- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-97/18: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 January 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland — Netherlands) — criminal proceedings against ET (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Principle of mutual recognition of confiscation orders — Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA — Article 12(1) and (4) — Law governing the execution — Law of the executing State authorising recourse to imprisonment for the non-execution of the confiscation order — Conformity — Law of the issuing State also authorising recourse to a term of imprisonment — Lack of effect)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0097
62018CA0097
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.2.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 72/3
(Case C-97/18) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Principle of mutual recognition of confiscation orders - Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA - Article 12(1) and (4) - Law governing the execution - Law of the executing State authorising recourse to imprisonment for the non-execution of the confiscation order - Conformity - Law of the issuing State also authorising recourse to a term of imprisonment - Lack of effect))
(2019/C 72/03)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Party to the main, criminal proceedings
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 12(1) and (4) of Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders must be interpreted as not precluding the application of the legislation of an executing State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purpose of enforcing a confiscation order adopted in an issuing State, authorises, where necessary, a term of imprisonment to be imposed.
2.The fact that the legislation of the issuing State also authorises possible recourse to a term of imprisonment has no bearing on the application of such a measure in the executing State.
(1) OJ C 182, 28.5.2018.