Judgments nº C-489/19 PPU of Tribunal de Justicia, October 09, 2019

Resolution Date:October 09, 2019
Issuing Organization:Tribunal de Justicia
Decision Number:C-489/19 PPU

Fonction publique - Agents temporaires - Rapport de notation pour l’année 2016 - Congé de maladie - Demande en indemnité - Réclamation introduite après l’expiration du délai de trois mois prévu à l’article 90, paragraphe 2, du statut - Force majeure - Erreur excusable - Irrecevabilité manifeste


(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘European arrest warrant’ - Minimum requirements on which validity depends - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State - Status - Whether subordinate to a body of the executive - Power of a Minister for Justice to issue instructions in a specific case - Certification of the European arrest warrant by a court before its transmission)

In Case C-489/19 PPU,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Kammergericht Berlin (Higher Regional Court, Berlin, Germany), made by decision of 26 June 2019, received at the Court on the same date, in the proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against


in the presence of:

Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin,

THE COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of A. Arabadjiev (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.G. Xuereb, T. von Danwitz, C. Vajda and A. Kumin, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: D. Dittert, Head of Unit,

having regard to the referring court’s request of 26 June 2019, received at the Court on the same date, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the decision of the Second Chamber of 15 July 2019 to grant that request,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 3 September 2019,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of

- the German Government, by M. Hellmann, J. Möller and A. Berg, acting as Agents,

- the Spanish Government, by L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agent,

- the Austrian Government, by J. Schmoll and J. Herrnfeld, acting as Agents,

- the European Commission, by S. Grünheid, acting as Agent,

Having heard the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting of 17 September 2019,

gives the following


1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’).

2 The request was made in the context of the execution in Germany of a European arrest warrant issued against NJ on 16 May 2019 by the Staatsanwaltschaft Wien (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Vienna, Austria) and endorsed on 20 May 2019 by a decision of the Landesgericht Wien (Regional Court, Vienna, Austria).

Legal context

European Union law

3 Recital 5 of Framework Decision 2002/584 is worded as follows:

‘The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Furthermore, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.’

4 Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides:

‘1. The European arrest warrant is a Judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

  1. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

  2. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [EU].’

    5 Under Article 6 of Framework Decision 2002/584, under the heading ‘Determination of the competent judicial authorities’:

    ‘1. The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.

  3. The executing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the executing Member State which is competent to execute the European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.

  4. Each Member State shall inform the General Secretariat of the Council of the competent judicial authority under its law.’

    6 Article 2(1) of that framework decision provides:

    ‘A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.’

    7 Article 8 of Framework Decision 2002/584, headed ‘Content and form of the European arrest warrant’, provides, in paragraph 1:

    ‘The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:

    (c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2;


    Austrian law

    8 In accordance with Paragraph 2(1) of the Staatsanwaltschaftsgesetz (Law on public prosecutor’s offices; ‘the StAG’):

    ‘At the seat of each Landesgericht (Regional Court) exercising criminal jurisdiction, there shall be a public prosecutor’s office, at the seat of each Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) a higher public prosecutor’s office, and at the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) the principal public prosecutor’s office. The public prosecutor’s offices shall be directly subordinate to, and act on the instructions of, the higher public prosecutor’s offices, just as the latter and the principal public prosecutor’s office shall be directly subordinate to, and act on the instructions of, the Federal Minister for Justice.’

    9 The first sentence of Paragraph 29(1) of the Gesetz über die Justizielle Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen mit den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (Law on judicial cooperation in criminal matters with the Member States of the European Union; ‘the EU-GJZ’) provides:

    ‘The public prosecutor’s office shall make an order for arrest by issuing a...

To continue reading