Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/29

(Case C-108/16)

(2016/C 156/39)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Openbaar Ministerie

Defendant: Paweł Dworzecki

Questions referred

1.Are the following concepts, used in Article 4a(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) autonomous concepts of EU law?

—‘in due time …was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision’

—‘in due time … by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial’

2.If so:

– a.how should those autonomous concepts generally be interpreted; and

– b.does a case such as the present, which is characterised by the facts that:

—according to the EAW [European arrest warrant], the summons was served, at the address of the requested person, on an adult resident of the household, who undertook to hand the summons over to the requested person;

—it is not clear from the EAW whether and when that resident actually handed the summons over to the requested person;

—it cannot be inferred from the statement which the requested person made at the hearing before the referring court that he was — in due time — aware of the date and place of the scheduled trial,

fall under one of those two autonomous concepts?

(1) Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).