- 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-640/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — Ireland) — European arrest warrant in respect of Tomas Vilkas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 23 — Time limit for surrender of the requested person — Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions — Resistance of the requested person to his surrender — Force majeure)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0640
62015CA0640
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
13.3.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 78/4
(Case C-640/15) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Article 23 - Time limit for surrender of the requested person - Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions - Resistance of the requested person to his surrender - Force majeure))
(2017/C 078/05)
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Party to the main proceedings
Operative part of the judgment
Article 23(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the executing and issuing judicial authorities agree on a new surrender date under that provision where the surrender of the requested person within 10 days of a first new surrender date agreed on pursuant to that provision proves impossible on account of the repeated resistance of that person, in so far as, on account of exceptional circumstances, that resistance could not have been foreseen by those authorities and the consequences of the resistance for the surrender could not have been avoided in spite of the exercise of all due care by those authorities, which is for the referring court to ascertain.
Articles 15(1) and 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that those authorities remain obliged to agree on a new surrender date if the time limits prescribed in Article 23 have expired.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.
* * *