AB and Others (Revocation d'une amnistie) (Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Concepts of 'acquittal' and 'conviction' - Judgment) [2021] EUECJ C-203/20 (16 December 2021)

AB and Others (Revocation d'une amnistie) (Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Concepts of 'acquittal' and 'conviction' - Judgment) [2021] EUECJ C-203/20 (16 December 2021)

Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude issuing a European arrest warrant where criminal proceedings were discontinued by a final judicial decision based on amnesty and later resumed after revocation of that amnesty, provided the original decision was made before any determination of criminal liability. Directive 2012/13/EU does not apply to legislative or constitutional review procedures revoking amnesty. The CJEU lacks jurisdiction to require constitutional courts to review amnesty revocation for compliance with EU law where such procedures do not implement EU law.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ C-203/20
Parties
Accused Persons: AB, CD, EF, NO, JL, GH, IJ, LM, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG; Referring Court: Okresný súd Bratislava III (District Court, Bratislava III)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Judgment on Reference From National Court
Outcome
Questions answered as follows: Article 50 Charter does not preclude European arrest warrant in these circumstances; Directive 2012/13/EU does not apply to legislative or constitutional review of amnesty revocation; CJEU lacks jurisdiction on third question.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Ne Bis in Idem, Amnesty Revocation, Right to Fair Trial, Judicial Review, Application of EU Charter, Directive 2012/13/eu
European Union Law Criminal Law Constitutional Law European Arrest Warrant Ne Bis in Idem Amnesty Revocation Right to Fair Trial Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB, CD, EF, NO, JL, GH, IJ, LM, PR, ST, UV, WZ, BC, DE, FG

Accused Persons

Okresný súd Bratislava III (District Court, Bratislava III)

Referring Court

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Judgment on Reference From National Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does Article 50 of the Charter preclude issuing a European arrest warrant after criminal proceedings were discontinued by amnesty and later resumed following revocation of that amnesty?
  2. 2 Does Directive 2012/13/EU apply to legislative or constitutional review procedures revoking amnesty?
  3. 3 Does EU law require constitutional courts to review amnesty revocation for compliance with EU law, not just national constitution?

Ratio Decidendi

Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude issuing a European arrest warrant where criminal proceedings were discontinued by a final judicial decision based on amnesty and later resumed after revocation of that amnesty, provided the original decision was made before any determination of criminal liability. Directive 2012/13/EU does not apply to legislative or constitutional review procedures revoking amnesty. The CJEU lacks jurisdiction to require constitutional courts to review amnesty revocation for compliance with EU law where such procedures do not implement EU law.

Court Disposition

Questions answered as follows: Article 50 Charter does not preclude European arrest warrant in these circumstances; Directive 2012/13/EU does not apply to legislative or constitutional review of amnesty revocation; CJEU lacks jurisdiction on third question.

Orders

  • Article 50 Charter does not preclude issue of European arrest warrant after amnesty revocation if no determination of criminal liability was made.
  • Directive 2012/13/EU does not apply to legislative or constitutional review procedures revoking amnesty.