Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 August 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Openbaar Ministerie v Tadas Tupikas
(Case C-270/17 PPU) 1
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Reasons for optional non-execution — Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA — Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order — ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ — Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance — Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case — Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Rechtbank Amsterdam
Parties to the main proceedings
Tadas Tupikas
Operative part of the judgment
Where the issuing Member State has provided for a criminal procedure involving several degrees of jurisdiction which may thus give rise to successive judicial decisions, at least one of which has been handed down in absentia, the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as relating only to the instance at the end of which the decision is handed down which finally rules on the guilt of the person concerned and imposes a penalty on him, such as a custodial sentence, following a re-examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case.
An appeal proceeding, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in principle falls within that concept. It is nonetheless up to the referring court to satisfy itself that it has the characteristics set out above.
____________
1 OJ C 277, 21.8.2017.