D.P.

On 6 October the 2021, the First Chamber of the Court rendered a judgement regarding the mutual recognition of pecuniary sanctions as provided by Framework decision 2005/214. On 21 January 2020, the central administrative authority for the collection and recovery of fines in the Netherlands (CJIB), brought an action before the district court for Lodz in Poland in order to recognise and execute its decision imposing on DP – who resides in Poland – a fine of EUR 210 for a road traffic offence. At a hearing before the referring court, DP claimed that the relevant decision had been notified to him without it being translated in Polish and therefore he could not understand its content. In this sense, the District Court for Lodz questioned the Court of Justice whether the notification of a sentenced person of a decision imposing a pecuniary sentence without being accompanied by a translation into a language which he understands, should entitle an authority of the executing State to refuse to enforce the decision on the basis of the provisions implementing Article 20(3) of the Framework Decision 2005/214 and on the basis of the right to a fair trial.

The Court recalls that the Framework Decision 2005/214 aims to ensure an effective mechanism for cross-border recognition and execution of final decisions requiring a financial penalty to be paid by virtue of the principle of mutual recognition. Therefore, the Member States should in principle recognise such a decision without any further formality being required. Furthermore, the CJEU undelines that the executing State may refuse to recognise and execute such a decision not only where one of the grounds for non-recognition and non-execution come to the fore, but also where fundamental rights may have been infringed. These fundamental rights comprise the right to effective judicial protection, including the right to a fair hearing and the defence rights, envisaged in Articles 47 and 48(2) of the Charter respectively.

Calling upon the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the CJEU ascertaines that a road traffic offence constitutes a ‘criminal offence’ and thus proceedings regarding a pecuniary sanction imposed for such an offence fall in the ambit of the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 6 ECHR, including inter alia the right of the person concerned to be informed ‘in a language which he understands’ and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

In that context, reiterating the relevant case-law of the ECtHR, the Court of Justice concludes that the issuing State should ensure that the sentenced person is informed, in a language which he or she understands, of the elements of that decision which are essential for him or her to understand what he or she is accused of, and to be able fully to exercise his or her rights of defence or, if needed, to obtain a full translation of those elements.Thus, the Court stated that an executing State may oppose to execute a decision imposing a financial sanction if such a decision notified to the senctioned person or at least the essential elements thereof enabling him or her to exercise his or her rights of the defence, are not translated in a language that is understandable to that person.