Tanja Reiter*

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2016.

The Court released its judgment on the 22nd of March 2017.

Parties to the main proceedings: Tanja Reiter

Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

Questions referred

1.

Do Article 2 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] preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not, as a result, have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can demonstrably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?

2.

Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?

Source: Official Journal of the European Union, 18.7.2016, C 260/20.

An identical request from the same referring court has been lodged on 29 February 2016.