Request for a preliminary ruling from the Županijski sud u Zagrebu (Croatia) lodged on 18 May 2017 — Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta v AY

(Case C-268/17)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Županijski sud u Zagrebu

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta

Defendant: AY

Questions referred

1.    Is Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA to be interpreted as meaning that the decision not to prosecute for an offence on which a European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings relates only to the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or is that provision to be understood as meaning that the cessation or discontinuation of proceedings must also concern the requested person as the suspect/accused in those proceedings?

2.    May a Member State refuse, pursuant to Article 4(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, to execute a European arrest warrant which has been issued when the judicial authority of the other Member State has decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings where the requested person had the status of a witness and not of a suspect/accused in the proceedings?

3.    Does the decision to terminate an investigation in which the requested person did not have the status of a suspect but was interviewed as a witness constitute, for the other Member States, a ground not to act on the European arrest warrant which has been issued in accordance with Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA?

4.    What is the link between the mandatory ground for refusal of surrender laid down in Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, where ‘the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts’, and the optional ground for refusal of surrender laid down in Article 4(3) of the Framework Decision, where ‘a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings’?

5.    Is Article 1(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA to be interpreted as meaning that the executing State is required to adopt a decision on any European arrest warrant communicated to it, even where it has already taken a decision on a previous European arrest warrant issued by the other judicial authority against the same requested person in the same criminal proceedings and where the new European arrest warrant is issued because of a change in circumstances in the State issuing the European arrest warrant (decision to refer — initiation of criminal proceedings, stricter evidential criteria relating to the commission of the offence, new competent judicial authority/court)?

____________