndighed har besluttet at stille et præjudicielt spørgsmål til Domstolen eller at afvente besvarelsen af et præjudicielt spørgsmål stillet af en anden fuldbyrdende judiciel myndighed eller at udsætte afgørelsen om overgivelse på grund af en reel fare for umenneskelige eller nedværdigende fængselsforhold i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat,
er fortsat varetægtsfængsling af den eftersøgte på grund af [flugtrisiko], når denne fængsling har varet mere end 90 dage efter anholdelsen af den eftersøgte person, da i strid med [chartrets] artikel 6 […]?«

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (retten i første instans i Amsterdam))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (retten i første instans i Amsterdam))"->"udsætte sagen"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (retten i første instans i Amsterdam))"->"præjudicielle spørgsmål til Domstolen";
  "præjudicielle spørgsmål til Domstolen"->"Domstolen";
  "præjudicielle spørgsmål til Domstolen"->"af et præjudicielt spørgsmål stillet af en anden fuldbyrdende judiciel myndighed eller at udsætte afgørelsen om overgivelse på grund af en reel fare for umenneskelige eller nedværdigende fængselsforhold i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat,
er fortsat varetægtsfængsling af den eftersøgte på grund af [flugtrisiko], når denne fængsling har varet mere end 90 dage efter anholdelsen af den eftersøgte person, da i strid med [chartrets] artikel 6 […]?";
}
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: German

Selles olukorras otsustas rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus) menetluse peatada ja esitada Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse:
„Kas nõutava isiku, kelle puhul esineb põgenemisoht, üleandmisvahistuses pidamine kauem kui 90 päeva alates selle isiku vahistamisest on vastuolus [harta] artikliga 6, kui:
-vahistamismäärust täitev liikmesriik on [raamotsuse 2002/584] artikli 17 üle võtnud nii, et nõutava isiku üleandmisvahistus tuleb alati peatada kohe, kui Euroopa vahistamismääruse täitmise kohta lõpliku otsuse tegemiseks antud 90‑päevane tähtaeg on möödas, ja kui
–selle liikmesriigi õigusasutused on tõlgendanud riigisiseseid õigusakte nii, et otsuse tegemise tähtaeg peatatakse kohe, kui vahistamismäärust täitev õigusasutus otsustab esitada Euroopa Liidu Kohtule eelotsusetaotluse või oodata ära vastuse teise vahistamismäärust täitva õigusasutuse esitatud eelotsusetaotlusele või lükata üleandmise kohta otsuse tegemine edasi, kuna vahistamismääruse teinud liikmesriigis esineb tegelik oht, et vahistamistingimused on ebainimlikud või alandavad?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Euroopa Kohtule"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus))"->"menetluse peatada"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdami esimese astme kohus))"->"Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse";
  "Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse"->"Euroopa Kohtule";
  "Euroopa Kohtule järgmise eelotsuse küsimuse"->"vahistamismäärust täitva õigusasutuse esitatud eelotsusetaotlusele või lükata üleandmise kohta otsuse tegemine edasi, kuna vahistamismääruse teinud liikmesriigis esineb tegelik oht, et vahistamistingimused on ebainimlikud või alandavad?";
}
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: Estonian

Steht in einem Fall, in dem
–der Vollstreckungsmitgliedstaat Art. 17 des Rahmenbeschlusses 2002/584 so umgesetzt hat, dass die Übergabehaft der gesuchten Person stets ausgesetzt werden muss, sobald die Frist von 90 Tagen für den Erlass der endgültigen Entscheidung über die Vollstreckung des Europäischen Haftbefehls abgelaufen ist, und
-die Gerichte dieses Mitgliedstaats das nationale Recht so ausgelegt haben, dass die Entscheidungsfrist ausgesetzt wird, sobald die vollstreckende Justizbehörde beschlossen hat, dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union eine Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen oder die Beantwortung einer von einer anderen vollstreckenden Justizbehörde zur Vorabentscheidung vorgelegten Frage abzuwarten bzw. die Übergabeentscheidung wegen des Bestehens einer echten Gefahr unmenschlicher oder erniedrigender Haftbedingungen im Ausstellungsmitgliedstaat aufzuschieben,
die Aufrechterhaltung der Übergabehaft einer gesuchten Person, bei der Fluchtgefahr vorliegt, im Widerspruch zu Art. 6 der Charta, sobald die Übergabehaft mehr als 90 Tage nach der Festnahme der gesuchten Person dauert?

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Ringkonnakohus, Amsterdam, Madalmaad)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Ringkonnakohus, Amsterdam, Madalmaad)"->"die Aufrechterhaltung der Übergabehaft einer gesuchten Person, bei der Fluchtgefahr vorliegt, im Widerspruch zu Art. 6 der Charta, sobald die Übergabehaft mehr als 90 Tage nach der Festnahme der gesuchten Person dauert"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Ringkonnakohus, Amsterdam, Madalmaad)"->"eine Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen";
  "eine Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen"->"Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union";
  "eine Frage zur Vorabentscheidung vorzulegen"->"die Aufrechterhaltung der Übergabehaft einer gesuchten Person, bei der Fluchtgefahr vorliegt, im Widerspruch zu Art. 6 der Charta, sobald die Übergabehaft mehr als 90 Tage nach der Festnahme der gesuchten Person dauert?";
}
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: Greek

Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, το Rechtbank Amsterdam (πρωτοδικείο Άμστερνταμ) αποφάσισε να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία και να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο το ακόλουθο προδικαστικό ερώτημα:
«Αντιβαίνει στο άρθρο 6 του [Χάρτη] η συνέχιση της κρατήσεως εκζητούμενου προσώπου το οποίο είναι ύποπτο διαφυγής, όταν η διάρκεια της κρατήσεώς του υπερβαίνει τις 90 ημέρες από τη σύλληψή του, σε περίπτωση που:
–το κράτος μέλος εκτελέσεως μετέφερε το άρθρο 17 της [αποφάσεως πλαισίου 2002/584] στο εσωτερικό του δίκαιο υπό την έννοια ότι η κράτηση του εκζητούμενου προσώπου πρέπει να αναστέλλεται πάντα μετά την παρέλευση της προθεσμίας των 90 ημερών για την έκδοση οριστικής αποφάσεως σχετικά με την εκτέλεση του ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεως και
–οι δικαστικές αρχές αυτού του κράτους μέλους ερμήνευσαν το εθνικό δίκαιο υπό την έννοια ότι η προθεσμία για την έκδοση αποφάσεως αναστέλλεται μόλις η δικαστική αρχή εκτελέσεως αποφασίσει να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο προδικαστικό ερώτημα ή να αναμείνει την απάντηση σε προδικαστικό ερώτημα που υποβλήθηκε από άλλη δικαστική αρχή εκτελέσεως ή να αναβάλει την έκδοση αποφάσεως για την παράδοση λόγω πραγματικού κινδύνου απάνθρωπων ή εξευτελιστικών συνθηκών κρατήσεως στο κράτος μέλος εκδόσεως του εντάλματος;»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (πρωτοδικείο Άμστερνταμ)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (πρωτοδικείο Άμστερνταμ)"->"να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (πρωτοδικείο Άμστερνταμ)"->"προδικαστικό ερώτημα";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Δικαστήριο";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"αναμείνει την απάντηση σε προδικαστικό ερώτημα που υποβλήθηκε από άλλη δικαστική αρχή εκτελέσεως ή να αναβάλει την έκδοση αποφάσεως για την παράδοση λόγω πραγματικού κινδύνου απάνθρωπων ή εξευτελιστικών συνθηκών κρατήσεως στο κράτος μέλος εκδόσεως του εντάλματος;";
}
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: French

Dans ces circonstances, le rechtbank Amsterdam (tribunal d’Amsterdam) a décidé de surseoir à statuer et de soumettre à la Cour la question préjudicielle suivante :
« Le maintien de la détention en vue de la remise d’une personne réclamée qui présente un risque de fuite, pour une durée qui dépasse les 90 jours à compter de l’arrestation de cette personne, est-il contraire à l’article 6 de la [Charte], lorsque :
–l’État membre d’exécution a transposé l’article 17 de la [décision-cadre 2002/584] en ce sens que la détention en vue de la remise de la personne réclamée doit toujours être suspendue dès que le délai de 90 jours imparti pour adopter une décision définitive au sujet de l’exécution du mandat d’arrêt européen est dépassé, et que
–les autorités judiciaires de cet État membre ont interprété la législation nationale en ce sens que le délai de décision est suspendu dès que l’autorité judiciaire d’exécution décide de saisir la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne d’une demande de décision préjudicielle ou d’attendre la réponse à une demande de décision préjudicielle formée par une autre autorité judiciaire d’exécution, ou encore de reporter la décision sur la remise en raison d’un risque réel de conditions de détention inhumaines ou dégradantes dans l’État membre d’émission ? »

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (tribunal d’Amsterdam))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (tribunal d’Amsterdam))"->"surseoir à statuer"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (rechtbank Amsterdam (tribunal d’Amsterdam))"->"la question préjudicielle suivante à la Cour";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante à la Cour"->"la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante à la Cour"->"préjudicielle ou d’attendre la réponse à une demande de décision préjudicielle formée par une autre autorité judiciaire d’exécution, ou encore de reporter la décision sur la remise en raison d’un risque réel de conditions de détention inhumaines ou dégradantes dans l’État membre d’émission ?";
}
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: Croatian

U tim je okolnostima rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu) odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:
„Je li zadržavanje radi predaje tražene osobe za koju postoji opasnost od bijega, u trajanju duljem od 90 dana od njezina uhićenja, protivno članku 6. [Povelje], ako:
–je država članica izvršenja prenijela članak 17. Okvirne odluke [2002/584] na način da zadržavanje radi predaje tražene osobe uvijek treba ukinuti čim je prekoračen rok od 90 dana predviđen za donošenje konačne odluke o izvršenju europskog uhidbenog naloga, i ako
–su pravosudna tijela te države članice protumačila nacionalno zakonodavstvo na način da rok za donošenje odluke prestaje teći čim pravosudno tijelo izvršenja odluči uputiti Sudu Europske unije zahtjev za prethodnu odluku ili pričekati odgovor na zahtjev za prethodnu odluku koji je podnijelo drugo pravosudno tijelo izvršenja ili pak odgoditi odluku o predaji zbog stvarne opasnosti od nečovječnih ili ponižavajućih uvjeta zadržavanja u državi članici izdavateljici?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sud Europske unije"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu)"->"prekinuti postupak"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Sud u Amsterdamu)"->"zahtjev za prethodnu odluku";
  "zahtjev za prethodnu odluku"->"Sud Europske unije";
  "zahtjev za prethodnu odluku"->"za prethodnu odluku koji je podnijelo drugo pravosudno tijelo izvršenja ili pak odgoditi odluku o predaji zbog stvarne opasnosti od nečovječnih ili ponižavajućih uvjeta zadržavanja u državi članici izdavateljici?";
}
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: Italian

Stante quanto precede, il rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunale di Amsterdam) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:
«Se, in un caso in cui:
–lo Stato membro di esecuzione abbia recepito l’articolo 17 della [decisione quadro 2002/584] in modo che la custodia a fini di consegna del ricercato deve essere sempre sospesa, non appena è superato il termine di 90 giorni per l’adozione della decisione definitiva sull’esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo, e
–le autorità giudiziarie di detto Stato membro abbiano interpretato il diritto nazionale in modo che il termine per la decisione viene sospeso non appena l’autorità giudiziaria di esecuzione abbia deciso di presentare una questione pregiudiziale alla Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, o di attendere la risposta a una questione pregiudiziale presentata da un’altra autorità giudiziaria di esecuzione, oppure di rinviare la decisione sulla consegna a causa di un rischio concreto di trattamento inumano o degradante nello Stato membro emittente,
il mantenimento della custodia a fini di consegna di un ricercato che sia a rischio di fuga violi l’articolo 6 della [Carta] non appena esso duri più di 90 giorni dalla data dell’arresto del ricercato».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunale di Amsterdam)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Corte di giustizia"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunale di Amsterdam)"->"sospendere il procedimento"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Tribunale di Amsterdam)"->"sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale";
  "sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"Corte di giustizia";
  "sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale"->"il mantenimento della custodia a fini di consegna di un ricercato che sia a rischio di fuga violi l’articolo 6 della [Carta] non appena esso duri più di 90 giorni dalla data dell’arresto del ricercato";
}
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: Latvian

Šādos apstākļos rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamas tiesa) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:
“Vai apcietinājuma pieprasītās personas nodošanas vajadzībām piemērošanas turpināšana, pastāvot šīs personas bēgšanas riskam, uz laiku, kas pārsniedz 90 dienas no šīs personas aizturēšanas dienas, ir pretrunā [Hartas] 6. pantam, ja:
–izpildes dalībvalsts ir transponējusi [Pamatlēmuma 2002/584] 17. pantu tādējādi, ka pieprasītās personas apcietinājums nodošanas vajadzībām ir vienmēr jāaptur, ja galīgā lēmuma pieņemšanai par Eiropas apcietināšanas ordera izpildi paredzētais 90 dienu termiņš ir beidzies, un
–šīs dalībvalsts tiesu iestādes interpretē valsts tiesisko regulējumu tādējādi, ka termiņš lēmuma pieņemšanai tiek apturēts, tiklīdz izpildes tiesas iestāde nolemj vērsties Eiropas Savienības Tiesā ar lūgumu sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu vai sagaidīt atbildi uz citas izpildes tiesu iestādes uzdoto prejudiciālo jautājumu, vai arī atlikt lēmuma par personas nodošanu pieņemšanu, ja attiecībā uz pieprasīto personu pastāv faktisks risks, ka tā izsniegšanas dalībvalstī nonāks necilvēcīgos vai pazemojošos ieslodzījuma apstākļos?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamas tiesa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamas tiesa)"->"apturēt tiesvedību"[dir=none];
  "rechtbank Amsterdam (Amsterdamas tiesa)"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"citas izpildes tiesu iestādes uzdoto prejudiciālo jautājumu, vai arī atlikt lēmuma par personas nodošanu pieņemšanu, ja attiecībā uz pieprasīto personu pastāv faktisks risks, ka tā izsniegšanas dalībvalstī nonāks necilvēcīgos vai pazemojošos ieslodzījuma apstākļos?";
}