mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Greek

Υπό τις συνθήκες αυτές, το Kammergerich Berlin (εφετείο Βερολίνου, Γερμανία) αποφάσισε να αναστείλει την ενώπιόν του διαδικασία και να υποβάλει στο Δικαστήριο το ακόλουθο προδικαστικό ερώτημα:

«Το γεγονός ότι η εισαγγελική αρχή υπόκειται σε διαταγές εμποδίζει την αρχή αυτή να εκδώσει εγκύρως ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα συλλήψεως ακόμη και στην περίπτωση που η σχετική απόφαση υπόκειται σε ενδελεχή δικαστικό έλεγχο πριν από την εκτέλεση του ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεως;»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (εφετείο Βερολίνου, Γερμανία)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Δικαστήριο"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (εφετείο Βερολίνου, Γερμανία)"->"προδικαστικό ερώτημα";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Δικαστήριο";
  "προδικαστικό ερώτημα"->"Το γεγονός ότι η εισαγγελική αρχή υπόκειται σε διαταγές εμποδίζει την αρχή αυτή να εκδώσει εγκύρως ευρωπαϊκό ένταλμα συλλήψεως ακόμη και στην περίπτωση που η σχετική απόφαση υπόκειται σε ενδελεχή δικαστικό έλεγχο πριν από την εκτέλεση του ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεως;"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: French

Dans ces conditions, le Kammergericht Berlin (tribunal régional supérieur de Berlin, Allemagne) a décidé de surseoir à statuer et de poser à la Cour la question préjudicielle suivante :

« Les injonctions auxquelles un parquet est soumis l’empêchent[-elles] d’émettre valablement un mandat d’arrêt européen même si cette décision est soumise à un contrôle juridictionnel exhaustif avant l’exécution du mandat d’arrêt européen ? »

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (tribunal régional supérieur de Berlin, Allemagne)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la Cour"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (tribunal régional supérieur de Berlin, Allemagne)"->"la question préjudicielle suivante";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"la Cour";
  "la question préjudicielle suivante"->"Les injonctions auxquelles un parquet est soumis l’empêchent[-elles] d’émettre valablement un mandat d’arrêt européen même si cette décision est soumise à un contrôle juridictionnel exhaustif avant l’exécution du mandat d’arrêt européen?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Croatian

U tim je okolnostima Kammergericht Berlin (Visoki zemaljski sud u Berlinu) odlučio prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje:

„Je li valjano izdavanje europskog uhidbenog naloga spojivo s podređenošću državnog odvjetništva naputcima, neovisno o tome što odluka o izdavanju europskog uhidbenog naloga podliježe detaljnom sudskom nadzoru prije izvršenja?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Visoki zemaljski sud u Berlinu)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sudu"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Visoki zemaljski sud u Berlinu)"->"Prethodno pitanje";
  "Prethodno pitanje"->"Sudu";
  "Prethodno pitanje"->"Je li valjano izdavanje europskog uhidbenog naloga spojivo s podređenošću državnog odvjetništva naputcima, neovisno o tome što odluka o izdavanju europskog uhidbenog naloga podliježe detaljnom sudskom nadzoru prije izvršenja?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Italian

In tali circostanze, il Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunale superiore del Land, Berlino, Germania) ha deciso di sospendere il procedimento e di sottoporre alla Corte la seguente questione pregiudiziale:

«Se la subordinazione di una procura ad istruzioni precluda a quest’ultima di emettere validamente un mandato d’arresto europeo anche laddove detta decisione sia soggetta a un sindacato giurisdizionale esaustivo prima dell’esecuzione del mandato».

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunale superiore del Land, Berlino, Germania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la Corte"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunale superiore del Land, Berlino, Germania)"->"questione pregiudiziale";
  "questione pregiudiziale"->"la Corte";
  "questione pregiudiziale"->"Se la subordinazione di una procura ad istruzioni precluda a quest’ultima di emettere validamente un mandato d’arresto europeo anche laddove detta decisione sia soggetta a un sindacato giurisdizionale esaustivo prima dell’esecuzione del mandato?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Latvian

Šādos apstākļos Kammergericht Berlin (Berlīnes Augstākā tiesa, Vācija) nolēma apturēt tiesvedību un uzdot Tiesai šādu prejudiciālu jautājumu:

“Vai prokuratūras pienākums ievērot norādījumus ir šķērslis tam, lai tā efektīvi izsniegtu Eiropas apcietināšanas orderi arī tad, ja pirms Eiropas apcietināšanas ordera izpildes šis lēmums ir visaptveroši jāpārbauda tiesā?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berlīnes Augstākā tiesa, Vācija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tiesai"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berlīnes Augstākā tiesa, Vācija)"->"prejudiciālu jautājumu";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Tiesai";
  "prejudiciālu jautājumu"->"Vai prokuratūras pienākums ievērot norādījumus ir šķērslis tam, lai tā efektīvi izsniegtu Eiropas apcietināšanas orderi arī tad, ja pirms Eiropas apcietināšanas ordera izpildes šis lēmums ir visaptveroši jāpārbauda tiesā?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

Tokiomis aplinkybėmis Kammergericht Berlin (Berlyno aukštesnysis apygardos teismas) nutarė sustabdyti bylos nagrinėjimą ir pateikti Teisingumo Teismui šį prejudicinį klausimą:

„Ar prokuratūros pavaldumas yra kliūtis jai teisėtai išduoti Europos arešto orderį, net jei tokiam sprendimui, prieš pradedant Europos arešto orderį vykdyti, taikoma išsami teismo kontrolė?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berlyno aukštesnysis apygardos teismas)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Teisingumo Teismui"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berlyno aukštesnysis apygardos teismas)"->"Prejudicinį klausimą";
  "Prejudicinį klausimą"->"Teisingumo Teismui";
  "Prejudicinį klausimą"->"Ar prokuratūros pavaldumas yra kliūtis jai teisėtai išduoti Europos arešto orderį, net jei tokiam sprendimui, prieš pradedant Europos arešto orderį vykdyti, taikoma išsami teismo kontrolė?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Hungarian

E körülmények között a Kammergericht Berlin (berlini regionális felsőbíróság, Németország) úgy határozott, hogy az eljárást felfüggeszti, és előzetes döntéshozatal céljából a következő kérdést terjeszti a Bíróság elé:

„Az ügyészség utasításoktól való függősége abban az esetben is akadályozza az európai elfogatóparancs általa történő érvényes kibocsátását, ha ez a döntés az európai elfogatóparancs végrehajtása előtt átfogó bírósági felülvizsgálatnak van alávetve?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (berlini regionális felsőbíróság, Németország)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (berlini regionális felsőbíróság, Németország)"->"Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából"->"Bíróság";
  "Előzetes döntéshozatal céljából"->"Az ügyészség utasításoktól való függősége abban az esetben is akadályozza az európai elfogatóparancs általa történő érvényes kibocsátását, ha ez a döntés az európai elfogatóparancs végrehajtása előtt átfogó bírósági felülvizsgálatnak van alávetve?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Maltese

F’dawn iċ-ċirkustanzi, il-Kammergericht Berlin (il-Qorti Reġjonali Superjuri ta’ Berlin, il-Ġermanja) iddeċidiet li tissospendi l-proċeduri quddiemha u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domanda preliminari li ġejja:

“L-ordnijiet li tkun suġġetta għalihom prosekuzzjoni jipprekluduha milli toħroġ validament mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew anki jekk din id-deċiżjoni tkun suġġetta għal stħarriġ ġudizzjarju eżawrjenti qabel l-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (il-Kammergericht Berlin (il-Qorti Reġjonali Superjuri ta’ Berlin, il-Ġermanja))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (il-Kammergericht Berlin (il-Qorti Reġjonali Superjuri ta’ Berlin, il-Ġermanja))"->"d-domanda preliminari";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja";
  "d-domanda preliminari"->"L-ordnijiet li tkun suġġetta għalihom prosekuzzjoni jipprekluduha milli toħroġ validament mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew anki jekk din id-deċiżjoni tkun suġġetta għal stħarriġ ġudizzjarju eżawrjenti qabel l-eżekuzzjoni tal-mandat ta’ arrest Ewropew?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Dutch

Daarop heeft het Kammergericht Berlin (hoogste rechterlijke instantie van de deelstaat Berlijn, Duitsland) de behandeling van de zaak geschorst en het Hof de volgende prejudiciële vraag gesteld:

„Tast het feit dat een openbaar ministerie aan instructies gebonden is de rechtsgeldigheid van een door dit openbaar ministerie uitgevaardigd Europees aanhoudingsbevel aan, ook wanneer deze beslissing vóór de tenuitvoerlegging van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel aan een uitgebreide rechterlijke toetsing onderworpen is?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin (hoogste rechterlijke instantie van de deelstaat Berlijn, Duitsland))"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "het Hof"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin (hoogste rechterlijke instantie van de deelstaat Berlijn, Duitsland))"->"prejudiciële vraag";
  "prejudiciële vraag"->"het Hof";
  "prejudiciële vraag"->"Tast het feit dat een openbaar ministerie aan instructies gebonden is de rechtsgeldigheid van een door dit openbaar ministerie uitgevaardigd Europees aanhoudingsbevel aan, ook wanneer deze beslissing vóór de tenuitvoerlegging van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel aan een uitgebreide rechterlijke toetsing onderworpen is?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Polish

W tych okolicznościach Kammergericht (wyższy sąd krajowy w Berlinie) postanowił zawiesić postępowanie i zwrócić się do Trybunału z następującym pytaniem prejudycjalnym:

„Czy związanie prokuratury poleceniami wyklucza możliwość skutecznego wydania przez nią europejskiego nakazu aresztowania także wtedy, gdy decyzja ta podlega wszechstronnej kontroli sądowej przed wykonaniem europejskiego nakazu aresztowania?”.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (wyższy sąd krajowy w Berlinie)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Trybunału"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (wyższy sąd krajowy w Berlinie)"->"pytaniem prejudycjalnym";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Trybunału";
  "pytaniem prejudycjalnym"->"Czy związanie prokuratury poleceniami wyklucza możliwość skutecznego wydania przez nią europejskiego nakazu aresztowania także wtedy, gdy decyzja ta podlega wszechstronnej kontroli sądowej przed wykonaniem europejskiego nakazu aresztowania?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Portuguese

Nestas condições, o Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunal Regional Superior de Berlim, Alemanha) decidiu suspender a instância e submeter ao Tribunal de Justiça a seguinte questão prejudicial:

«Opõe‑se à emissão eficaz de um mandado de detenção europeu por uma Staastsanwaltschaft (Procuradoria do Ministério Público) a sua condição de órgão hierárquico sujeito a instruções dos seus superiores, mesmo que esta decisão esteja sujeita a uma fiscalização jurisdicional exaustiva antes da execução do mandado de detenção europeu?»

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunal Regional Superior de Berlim, Alemanha)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tribunal de Justiça"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunal Regional Superior de Berlim, Alemanha)"->"a seguinte questão prejudicial";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"Tribunal de Justiça";
  "a seguinte questão prejudicial"->"Opõe‑se à emissão eficaz de um mandado de detenção europeu por uma Staastsanwaltschaft (Procuradoria do Ministério Público) a sua condição de órgão hierárquico sujeito a instruções dos seus superiores, mesmo que esta decisão esteja sujeita a uma fiscalização jurisdicional exaustiva antes da execução do mandado de detenção europeu?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Romanian

În aceste condiții, Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunalul Regional Superior din Berlin, Germania) a hotărât să suspende judecarea cauzei și să adreseze Curții următoarea întrebare preliminară:

„Dependența de instrucțiuni a unui parchet împiedică emiterea în mod valabil a unui mandat european de arestare de către acesta chiar și în cazul în care decizia respectivă face obiectul unui control jurisdicțional exhaustiv înainte de executarea mandatului european de arestare?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunalul Regional Superior din Berlin, Germania)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Curții"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Tribunalul Regional Superior din Berlin, Germania)"->"următoarea întrebare preliminară";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Curții";
  "următoarea întrebare preliminară"->"Dependența de instrucțiuni a unui parchet împiedică emiterea în mod valabil a unui mandat european de arestare de către acesta chiar și în cazul în care decizia respectivă face obiectul unui control jurisdicțional exhaustiv înainte de executarea mandatului european de arestare?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Slovak

Za týchto okolností Kammergericht Berlin (Vyšší krajinský súd Berlín, Nemecko) rozhodol prerušiť konanie a položiť Súdnemu dvoru túto prejudiciálnu otázku:

„Bráni viazanosť prokuratúry pokynmi účinnému vydaniu európskeho zatykača touto prokuratúrou aj vtedy, ak toto rozhodnutie podlieha úplnému súdnemu preskúmaniu pred vykonaním európskeho zatykača?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Vyšší krajinský súd Berlín, Nemecko)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Súdny dvor"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Vyšší krajinský súd Berlín, Nemecko)"->"prejudiciálnu otázku";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Súdny dvor";
  "prejudiciálnu otázku"->"Bráni viazanosť prokuratúry pokynmi účinnému vydaniu európskeho zatykača touto prokuratúrou aj vtedy, ak toto rozhodnutie podlieha úplnému súdnemu preskúmaniu pred vykonaním európskeho zatykača?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Slovenian

V teh okoliščinah je Kammergericht Berlin (višje deželno sodišče v Berlinu, Nemčija) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje:

„Ali podrejenost državnega tožilstva onemogoča veljavno izdajo evropskega naloga za prijetje tudi takrat, ko je takšna odločitev pred izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje predmet celovitega sodnega nadzora?“

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (višje deželno sodišče v Berlinu, Nemčija)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (višje deželno sodišče v Berlinu, Nemčija)"->"v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje";
  "v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje"->"Sodišču";
  "v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vprašanje"->"Ali podrejenost državnega tožilstva onemogoča veljavno izdajo evropskega naloga za prijetje tudi takrat, ko je takšna odločitev pred izvršitvijo evropskega naloga za prijetje predmet celovitega sodnega nadzora?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Finnish

Tässä tilanteessa Kammergericht Berlin (Berliinin osavaltion ylioikeus, Saksa) päätti lykätä asian käsittelyä ja esittää unionin tuomioistuimelle seuraavan ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen:

”Onko se, että yleinen syyttäjä on käskyvallan alaisuudessa, esteenä sille, että se antaa pätevästi eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen, myös silloin, kun tämä päätös alistetaan kattavaan tuomioistuinvalvontaan ennen eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen täytäntöönpanoa?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berliinin osavaltion ylioikeus, Saksa)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "unionin tuomioistuimelle"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Berliinin osavaltion ylioikeus, Saksa)"->"ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen";
  "ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"unionin tuomioistuimelle";
  "ennakkoratkaisukysymyksen"->"Onko se, että yleinen syyttäjä on käskyvallan alaisuudessa, esteenä sille, että se antaa pätevästi eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen, myös silloin, kun tämä päätös alistetaan kattavaan tuomioistuinvalvontaan ennen eurooppalaisen pidätysmääräyksen täytäntöönpanoa?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 October 2019.
NJ.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(1) — Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ — Minimum requirements on which validity depends — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State — Status — Whether subordinate to a body of the executive — Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case — Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission.
Case C-489/19 PPU. (2019)
Language: Swedish

Mot denna bakgrund beslutade Kammergericht Berlin (Regionala överdomstolen i Berlin) att vilandeförklara målet och ställa följande fråga till EU-domstolen:

”Medför en åklagarmyndighets skyldighet att följa anvisningar att myndigheten inte med giltig verkan kan utfärda en europeisk arresteringsorder, även om detta beslut är föremål för en omfattande domstolsprövning innan den europeiska arresteringsordern verkställs?”

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin)"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "EU-domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "The Kammergericht Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin)"->"följande fråga till EU-domstolen";
  "följande fråga till EU-domstolen"->"EU-domstolen";
  "följande fråga till EU-domstolen"->"Medför en åklagarmyndighets skyldighet att följa anvisningar att myndigheten inte med giltig verkan kan utfärda en europeisk arresteringsorder, även om detta beslut är föremål för en omfattande domstolsprövning innan den europeiska arresteringsordern verkställs?"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: English

On 4 March 2013, RN and Home Credit concluded a consumer credit agreement for the amount of EUR 3 359.14. The agreement stated the monthly repayments (EUR 89.02), the interest rate (19.62%) and the APRC (between 21.5% and 22.4%). The contract also specified that the APRC depended on the date on which loan was granted to RN and that the APRC would be communicated to him after that date.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

   "Home Credit"->"Consumer credit agreement 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
   "Consumer credit agreement 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
   "Consumer credit agreement 04/03/2013"->"EUR 3359.14, Monthly repayments (EUR 89.02), Interest rate (19.62%) and APRC (between 21.5% and 22.4%)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Bulgarian

На 4 март 2013 г. RN и Home Credit сключват договор за потребителски кредит в размер на 3359,14 EUR. В договора са посочени размерът на месечните вноски (89,02 EUR), лихвеният процент (19,62 %) и ГПР (между 21,5 % и 22,4 %). В договора също така се уточнява, че ГПР зависи от датата, на която средствата ще бъдат предоставени на разположение на RN, и че ГПР ще му бъде съобщен след тази дата.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"договор за потребителски кредит 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "договор за потребителски кредит 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "договор за потребителски кредит 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 EUR, месечните вноски (89,02 EUR), лихвеният процент (19,62 %) и ГПР (между 21,5 % и 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Spanish

El 4 de marzo de 2013, RN y Home Credit celebraron un contrato de crédito al consumo por una cuantía de 3359,14 euros. El contrato mencionaba el importe de las mensualidades (89,02 euros), el tipo de interés (19,62 %) y la TAE (situada entre el 21,5 % y el 22,4 %). El contrato precisaba igualmente que la TAE dependía de la fecha en la que los fondos estuvieran a disposición de RN y que se le comunicaría tras esa fecha.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"contrato de crédito al consumo 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "contrato de crédito al consumo 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "contrato de crédito al consumo 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 euros, las mensualidades (89,02 euros), el tipo de interés (19,62 %) y la TAE (entre el 21,5 % y el 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Czech

Dne 4. března 2013 uzavřeli RN a Home Credit smlouvu o spotřebitelském úvěru ve výši 3359,14 eura. Smlouva uváděla částku měsíčních splátek (89,02 eur), úrokovou sazbu (19,62 %) a RPSN (mezi 21,5 % a 22,4 %). Smlouva rovněž stanovila, že RPSN závisí na datu poskytnutí finančních prostředků RN a že mu bude sdělena po tomto datu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"smlouvu o spotřebitelském úvěru 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "smlouvu o spotřebitelském úvěru 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "smlouvu o spotřebitelském úvěru 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 eura, měsíčních splátek (89,02 eur), úrokovou sazbu (19,62 %) a RPSN (mezi 21,5 % a 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Danish

Den 4. marts 2013 indgik RN og Home Credit en forbrugerkreditaftale om et beløb på 3359,14 EUR. I aftalen var angivet størrelsen af de månedlige afdrag (89,02 EUR), rentesatsen (19,62%) og ÅOP (der var på mellem 21,5% og 22,4%). Det var tillige præciseret i aftalen, at ÅOP afhang af den dato, hvor lånebeløbet ville blive udbetalt til RN, og at ÅOP ville blive meddelt RN efter denne dato.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"forbrugerkreditaftale 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "forbrugerkreditaftale 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "forbrugerkreditaftale 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 EUR, månedlige afdrag (89,02 EUR), rentesatsen (19,62%) og ÅOP (mellem 21,5% og 22,4%)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: German

Am 4. März 2013 schlossen RN und Home Credit einen Verbraucherkreditvertrag über 3359,14 Euro. Im Vertrag waren die Höhe der monatlichen Raten (89,02 Euro), der Zinssatz (19,62 %) und der effektive Jahreszins (zwischen 21,5 % und 22,4 %) angegeben. Es hieß dort weiter, dass der effektive Jahreszins von dem Zeitpunkt abhänge, an dem die Geldmittel RN zur Verfügung gestellt werden, und dass ihm dieser nach diesem Zeitpunkt mitgeteilt werde.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"Verbraucherkreditvertrag 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "Verbraucherkreditvertrag 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "Verbraucherkreditvertrag 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 Euro, monatlichen Raten (89,02 Euro), Zinssatz (19,62 %) und der effektive Jahreszins (zwischen 21,5 % und 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Estonian

4. märtsil 2013 sõlmisid RN ja Home Credit tarbijakrediidilepingu summas 3359,14 eurot. Lepingus olid ära toodud kuumakse summa (89,02 eurot), intressimäär (19,62 %) ja krediidi kulukuse aastamäär (vahemikus 21,5%–22,4%). Lepingus täpsustati ühtlasi, et krediidi kulukuse aastamäär sõltus kuupäevast, millal vahendid RN-i käsutusse anti, ja et see väärtus edastatakse hiljem.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"tarbijakrediidilepingu 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "tarbijakrediidilepingu 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "tarbijakrediidilepingu 04/03/2013"->"summas 3359,14 eurot, kuumakse summa (89,02 eurot), intressimäär (19,62 %) ja krediidi kulukuse aastamäär (vahemikus 21,5%–22,4%)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Greek

Στις 4 Μαρτίου 2013 ο RN και η Home Credit συνήψαν σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστεως ποσού 3359,14 ευρώ. Στη σύμβαση αναγραφόταν το ύψος των μηνιαίων δόσεων (89,02 ευρώ), το επιτόκιο (19,62 %) και το ΣΕΠΕ (με εύρος συντελεστή μεταξύ 21,5 % και 22,4 %). Η σύμβαση διευκρίνιζε επίσης ότι το ΣΕΠΕ εξηρτάτο από την ημερομηνία χορήγησης των κεφαλαίων στον RN και ότι θα του γνωστοποιούνταν μετά την ημερομηνία αυτή.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστεως 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστεως 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "σύμβαση καταναλωτικής πίστεως 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 ευρώ, μηνιαίων δόσεων (89,02 ευρώ), επιτόκιο (19,62 %) και ΣΕΠΕ (με εύρος συντελεστή μεταξύ 21,5 % και 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: French

Le 4 mars 2013, RN et Home Credit ont conclu un contrat de crédit à la consommation d’un montant de 3359,14 euros. Le contrat mentionnait le montant des mensualités (89,02 euros), le taux d’intérêt (19,62 %) et le TAEG (situé entre 21,5 % et 22,4 %). Le contrat précisait également que le TAEG dépendait de la date à laquelle les fonds seraient mis à la disposition de RN et qu’il lui serait communiqué après cette date.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"contrat de crédit à la consommation 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "contrat de crédit à la consommation 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "contrat de crédit à la consommation 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 euros, montant des mensualités (89,02 euros), taux d’intérêt (19,62 %) et le TAEG (situé entre 21,5 % et 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Croatian

Osoba RN i društvo Home Credit 4. ožujka 2013. sklopili su ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu u iznosu od 3359,14 eura. U ugovoru se navodio iznos mjesečnih obroka (89,02 eura), kamatna stopa (19,62 %) i EGKS (od 21,5 % do 22,4 %). U ugovoru se također navodilo da će EGKS ovisiti o datumu odobrenja kredita osobi RN i da će mu se priopćiti nakon tog datuma.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "ugovor o potrošačkom kreditu 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 eura, mjesečnih obroka (89,02 eura), kamatna stopa (19,62 %) i EGKS (od 21,5 % do 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Italian

Il 4 marzo 2013 RN e la Home Credit hanno stipulato un contratto di credito al consumo dell’importo di EUR 3359,14. Il contratto indicava l’importo delle rate mensili (EUR 89,02), il tasso di interesse (19,62%) e il TAEG (compreso tra il 21,5% e il 22,4%). Il contratto precisava altresì che il TAEG dipendeva dalla data in cui i fondi sarebbero stati messi a disposizione di RN e che sarebbe stato comunicato a quest’ultimo dopo tale data.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"contratto di credito al consumo 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "contratto di credito al consumo 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "contratto di credito al consumo 04/03/2013"->"importo di EUR 3359,14, rate mensili (EUR 89,02), tasso di interesse (19,62%) e il TAEG (compreso tra il 21,5% e il 22,4%)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Latvian

RN un Home Credit2013. gada 4. martā noslēdza patēriņa kredītlīgumu par summu 3359,14 EUR. Līgumā bija minēta ikmēneša maksājumu summa (89,02 EUR), procentu likme (19,62 %) un GPL (kā intervāls no 21,5 % līdz 22,4 %). Līgumā bija arī precizēts, ka GPL ir atkarīga no tā, kurā dienā naudas līdzekļi tiks izsniegti RN, un ka viņš par to tiks informēts pēc šīs dienas.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"patēriņa kredītlīgumu 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "patēriņa kredītlīgumu 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "patēriņa kredītlīgumu 04/03/2013"->"patēriņa kredītlīgumu par summu 3359,14 EUR. ikmēneša maksājumu summa (89,02 EUR), procentu likme (19,62 %) un GPL (kā intervāls no 21,5 % līdz 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2019.
RN v Home Credit Slovakia a.s.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 2008/48/EC — Consumer credit agreements — Article 10(2) — Information to be included in credit agreements — Annual percentage rate of charge — Lack of indication of the exact percentage of that rate of charge — Rate of charge expressed as a range between 21.5% and 22.4%.
Case C-290/19. (2019)
Language: Lithuanian

2013 m. kovo 4 d. RN ir Home Credit sudarė 3359,14 EUR dydžio vartojimo kredito sutartį. Sutartyje buvo nurodyta mėnesinių įmokų suma (89,02 EUR), palūkanų norma (19,62 %) ir BKKMN (dydis nuo 21,5 % iki 22,4 %). Sutartyje taip pat buvo nurodyta, kad BKKMN priklauso nuo dienos, kurią lėšos bus pervestos RN, ir kad jam apie ją bus pranešta po šios datos.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Home Credit"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "RN"[shape=doubleoctagon];

  "Home Credit"->"vartojimo kredito sutartį 04/03/2013"[dir=none];
  "vartojimo kredito sutartį 04/03/2013"->"RN"[dir=none];
  "vartojimo kredito sutartį 04/03/2013"->"3359,14 EUR, mėnesinių įmokų suma (89,02 EUR), palūkanų norma (19,62 %) ir BKKMN (dydis nuo 21,5 % iki 22,4 %)"[dir=none];
}