natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det følger heraf, at rammeafgørelsen kun kan anses for at være trådt i stedet for allerede gældende aftaler såsom konventionen af 1996 og konventionen af 1957 i det bilaterale forhold mellem to medlemsstater, for så vidt som rammeafgørelsen rent faktisk anvendes mellem disse medlemsstater.
It follows that, in bilateral relations between two Member States, preexisting agreements such as the 1996 and 1957 Conventions can be regarded as replaced by the Framework Decision only to the extent that the Framework Decision is actually applied between those Member States.
Når en af de to medlemsstater, i dette tilfælde Den Franske Republik, ikke anvender rammeafgørelsen i forbindelse med visse udleveringsbegæringer, kan disse begæringer fremsættes og behandles i overensstemmelse med allerede gældende aftaler, forudsat at bestemmelserne i rammeafgørelsens artikel 32 er overholdt.
For as long as one of those two Member States, in this case the French Republic, does not apply the Framework Decision to certain extradition requests, those requests can be made and dealt with in accordance with the preexisting agreements, subject to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
Konventionen af 1996 blev ganske vist undertegnet inden den 1. januar 2004, jf. rammeafgørelsens artikel 32, men fandt først anvendelse i Den Franske Republik den 1. juli 2005 19og omfatter udleveringsbegæringer, der er modtaget efter denne dato 20.
The 1996 Convention was indeed signed before 1 January 2004, the date referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision, but it did not become applicable for the French Republic until 1 July 2005, 19and then only for requests for extradition received after that date.
Det er så spørgsmålet, om konventionen af 1996 kan anses for at udgøre en del af den »ordning for udlevering, der var gældende før den 1. januar 2004«, i forholdet mellem Kongeriget Spanien og Den Franske Republik.
20The question therefore arises of whether the 1996 Convention may be regarded as forming part of ‘the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’ in relations between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic.
Det første spørgsmål bør på grundlag af det ovenfor anførte besvares benægtende.
For all the above reasons, the first question must be answered in the negative.
19 — Konventionen af 1996 er stadig ikke blevet ratificeret af alle medlemsstater, og den er derfor ikke formelt trådt i kraft endnu (jf. dens artikel 18, stk. 2).
19 — The 1996 Convention has not yet been ratified by all the Member States, and has thus not yet formally entered into force (see Article 18(2) of the convention).
Konventionen af 1996 er dog blevet anvendt mellem Den Franske Republik og Kongeriget Spanien siden den 1.7.2005, eftersom de to medlemsstater har ratificeret den og afgivet erklæringer i henhold til denne konventions artikel 18, stk. 4.
However, since 1 July 2005, the 1996 Convention has been applicable between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain, as those two States have ratified it and made declarations pursuant to Article 18(4) of the convention.
18 — Der vil i denne sammenhæng fortsat kunne anvendes gældende aftaler og indgås nye aftaler mellem medlemsstaterne, i det omfang det kan bidrage til yderligere at forenkle eller lette procedurerne for overgivelse af personer, der er omfattet af en europæisk arrestordre (jf. rammeafgørelsens artikel 31, stk. 2, første og andet afsnit).
18 — From the same perspective, the continued application of preexisting agreements, like the conclusion of new agreements between Member States, is meant to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants (see the first and second subparagraphs of Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision).
20 — Artikel 18, stk. 5, i konventionen af 1996.
20 — Article 18(5) of the 1996 Convention.
Dette spørgsmål må umiddelbart besvares benægtende, eftersom konventionen af 1996 ikke fandt anvendelse i Frankrig den 1. januar 2004, som er den dato, der er nævnt i rammeafgørelsens artikel 32.
At first sight, a negative answer to the question seems to be required, since the 1996 Convention was not applicable in France on 1 January 2004, the date to which Article 32 of the Framework Decision refers.
Det vil i så fald være konventionen af 1957 og ikke konventionen af 1996, der finder anvendelse i den foreliggende sag.
It would thus be the 1957 Convention, not the 1996 Convention, which should be applied in the present case.
europæiske arrestordre, betyder dog ikke, at den tvinges til at »fastfryse« de interne regler, der gjaldt for sådanne begæringer inden den 1. januar 2004.
extradition requests from the European arrest warrant procedure does not oblige that State to ‘freeze’ its domestic law at the state in which it applied to such requests before 1 January 2004.
Det kan ikke hævdes, at den pågældende medlemsstat kun kunne vælge mellem at fastholde status quo pr. 1. januar 2004 eller at indføre proceduren vedrørende den europæiske arrestordre.
It cannot be maintained that the Member State concerned is limited to choosing between the status quo as at 1 January 2004, on the one hand, and the European arrest warrant procedure, on the other.
Der er i betragtning af rammeafgørelsens formål intet til hinder for, at medlemsstaten efterhånden tilpasser sin udleveringsprocedure vedrørende de ældre sager, der er omfattet af dens erklæring i henhold til artikel 32.
In view of the purpose of the Framework Decision, nothing prevents a Member State from adapting, little by little, the extradition procedure it applies to old cases covered by its statement under Article 32.
Dette svar tager imidlertid ikke tilstrækkeligt hensyn til rammeafgørelsens generelle opbygning og formål.
However, such an answer would not take sufficient account of the general scheme and objectives of the Framework Decision.
Som jeg har forklaret tidligere 21, er hovedformålet med rammeafgørelsen at bidrage til, at der skabes et område med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed, hvilket kræver, at der fastlægges bedre og hurtigere udleveringsprocedurer 22.
As explained above, 21the principal aim of the Framework Decision is to contribute to creating an area of freedom, security and justice, which involves improving and accelerating extradition procedures. 22
Medlemsstaterne har stadig mulighed for løbende at forbedre deres procedureregler for de udleveringsbegæringer, som de ikke har ønsket straks at underlægge proceduren vedrørende den europæiske arrestordre.
On the contrary, a Member State remains entitled to improve gradually its procedural law applicable to extradition requests which it did not wish to subject at the outset to the European arrest warrant system.
De kan til det formål benytte en international konvention såsom konventionen af 1996, som de allerede har indgået inden den 1. januar 2006, men endnu ikke har ratificeret og taget i anvendelse 23.
To that end, it may in particular bring into force an international convention — such as the 1996 Convention — which it had concluded before 1 January 2004 but which had not yet been ratified and made applicable.
En sådan forbedring af de gældende procedurer er i fuld overensstemmelse med rammeafgørelsens generelle opbygning og formål 24.
23 Such an improvement of the applicable procedures is entirely consistent with the general scheme and objective of the Framework Decision. 24
Bestemmelsen i rammeafgørelsens artikel 32 om, at proceduren vedrørende den europæiske arrestordre kan fraviges, udelukker ikke, at medlemsstaterne kan udvikle udleveringsprocedurer indbyrdes, og at de kan forbedre dem og efterhånden gøre dem hurtigere.
In providing for the possibility of derogating from the European arrest warrant procedure, Article 32 of the Framework Decision does not prevent the Member States from developing the extradition procedures applicable between them by gradually improving and accelerating them.
At en medlemsstat ved en erklæring i henhold til rammeafgørelsens artikel 32 undtager visse udleveringsbegæringer fra proceduren vedrørende den
The mere fact that a Member State, by means of a statement pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, removes certain
21 — Jf. vurderingen af det første præjudicielle spørgsmål og navnlig punkt 24 ovenfor.
21 — See the section on the first question, especially point 24 above.
24 — Ifølge rammeafgørelsens artikel 31, stk. 2, kan medlemsstaterne også for udleveringsbegæringer, der falder ind under anvendelsesområdet for proceduren vedrørende den europæiske arrestordre, gå endnu videre og anvende — allerede gældende eller nye — bilaterale eller multilaterale aftaler, der bidrager til yderligere at forenkle eller lette procedurerne for overgivelse af personer, der er omfattet af en europæisk arrestordre.
24 — Even with respect to extradition requests falling within the scope of the European arrest warrant procedure, Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision allows the Member States to go further and apply bilateral or multilateral agreements — preexisting or new ones — which help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for surrender of persons who are the subject of European arrest warrants.
En sådan forbedring af proceduren må så meget desto mere være mulig, når der er tale om udleveringsbegæringer, som falder uden for anvendelsesområdet for proceduren vedrørende den europæiske arrestordre.
A fortiori, such an improvement of the procedure must be possible with respect to requests for extradition which are outside the scope of the European arrest warrant procedure.
22 — Jf. i denne retning første og femte betragtning til rammeafgørelsen.
22 — See to that effect the first and fifth recitals in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTTS STILLINGTAGEN — SAG C-296/08 PPU rammeafgørelsen, hvori denne konvention er nævnt blandt de internationale instrumenter, der er en del af gældende EU-ret 26.
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU moreover supported by the Framework Decision itself, which lists that convention as one of the international instruments forming part of the acquis of the European Union. 26
Rammeafgørelsens artikel 32 bør i det mindste fortolkes således, at den ikke er til hinder for en yderligere forbedring af en udleveringsordning, som fandt anvendelse i den fuldbyrdende medlemsstat før den 1. januar 2004.
At the very least, Article 32 of the Framework Decision should be interpreted as not preventing the subsequent improvement of an extradition system applicable in the executing Member State before 1 January 2004.
Det andet spørgsmål bør på grundlag af det ovenfor anførte besvares bekræftende.
For all the above reasons, the second question should be answered in the affirmative.
D — Almindelige principper
D — General principles
Da Den Franske Republik den 1. juli 2005 tog konventionen af 1996 i anvendelse, var det netop en sådan eksisterende udleveringsordning, der blev forbedret.
It was such a preexisting extradition system that was improved on 1 July 2005 by the implementation with respect to the French Republic of the 1996 Convention.
Konventionen af 1996 sigter således mod at supplere bestemmelserne i og lette anvendelsen af konventionen af 1957 (jf. artikel 1, stk. 1, første led, i konventionen af 1996 og næstsidste betragtning i præamblen til denne konvention) 25.
The objective of the 1996 Convention is to supplement the provisions of the 1957 Convention and facilitate its application (see the first indent of Article 1(1) of the 1996 Convention and the penultimate recital in the preamble to that convention).
Det fremgik allerede af artikel 28 i konventionen af 1957, at de kontraherende parter kunne indgå bilaterale eller multilaterale overenskomster indbyrdes for at supplere denne konventions bestemmelser eller for at lette anvendelsen af de deri indeholdte principper.
25Simi-larly, the 1957 Convention already provided, in Article 28, for the contracting parties to be able to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements between themselves to supplement its provisions or facilitate the application of its principles.
Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea har i sit indlæg for Domstolen gjort gældende, at det i den foreliggende sag vil være i strid med almindelige retsprincipper og grundlæggende rettigheder at anvende konventionen af 1996.
In his observations to the Court, Mr Santesteban Goicoechea submits that the application of the 1996 Convention would clash, in the present case, with the general principles of law and with fundamental rights.
Antagelsen om, at konventionen af 1996 supplerer og forbedrer en eksisterende udleveringsordning i henhold til rammeafgørelsens artikel 32, bekræftes endvidere af
The conclusion that the 1996 Convention supplements and improves a preexisting extradition system within the meaning of Article 32 of the Framework Decision is
Den Europæiske Union bygger ifølge artikel 6 EU på retsstatsprincippet og respekterer de grundlæggende rettigheder, således som de garanteres ved EMRK 27, og således som de følger af medlemsstaternes fælles forfatningsmæssige traditioner, som
Under Article 6 EU, the European Union is founded on the rule of law and respects fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights 27and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States,
26 — Fjerde betragtning til rammeafgørelsen.
26 — Fourth recital in the preamble to the Framework Decision.
Udlevering kan således ikke længere afslås med den begrundelse, at der er tale om en »politisk« forbrydelse.
The consequence is that extradition may no longer be refused on the ground that the offence is ‘political’.
27 — Den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, undertegnet i Rom den 4.11.1950 (herefter »EMRK«).
27 — European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA mod ham rettet anklage for en forbrydelse i henhold til artikel 6 i EMRK 32.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA and obligations or of any criminal charge against him within the meaning of Article 6 of the ECHR.
generelle principper for fællesskabsretten.
32 as general principles of Community law.
Det følger heraf, at medlemsstaterne er undergivet en kontrol af, at deres retsakter er forenelige med traktaterne og almindelige retsgrundsætninger, når de gennemfører EU-retten 28(jf. også artikel 51, stk. 1, i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, proklameret i Nice den 7. december 2000 (EFT C 364, s. 1)).
It follows that the Member States are subject to review of the conformity of their acts with the Treaties and the general principles of law when they implement the law of the Union 28(see also Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed in Nice on 7 December 2000 (OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1)).
Der kan dog være tvivl om, hvorvidt de generelle principper i EU-retten er til hinder for, at Den Franske Republik behandler udleveringsbegæringen fra Kongeriget Spanien i medfør af konventionen af 1996.
It remains to be examined, however, whether general principles of European Union law preclude the French Republic from dealing with the request for extradition made by the Kingdom of Spain in accordance with the 1996 Convention.
Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea har navnlig henholdt sig til legalitetsprincippet, princippet om, at straffebestemmelser ikke kan finde anvendelse med tilbagevirkende kraft, dersom det indebærer strengere straffe, og retssikkerhedsprincippet.
Mr Santesteban Goicoechea refers in particular to the principle of the legality and non-retroactivity of the more severe criminal law and the principle of legal certainty.
Det kan derfor argumenteres, at medlemsstaterne ikke kan påberåbe sig rammeafgørelsens artikel 32 til støtte for anvendelsen af en udleveringsordning, der ikke respekterer de grundlæggende rettigheder 29.
It could therefore be argued that the Member States may not rely on Article 32 of the Framework Decision to apply an extradition system which is not consistent with fundamental rights.
Det er dog ikke nødvendigt, at Domstolen udtaler sig om dette spørgsmål inden for rammerne af denne præjudicielle hasteprocedure.
29It is not essential for the Court to rule on this point in the present proceedings, however.
Der er ikke stillet spørgsmål herom i forbindelse med den præjudicielle forelæggelse, og som det fremgår af det følgende, ser det heller ikke ud til, at der er sket en tilsidesættelse af almindelige principper.
First, the point is not part of the reference for a preliminary ruling. Moreover, the general principles do not appear to have been breached, as will be shown below.
Princippet lovhjemmel
The principle of the legality of penalties
EMRK giver ikke i sig selv en person ret til ikke at blive udleveret 30og indeholder ingen bestemmelser om, på hvilke betingelser der kan ske udlevering, og hvilken procedure der skal anvendes 31.
The ECHR does not enshrine a right not to be extradited as such, 30and does not contain provisions on the conditions in which extradition may be ordered or on the procedure to be followed.
Udleveringsproceduren vedrører heller ikke tiltaltes borgerlige rettigheder og forpligtelser eller en strid om en
31 Moreover, the extradition procedure does not concern the determination of the applicant’s civil rights
Princippet ingen forbrydelse uden lov, ingen straf uden lov (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege) hører til de almindelige retsgrundsætninger, der danner grundlaget for medlemsstaternes fælles forfatningsmæssige traditioner.
As regards the principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege), it should be recalled that this is one of the general legal principles underlying the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
Det indgår i forskellige internationale traktater og er bl.a. nævnt i artikel 7,
It has been enshrined in various international
29 — Jf. i denne retning dom af 27.6.2006, sag C-540/03, Parlamentet mod Rådet, Sml. I, s. 5769, præmis 70 og 71.
29 — See, to that effect, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769, paragraphs 70 and 71.
30 — Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstols dom af 7.7.1989 i sagen Soering mod Det Forenede Kongerige, Serie A, nr. 161, s. 33, præmis 85.
30 — EurCtHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, § 85, Series A no. 161.
GENERALADVOKAT KOKOTTS STILLINGTAGEN — SAG C-296/08 PPU stk. 1, i EMRK 33 og senest i artikel 49 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæg- gende rettigheder.
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU treaties, in particular in Article 7(1) of the ECHR, 33and more recently in Article 49 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
på den materielle ret, dvs. spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en handling er strafbar eller ej.
substantive law, that is, the question whether or not an act can incur penalties.
Dette princip finder ikke anvendelse på de processuelle aspekter af strafferetten 35.
The principle does not apply to the procedural aspects of criminal law.
En person kan derfor omfattes af procedurebestemmelser, som er vedtaget eller ændret efter tidspunktet for de påståede strafbare handlinger, uden at det strider mod princippet nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia).
35A person may thus have applied to him procedural provisions introduced or amended after the date of the offence he is charged with without the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) being breached.
Det gælder navnlig for bestemmelser om udlevering af personer mellem stater 36, som udelukkende er af proceduremæssig karakter.
That is the case in particular with provisions governing the extradition of persons between States, 36since they are of a purely procedural nature.
Dette princip vil muligvis være tilsidesat, når en medlemsstat uanset ordlyden af rammeafgørelsens artikel 32, hvori der tales om den »ordning for udlevering, der var gældende før den 1. januar 2004«, ønsker at anvende regler, der fandt anvendelse efter dette tidspunkt.
That principle could be called into question by the fact that, despite the wording of Article 32 of the Framework Decision referring to ‘the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004’, a Member State wishes to apply rules that became applicable after that date.
Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea kan derfor ikke med føje påberåbe sig princippet nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) for at undgå, at konventionen af 1996 anvendes på den foreliggende spanske udleveringsbegæring.
It follows that Mr Santesteban Goicoechea cannot validly rely on the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) to avoid the 1996 Convention being applied to the present extradition request made by the Kingdom of Spain.
Princippet nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege indebærer, at loven klart skal definere overtrædelserne og den straf, de medfører 34.
The principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege means that the law must define clearly offences and the penalties which they attract.
Det er tæt knyttet til princippet om, at strafbare forhold og straffe ikke kan have tilbagevirkende kraft (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia), hvorefter lovgiver ikke må træffe bestemmelse om et strafbart forhold eller en straf eller forhøje en straf med tilbagevirkende kraft.
34 It is closely linked to the principle of non-retroactivity of offences and penalties (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia), by virtue of which the legislature cannot retroactively create an offence or a penalty, or make a penalty more severe.
Retssikkerhedsprincippet og princippet non bis in idem
The principle of legal certainty and the principle non bis in idem
Princippet nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) finder dog kun anvendelse
However, the principle nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (praevia) applies only to
35 — Jf. i denne retning dom af 16.6.2005, Pupino, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 11, præmis 46, sammenholdt med præmis 44 og 45. Jf. endvidere den tyske Bundesverfassungsgerichts kendelse af 26.2.1969, sag 2 BvL 15, 23/68, trykt i Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1969, s. 1059, på s. 1061, og i Sammlung der Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, BVerfGE, bind 25, s. 269, på s. 286 ff.
33 — See Advocaten voor de Wereld, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 49 and the caselaw cited, and judgment of 22 May 2008 in Case C-266/06 P Evonik Degussa v Commission and Council, paragraph 38.
34 — Jf. Advocaten voor de Wereld-dommen, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 28, præmis 50, og dommen i sagen Evonik Degussa mod Kommissionen og Rådet, nævnt ovenfor i fodnote 33, præmis 39.
34 — See Advocaten voor de Wereld, cited in footnote 28, paragraph 50, and Evonik Degussa v Commission and Council, cited in footnote 33, paragraph 39.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA der anvendes af Domstolen 38.
38 However, res judicata extends only to the matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question. 39
Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea har påberåbt sig disse to principper i den foreliggende sag, fordi han mener, at hans situation blev »endeligt fastlagt« ved afvisningen af Kongeriget Spaniens tidligere udleveringsbegæring af 11. oktober 2000 37.
These two principles are relied on in the present case in so far as Mr Santesteban Goicoechea’s position is said to have been ‘definitively settled’ by the rejection of an earlier extradition request made by the Kingdom of Spain on 11 October 2000.
Det er derfor spørgsmålet, om den foreliggende udleveringsbegæring, der blev fremsat den 2. juni 2008, strider mod retssikkerhedsprincippet eller princippet non bis in idem.
37It might therefore be asked whether the present extradition request, made on 2 June 2008, conflicts with legal certainty or the non bis in idem rule.