Samet Ardic

On 22 December 2017, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) delivered its judgment in case C-571/17 PPU, on the interpretation of 4a (1) of the EAW Framework Decision.

A German prosecutor issued an EAW against Mr Ardic, a German national residing in the Netherlands, for the purpose of carrying out two custodial sentences in Germany. Mr Ardic appeared in person during the proceedings which led to the imposition of these custodial sentences, the execution of which was suspended subject to certain conditions, but did not appear in person during the subsequent proceedings ordering such suspension to be revoked on the ground of non-compliance with conditions and evasion of the supervision and guidance of a probation officer.

In this context, the referring court asked the Court whether the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of Article 4a (1) of the EAW Framework Decision, must be interpreted as also referring to such subsequent proceedings ordering suspension to be revoked.

Building on its judgments in the Tupikas and Zdziaszek cases, the Court found that the concept of ‘decision’ within the meaning of Article 4a (1) of the EAW Framework Decision refers to the judicial decision relating to the conviction of the person concerned.

By contrast, the Court specified that the concept of ‘decision’ does not cover decisions relating to the methods of execution of a custodial sentence previously imposed, unless such decision amends the quantum of the penalty imposed inasmuch as the authority which adopted it enjoyed a certain discretion in that regard.The Court therefore concluded that decisions to revoke suspension such as those of the main proceedings are not covered by 4a (1) of the EAW Framework Decision, as they do not modify the nature or the level of the penalties previously imposed.