Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I (Germany) lodged on 4 April 2016.
The Court released its judgment on the 22nd of March 2017.
Parties to the main proceedings: Ionel Opria
Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I
Must Article 2, Article 3(1)(c) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings against an accused person with no fixed domicile or residence in that Member State, a penalty order made against the accused can be served on a person appointed by him as being authorised to accept service on his behalf, with the result that the penalty order acquires the force of res judicata upon expiry of the (two-week) period for lodging an objection, which begins to run from the time of service on the authorised person, even where, in accordance with the legislation of that Member State, any such accused person who lodges a written objection against the penalty order with the court having jurisdiction within two weeks of actually becoming aware of that order must ex officio have his position restored to the status quo ante, with the result that, following the adoption of the decision to restore the status quo ante, proceedings must continue as they would in the case of an objection lodged in good time?
Source: Official Journal of the European Union, 18.7.2016, C 260/16
Case Number C-188/16
Name of the parties Criminal proceedings against Ionel Opria
Date of the judgement 2016-07-01
Court Court of Justice (ECJ)