natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Chambre de l’instruction of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložil Chambre de l’instruction de la cour d’appel de Montpellier)
(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 31 and 32 — European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Possibility for the State executing an extradition request to apply a convention adopted before 1 January 2004 but applicable in that State from a later date)
„Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah – Okvirni sklep 2002/584/PNZ – Člena 31 in 32 – Evropski nalog za prijetje in postopki predaje med državami članicami – Možnost, da država, ki izvr�uje zahtevo za izročitev, uporabi konvencijo, sprejeto pred 1. januarjem 2004, ki pa se v tej državi uporablja od poznej�ega datuma“
View of Advocate General Kokott of 6 August 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Predstavitev stali�ča generalne pravobranilke J. Kokott z dne 6. avgusta 2008 . .
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 12 August 2008 . . . . . . . . . .
I - 6310Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 12. avgusta 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 6324
Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Jurisdiction of the Court — Prelim­inary rulings — Question on the interpretation of a framework decision adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty
Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah – Pristojnosti Sodišča – Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Vprašanje, ki se nanaša na razlago okvirnega sklepa, sprejetega na podlagi naslova VI Pogodbe EU
(Art. 234 EC; Arts 35 EU and 46(b) EU)
(člen 234 ES; člena 35 EU in 46(b) EU)
SUMMARY — CASE C-296/08 PPU
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU
Preliminary rulings — Reference to the Court — Determination of the questions to refer — Exclusive jurisdiction of the national court
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje – Predložitev zadeve Sodišču – Določitev vprašanj, ki se predložijo – Izključna pristojnost nacionalnega sodišča
(Art. 35 EU)
(člen 35 EU)
European Union — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework deci­sion on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Evropska unija – Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah – Okvirni sklep o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 31)
(Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584, člen 31)
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 32)
(Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584, člen 32)
The fact that an order for reference concerning the interpretation of a framework decision adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty does not mention Article 35 EU but refers to Article 234 EC cannot of itself make the reference for a preliminary ruling inadmissible.
Dejstvo, da v predložitveni odločbi, ki se nana�a na razlago okvirnega sklepa, sprejetega na podlagi naslova VI Pogodbe EU, ni omenjen člen 35 EU, temveč se sklicuje na člen 234 ES, samo po sebi ne more pomeniti nedopustnosti predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
That conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the EU Treaty neither expressly nor by implication lays down the form in which the national court must present its reference for a preliminary ruling.
To velja �e toliko bolj, ker Pogodba EU niti izrecno niti implicitno ne določa oblike, v kateri mora nacionalno sodi�če podati predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
their tenor. To answer questions formulated by the parties to the main proceedings would moreover be incompatible with the function given to the Court by that article and with its duty to ensure that the governments of the Member States and the parties concerned are given the opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, bearing in mind that under that provision only the order of the referring court is notified to the interested parties.
jih je podala stranka v postopku v glavni stvari, poleg tega ne bi bil skladen z vlogo, ki jo ima Sodi�če na podlagi zgoraj navedene določbe, in z njegovo obveznostjo, da vladam držav članic in zainteresiranim strankam zagotovi možnost, da predložijo izjave v skladu s členom 23 Statuta Sodi�ča, upo�tevajoč dejstvo, da so na podlagi te določbe zainteresirane stranke obve�čene le o predložitvenih odločbah.
Since, under Article 35 EU, it is for the national court or tribunal, not the parties to the main proceedings, to bring a matter before the Court, the right to determine the questions to be put to the Court devolves on the national court alone and the parties may not change
Ker je v skladu s členom 35 EU nacionalno sodi�če – in ne stranke v sporu v glavni stvari – pristojno, da predloži zadevo Sodi�ču, lahko le nacionalno sodi�če določa vpra�anja, ki se predložijo Sodi�ču, stranke pa ne morejo spremeniti njihove vsebine. Odgovor na predloge, ki
Article 31 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where
Člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami je treba razlagati tako, da se nana�a le na primer, v katerem se uporablja sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje, to pa ni tako, kadar se zahteva za
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of the framework decision.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA izročitev nana�a na dejstva, storjena pred datumom, ki ga je država članica navedla v izjavi, podani v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
(see para. 63, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 63 in točko 1 izreka.)
Making conventions such as that convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union applicable does not interfere with the European arrest warrant system laid down by the framework decision, since, in accordance with Article 31(1) of that decision, such a convention can be used only where the European arrest warrant system does not apply.
Uporaba konvencij, kot je Konvencija o izročitvi med državami članicami Evropske unije, ne ogroža sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje, določenega v Okvirnem sklepu, saj se v skladu z njegovim členom 31(1) taka konvencija lahko uporablja le, kadar se ne uporablja sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje.
The purpose of making conventions in the field of extradition applicable after 1 January 2004 can therefore only be to improve the extradition system in circumstances in which the European arrest warrant system does not apply.
Namen uporabe konvencij na področju izročitve po 1. januarju 2004 je torej lahko le izbolj�anje sistema izročitve v okoli�činah, v katerih se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje ne uporablja.
Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.
Člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami je treba razlagati tako, da v izvr�itveni državi članici ne nasprotuje uporabi Konvencije o izročitvi med državami članicami Evropske unije, pripravljene z aktom Sveta z dne 27. septembra 1996, ki so jo istega dne podpisale vse države članice, tudi če se je ta v tej državi članici začela uporabljati �ele po 1. januarju 2004.
(see paras 74, 75, 81, operative part 2)
(Glej točke 74, 75, 81 in točko 2 izreka.)
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU
STALIŠČE J. KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU
VIEW OF ADVOCATE GENERALKOKOTT of 6 August 2008 1
STALIŠČE GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEJULIANE KOKOTT, predstavljeno 6. avgusta 2008 1
I — Introduction belonging to another, the offence of changing car registration plates, and the offence of belonging to a terrorist organisation. 5
I – Uvod zamenjave registrskih tablic in pripadnosti teroristični organizaciji. 5
Following an extradition request made by the Spanish authorities on 2 June 2008 under the Convention of 27 September 1996, 2Mr Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea 3has been detained in France for the purpose of extradition. 4
Zaradi zahteve za izročitev, ki so jo 2. junija 2008 vložili �panski organi na podlagi konvencije z dne 27. septembra 1996, 2je bil Ignacio Santesteban Goicoechea 3zaradi izvr�itve začasno pridržan v Franciji. 4
The Chambre de l’instruction (Indictment Division) of the Cour d’appel de Montpellier (Court of Appeal, Montpellier) (France), which has to rule on the request for extradition, entertains doubts as to the applicability of the 1996 Convention.
Chambre de l’instruction pri Cour d’appel de Montpellier, ki se mora opredeliti o zahtevi za izročitev, dvomi o uporabi Konvencije iz leta 1996.
It considers that the application by the French Republic of that convention could be contrary to the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 6(‘the Framework Decision’).
Meni, da če bi Francoska republika uporabila to konvencijo, bi to lahko bilo v nasprotju z Okvirnim sklepom o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami 6(v nadaljevanju: Okvirni sklep).
In those circumstances, it decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Framework Decision:
V teh okoli�činah je Chambre de l’instruction pri Cour d’appel de Montpellier prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji o razlagi Okvirnega sklepa:
The offences he is accused of were committed on Spanish territory in February and March 1992.
Dejanja, ki se mu očitajo, so bila storjena na �panskem ozemlju februarja in marca 1992.
They are described as the storing of weapons, illegal possession of explosives, unlawful use of a motor vehicle
Opredeljena so kot shranjevanje voja�kega orožja, nezakonita posest eksploziva ter kazniva dejanja odvzema motornega vozila,
2 — Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (OJ 1996 C 313, p.
2 – Konvencija – imenovana „Dublinska konvencija“ – pripravljena na podlagi člena K.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o izročitvi med državami članicami Evropske unije (UL C 313, str.
12), also known as the Dublin Convention (‘the 1996 Convention’).
12, v nadaljevanju: Konvencija iz leta 1996).
3 — Or, according to the observations submitted by him, Inaki Santesteban Goikoetxea.
3 – Ali glede na vlogo, ki jo je zadevna oseba vložila sama, Inaki Santesteban Goikoetxea.
6 — Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
6 – Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 (UL L 190, str. 1, in popravek v UL 2006, L 279, str. 30).
Framework Decision … its intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements preclude, by reason of the word “replace” in Article 31 of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using with another Member State (in this case [the French Republic]), which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant?
II – Dopustnost predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe sklepa […] ni poslala uradnega obvestila, da namerava �e naprej uporabljati dvostranske ali večstranske sporazume, tej državi članici zaradi uporabe pojma ‚nadomesti‘ v členu 31 tega okvirnega sklepa onemogoča, da bi z drugo državo članico – v obravnavani zadevi [Francosko republiko], ki je podala izjavo na podlagi člena 32 Okvirnega sklepa – uporabljala druge postopke, kot je postopek z evropskim nalogom za prijetje?
The admissibility of the reference must be assessed in the light of Article 234 EC and Article 35 EU.
Dopustnost tega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je treba preučiti na podlagi členov 243 ES in 35 EU.
Two points principally should be distinguished here: first, whether the referring court is a ‘national court or tribunal’ as defined in the settled caselaw of the Court on references for preliminary rulings; 7and, second, whether that court is performing judicial functions rather than administrative functions in the present case. 8
Glede tega je treba načeloma razlikovati dve točki, in sicer po eni strani vpra�anje, ali je predložitveno sodi�če „nacionalno sodi�če“ v smislu ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča na področju predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, 7po drugi strani pa vpra�anje, ali to sodi�če v obravnavanem primeru izvaja sodno funkcijo, in ne upravne. 8
If the answer to the above question is in the negative:
Če je odgovor na predhodno vpra�anje nikalen:
(2) Do the provisos made by the executing Member State permit that State to apply a Convention of … 1996, which was thus prior to 1 January 2004, but entered into force in that executing State after that date of 1 January 2004 referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision?’
Ali pridržki izvr�itvene države članice tej dopu�čajo uporabo [Konvencije iz leta 1996], ki je bila torej sprejeta pred 1. januarjem 2004, vendar je v tej izvr�itveni državi članici začela veljati �ele po 1. januarju 2004, ki je naveden v členu 32 Okvirnega sklepa?“
As regards the first point, there is no doubt that the indictment division of a French court of appeal hearing a request for extradition may be regarded as a ‘national court or tribunal’ within the meaning of the Treaty provisions governing the preliminary ruling procedure.
V zvezi s prvo točko je treba navesti, da ni dvoma, da se senat za preiskovalne zadeve (chambre de l’instruction) francoskega pritožbenega sodi�ča, ki obravnava zahtevo za izročitev, lahko �teje za „nacionalno sodi�če“ v smislu določb pogodb, ki urejajo postopek predhodnega odločanja.
According to the information on this point given by the French Government in its written observations, that chamber is a permanent body established by law, it consists of judges whose independence and security of tenure are guaranteed, it acts in accordance with a compulsory inter partes procedure, and it applies rules of law.
V skladu s pojasnili, ki jih je v zvezi s tem dala francoska vlada v pisnih stali�čih, je navedeni senat stalni organ, ustanovljen z zakonom, sestavljajo ga sodniki, katerih neodvisnost in neodstavljivost sta zagotovljeni, naloge opravlja v okviru obveznega in kontradiktornega postopka ter uporablja pravna pravila.
VIEW OF MRS KOKOTT — CASE C-296/08 PPU will not be possible for the person sought to be extradited, and he will be automatically released.
STALIŠČE J. KOKOTT – ZADEVA C-296/08 PPU osebe ne bo mogoče izročiti in bo po uradni dolžnosti izpu�čena na prostost.
As regards the second point, one might indeed wonder whether the extradition procedure in which the indictment division of the court of appeal is involved is really judicial in nature.
V zvezi z drugo točko je treba navesti, da bi se vsekakor lahko vpra�ali, ali je postopek izročitve, na podlagi katerega posreduje senat za preiskovalne zadeve pritožbenega sodi�ča, resnično sodni postopek.
The French Conseil d’État has in the past held that this is an administrative function, not a judicial function, as understood in French law.
Francoski Conseil d’État je v preteklosti presodil, da gre pri tem za upravno, in ne za sodno funkcijo v smislu francoskega prava.
9Such an assessment under national law cannot, however, decide the question whether the national court is performing a judicial function as understood in Community law.
9 Vendar pa taka presoja v nacionalnem pravu ne more vplivati na vpra�anje, ali predložitveno sodi�če opravlja sodno funkcijo v smislu prava Skupnosti.
More generally, it should not be overlooked that the various national extradition procedures, including moreover those introduced in order to implement the Framework Decision, often provide in one way or another for an administrative authority to be involved, 10 as with the procedure applicable in this case in France.
Na splo�no je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da različni nacionalni postopki izročitve, skupaj s tistimi, ki so uvedeni za izvajanje Okvirnega sklepa, pogosto tako ali drugače po zgledu postopka, ki se v Franciji uporablja v tej zadevi, predvidevajo vključitev upravnega organa.
Too restrictive an interpretation of the criteria governing the admissibility of references for preliminary rulings might risk blocking access to the Court in such cases, and consequently jeopardising the uniform interpretation of the Framework Decision.
10Preozka razlaga meril, ki urejajo dopustnost predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, bi v takih primerih lahko preprečila dostop do Sodi�ča in tako ogrozila enotno razlago Okvirnega sklepa.
The French Government rightly points out that there is indeed a dispute which the indictment division of the court of appeal will have to decide in this case.
Francoska vlada upravičeno poudarja, da gre za spor, o katerem mora v obravnavanem primeru odločiti Chambre de l’instruction pri Cour d’appel de Montpellier.
That dispute is between the public prosecutor’s office and the person sought by the request for extradition.
Gre za spor med državnim tožilstvom in osebo, zahtevano z zahtevo za izročitev.
That the procedure involves a dispute is particularly clear in the present case, since the person concerned has not given his consent to being extradited, but has, on the contrary, challenged the lawfulness of the extradition.
Spornost postopka je v tej zadevi �e zlasti očitna, ker zadevna oseba ni izrazila soglasja glede svoje izročitve, ampak je, nasprotno, izpodbijala njeno zakonitost.
Finally, in view of the nature of the Framework Decision, the Court’s jurisdiction to answer the questions could be doubted.
Končno bi zaradi narave Okvirnega sklepa bilo mogoče podvomiti o pristojnosti Sodi�ča, da odgovori na vpra�anji.
Under Article 34(2)(b) EU, a framework decision cannot entail direct effect.
V skladu s členom 34(2)(b) EU Okvirni sklep nima neposrednega učinka.
It follows that the Framework Decision cannot be used to oppose the application of the national rules on extradition.
Iz tega izhaja, da se nanj ni mogoče sklicevati pri nasprotovanju uporabi nacionalnih pravil, ki urejajo izročitev.
Consequently, one might wonder whether the Court’s answer in this case will serve any purpose.
Zato se lahko vpra�amo o koristnosti odgovora Sodi�ča v tej zadevi.
However, questions referred for preliminary rulings by national courts enjoy a presumption of relevance which can be
Vendar je treba upo�tevati, da za vpra�anja, ki jih v predhodno odločanje predložijo nacionalna sodi�ča, velja domneva
It is true that the indictment division of the court of appeal does not decide on its own on extradition, as an administrative authority must subsequently adopt the order for extradition.
Senat za preiskovalne zadeve pritožbenega sodi�ča o izročitvi sicer ne odloči sam, saj mora nato upravni organ sprejeti odločbo o izročitvi.
Nevertheless, the jurisdiction of the indictment division of the court of appeal extends to making an entirely independent assessment, in an inter partes procedure, of the lawfulness of the extradition sought.
Vendar je senat za preiskovalne zadeve pritožbenega sodi�ča pristojen, da popolnoma neodvisno in na podlagi kontradiktornega postopka presodi zakonitost zahtevane izročitve.
If its opinion is unfavourable to extradition, it
Če je mnenje tega sodi�ča o izročitvi negativno, zahtevane
10 — For German law, see for example the description in the judgment in Case C-66/08 Kozlowski [2008] ECR I-6041, paragraphs 14 and 15.
10 – V zvezi z nem�kim pravom glej predvsem opis iz sodbe z dne 17. julija 2008 v zadevi Kozlowski (C-66/08, sodbi točki 14 in 15). V tej ZOdl., str.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA are essentially based on the following considerations: displaced only in exceptional circumstances.
– po eni strani je v Okvirnem sklepu določeno, da ta nadome�ča Konvencijo iz leta 1996 (glej člen 31(1)(d) Okvirnega sklepa), Kraljevina Španija pa Sveta Evropske unije in Komisije Evropskih skupnosti ni uradno obvestila, da jo želi �e naprej uporabljati (člen 31(2), četrti pododstavek, Okvirnega sklepa); upo�tevnosti, ki jo je mogoče ovreči samo izjemoma.
That is the case where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of European Union law sought by those questions bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
Tako bi bilo, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga določb prava Evropske unije, navedenih v teh vpra�anjih, ni v nobeni zvezi z resničnostjo ali predmetom spora v postopku v glavni stvari, kadar je problem hipotetičen ali kadar Sodi�če nima dovolj pravnih in dejanskih elementov, ki so potrebni za to, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na zastavljena vpra�anja.
Except in such cases, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling on questions relating to the interpretation of the acts referred to in Article 35(1) EU.
Razen v takih primerih Sodi�če načeloma mora odločiti o vpra�anjih za predhodno odločanje, ki se nana�ajo na razlago aktov iz člena 35(1) EU.
11 In fact, the Court’s answer, in particular with respect to the interpretation of French law consistently with European Union law, is not obviously irrelevant.
11Koristnost odgovora Sodi�ča, zlasti glede na skladno razlago francoskega prava, namreč ni a priori očitno izključena.
For all those reasons, the reference for a preliminary ruling must be declared admissible.
Iz teh razlogov je treba ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe razglasiti za dopusten.
— second, the French Republic has stated, pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, that it will continue to deal with requests relating to acts committed before 1 November 1993 not in accordance with the arrest warrant system but in accordance with the extradition system applicable before 1 January 2004.
po drugi strani je Francoska republika v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa izjavila, da bo zahteve v zvezi z dejanji, storjenimi pred 1. novembrom 1993, �e naprej obravnavala v skladu z metodami izročitve, ki so veljale pred 1. januarjem 2004, in ne v skladu z nalogom za prijetje.
However, the 1996 Convention has been applicable in France only from 1 July 2005.
Vendar je Konvencija iz leta 1996 v Franciji začela veljati �ele 1. julija 2005.
A — Preliminary observations
A – Uvodne ugotovitve
The national court’s doubts as to the applicability of the 1996 Convention
Dvomi predložitvenega sodi�ča o uporabi Konvencije iz leta 1996 temeljijo v bistvenem na teh ugotovitvah:
In those circumstances, there might prove to be a ‘lacuna’ in the extradition system applicable between the French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain in relation to acts, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, committed before 1 November 1993.
V teh okoli�činah se lahko izkaže, da obstaja „praznina“ pri metodah izročitve, ki jih uporabljata Francoska republika in Kraljevina Španija v zvezi z dejanji, kot so ta v zadevi v glavni stvari, storjenimi pred 1. novembrom 1993.
The two questions referred for a preliminary ruling seek to clarify whether or not such a lacuna exists.
Namen vpra�anj za predhodno odločanje je pojasniti, ali taka praznina obstaja ali ne.
However, that general rule has exceptions, which are set out in Articles 31(2) and (3) and 32 of the Framework Decision.
Vendar ima navedeno splo�no pravilo izjeme, ki so določene v členih 31(2) in (3) ter 32 Okvirnega sklepa.