Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2024/7304

16.12.2024

(Case C-583/24, Tagu)

(C/2024/7304)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Other party: Openbaar Ministerie

Questions referred

1.Should Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with Article 2(1)(a) and (2), Article 4(1) and (2)(b) and Article 5 of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, be interpreted as meaning that

if the person sought opposes his or her surrender on the grounds that he or she has been finally sentenced in the issuing Member State to a disproportionate minimum term of imprisonment for the importation of small quantities of drugs for personal consumption, or at least for the importation of small quantities of drugs without the intention of trafficking them,

the executing judicial authority must examine whether, in the event of surrender for the purpose of executing that sentence, the person sought would face a real risk of serving a sentence that is disproportionate to the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based?

2.If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

(a)what test should the executing judicial authority apply in assessing whether there is a real risk of the execution of a final disproportionate sentence as referred to in question 1;

(b)what role in that test is played by the fact that the law of the issuing Member State, implementing Article 4(2)(b) of Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking, and the consequent obligation of criminalisation with provision for a maximum sentence of at least 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment, obliges the national court to impose a minimum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment in the event of conviction for, in essence, the importation of drugs that are most harmful to health, irrespective of the quantity of drugs to which such conduct relates and irrespective of whether such conduct was intended to provide for personal consumption or was carried out with a view to trafficking such drugs, when:

the court may only reduce that mandatory minimum sentence by up to one third in total if there are circumstances that reduce the seriousness of the offence or the threat posed by the offender or if the person concerned confesses to the offence, or by up to one half in total if the person concerned facilitates the identification and prosecution of other persons who have committed drug-related offences, and

the length of that (possibly reduced) minimum sentence precludes the court from ordering the suspension of its enforcement;

(c)can any real risk of the execution of a final disproportionate sentence as referred to in question 1 still be removed by a guarantee on the part of the issuing Member State, and what form might such a guarantee take?

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25 October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking (OJ 2004 L 335, p. 8).

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/7304/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—