30.8.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/18

(Case C-66/08)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant - Interpretation of the terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ in the executing Member State)

(2008/C 223/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of execution of a sentence of imprisonment in relation to a person staying or residing in the Member State of execution — Concepts of ‘residence’ and ‘staying’ — Interpretation of Article 6(1) EU in conjunction with Articles 12 EC and 17 EC — National legislation which allows requested persons to be treated differently by the executing judicial authority, where they do not consent to their surrender, depending whether they are a national of the Member State of execution or of another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, is to be interpreted to the effect that:

—a requested person is ‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of presence in that State, he has acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence;

—in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which lead to the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic connections which that person has with the executing Member State.

Language of the case: German.

* * *

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.