Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 22 December 2021 – Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen
(Case C-819/21)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Landgericht Aachen
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Staatsanwaltschaft Aachen
Other party: M.D.
Questions referred
Can a court of the executing Member State which has been called on to rule on a declaration of enforceability refuse, on the basis of Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 1 of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to recognise the judgment of another Member State and to enforce the sentence imposed by that judgment in accordance with Article 8 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 where there are reasons to believe that the conditions prevailing in that Member State at the time of the adoption of the decision to be enforced or of the related subsequent decisions are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU?
Can a court of the executing Member State which has been called on to rule on a declaration of enforceability refuse, on the basis of Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU, to recognise the judgment of another Member State and to enforce the sentence imposed by that judgment in accordance with Article 8 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 where there are reasons to believe that the judicial system in that Member State is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 TEU at the time of the ruling on the declaration of enforceability?
If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
Before the recognition of a judgment of a court of another Member State and the enforcement of the sentence imposed by that judgment is refused by reference to Article 3(4) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that there are reasons to believe that the conditions prevailing in that Member State are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law, is it necessary to review, in a second step, whether the prevailing conditions which are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial had a detrimental effect specifically on the sentenced person(s) in the proceedings in question?
If Question 1 and/or Question 2 is/are answered in the negative to the effect that the decision as to whether the conditions prevailing in a Member State are incompatible with the fundamental right to a fair trial because, in that Member State, the judicial system itself is no longer in conformity with the principle of the rule of law is a matter not for the courts of the Member States but for the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Was the judicial system in the Republic of Poland in conformity with the principle of the rule of law under Article 2 TEU on 7 August 2018 and/or 16 July 2019, and is it currently in conformity with it?
____________
1 Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).