13.9.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/12

(Case C-428/21)

(2021/C 368/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

European arrest warrant issued against: HM

Questions referred

1.Must Article 27(3)(g) and (4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, (1) read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection, be interpreted as meaning that:

—a surrendered person must be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in relation to a request for an extension of the offences in the issuing Member State when a judicial authority of that Member State grants him or her a hearing relating to the possible renunciation of the entitlement to the speciality rule as referred to in Article 27(3)(f) of the Framework Decision, or

—must that person be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in the Member State which previously surrendered him or her to the executing judicial authority in the proceedings relating to the request for consent to extend the offences?

2.If a surrendered person must be able to exercise his or her right to be heard in relation to the decision on a request for consent to extend the offences, as referred to in Article 27(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in the Member State which previously surrendered him or her, in what way must that Member State enable him or her to do so?

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).