Milev (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-439/16 (27 October 2016)

Milev (Judgment) [2016] EUECJ C-439/16 (27 October 2016)

The Supreme Court of Cassation's opinion of 7 April 2016, which allows national courts discretion to apply either ECHR or national law regarding review of reasonable suspicion for continued custody during the trial stage, does not seriously compromise the attainment of Directive 2016/343's objectives after the transposition period, as it does not mandate a particular interpretation or outcome.

Citation
[2016] EUECJ C-439/16
Parties
Accused: Mr Emil Milev; Referring Court: Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Special court for criminal matters, Bulgaria); Opinion Giving Court: Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Reference for Preliminary Ruling Under Urgent Procedure
Outcome
Opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation does not seriously compromise the attainment of Directive 2016/343's objectives after the transposition period.
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Burden of Proof, Remand in Custody, Directive Transposition, Conflict of Laws, Right to Liberty, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law European Union Law Human Rights Law Presumption of Innocence Burden of Proof Remand in Custody Directive Transposition Conflict of Laws +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Emil Milev

Accused

Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad (Special court for criminal matters, Bulgaria)

Referring Court

Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria)

Opinion Giving Court

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Reference for Preliminary Ruling Under Urgent Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 2016/343 preclude a national court opinion allowing courts to decide whether to review reasonable grounds for continued custody during trial stage, in light of conflicting national law and ECHR requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Cassation's opinion of 7 April 2016, which allows national courts discretion to apply either ECHR or national law regarding review of reasonable suspicion for continued custody during the trial stage, does not seriously compromise the attainment of Directive 2016/343's objectives after the transposition period, as it does not mandate a particular interpretation or outcome.

Court Disposition

Opinion of the Supreme Court of Cassation does not seriously compromise the attainment of Directive 2016/343's objectives after the transposition period.

Orders

  • The opinion delivered on 7 April 2016 by the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria) is not likely seriously to compromise, after the expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2016/343, the attainment of the objectives prescribed by that directive.
  • Costs are a matter for the national court.