{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-447-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-447-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-23","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:b67bfc","proof":"sha256:aee1b760a2e082d5271523288c02b2419cbb3dd201a7c469193d71d367f6e3d4","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-447-24","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Provisional text","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"21 May 2026 ( * )","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"In Case C‑447/24 [Höldermann], ( i )","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_22","para_23"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Framework Decision 2002/584","paragraphs":["para_27","para_28"]},{"title":"(a)      in due time:","paragraphs":["para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36"]},{"title":"(i)      expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision;","paragraphs":["para_38"]},{"title":"(ii)      did not request a retrial or appeal within the applicable time frame;","paragraphs":["para_40"]},{"title":"(d)      was not personally served with the decision but:","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"Framework Decision 2008/909","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4         Under Article 1 of Framework Decision 2008/909, entitled ‘Definitions’:","paragraphs":["para_47","para_48","para_49"]},{"title":"(c)      “issuing State” shall mean the Member State in which a judgment is delivered;","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"(i)      in due time:","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75"]},{"title":"Framework Decision 2009/299","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"9         Recitals 1, 4, 6, 8 and 15 of Framework Decision 2009/299 state:","paragraphs":["para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91"]},{"title":"Directive (EU) 2016/343","paragraphs":["para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98"]},{"title":"German law","paragraphs":["para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106"]},{"title":"(a)      was summoned in person to appear at the trial which resulted in the decision, or","paragraphs":["para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112"]},{"title":"1.      has expressly stated that he or she will not contest the decision handed down; or","paragraphs":["para_114","para_115"]},{"title":"The main proceedings and the questions referred","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148"]},{"title":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Preliminary observations","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160"]},{"title":"The first question","paragraphs":["para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173"]},{"title":"The second question","paragraphs":["para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"The third question","paragraphs":["para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207"]},{"title":"The fourth question","paragraphs":["para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"21 May 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty – Grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement – Articl …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑447/24 [Höldermann], ( i )","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court, Berlin, Germany), made by decision of 21 June 2024, received at the Court on 25 June 2024, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"other party:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"SO,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, E. Regan (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias, B. Smulders and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: M. Siekierzyńska, Administrator,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 May 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"–        SO, by K. Bobisch, Rechtsanwalt,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"–        the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and J. Sawicka, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"–        the European Commission, by H. Leupold, F. Tomat and J. Vondung, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 September 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 9(1)(i) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving …","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement, in Germany, of a judgment imposing a custodial sentence on a German national handed down by a Polish court following a trial at which that person did not appear in person.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Framework Decision 2002/584","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"3         Article 4a 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), as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299 (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’), entitled ‘Decisions rendered following a trial at which the person did not appear in person’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"‘The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order if the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision, unless the European arrest warrant states that the person, in accordance with further procedural requirements defined in the national law of the issuing Member State:","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(a)      in due time:","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"(i)      either was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial,","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"(ii)      was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for the trial;","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"(b)      being aware of the scheduled trial had given a mandate to a legal counsellor, who was either appointed by the person concerned or by the State, to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that counsellor at the trial;","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"(c)      after being served with the decision and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be re-examined, and which may lead to the original decision being reversed:","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"(i)      expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision;","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"(ii)      did not request a retrial or appeal within the applicable time frame;","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"(d)      was not personally served with the decision but:","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"(i)      will be personally served with it without delay after the surrender and will be expressly informed of his or her right to a retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be re-examined, and which may lead to the original decision being reversed;","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"(ii)      will be informed of the time frame within which he or she has to request such a retrial or appeal, as mentioned in the relevant European arrest warrant.’","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Framework Decision 2008/909","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"4         Under Article 1 of Framework Decision 2008/909, entitled ‘Definitions’:","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"‘For the purposes of this Framework Decision:","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"(a)      “judgment” shall mean a final decision or order of a court of the issuing State imposing a sentence on a natural person;","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"(b)      “sentence” shall mean any custodial sentence or any measure involving deprivation of liberty imposed for a limited or unlimited period of time on account of a criminal offence on the basis of criminal proceedings;","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"(c)      “issuing State” shall mean the Member State in which a judgment is delivered;","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"(d)      “executing State” shall mean the Member State to which a judgment is forwarded for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement.’","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"5         Article 3 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Purpose and scope’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"‘The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a view to facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, is to recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence.’","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"6         Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Criteria for forwarding a judgment and a certificate to another Member State’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"‘Provided that the sentenced person is in the issuing State or in the executing State, and provided that this person has given his or her consent where required under Article 6, a judgment, together with the certificate for which the standard form is given in Annex I, may be forwarded to one of the following Member States:","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"(a)      the Member State of nationality of the sentenced person in which he or she lives; …","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"7         Article 8 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Recognition of the judgment and enforcement of the sentence’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"‘The competent authority of the executing State shall recognise a judgment which has been forwarded in accordance with Article 4 and following the procedure under Article 5, and shall forthwith take all the necessary measures for the enforcement of the sentence, unless it decides to invoke one of the grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement provided for in Article 9.’","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"8         Article 9 of Framework Decision 2008/909, entitled ‘Grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"‘The competent authority of the executing State may refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the sentence, if:","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"(i)      according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with further procedural requirements defined in the national law of the issuing State:","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"(i)      in due time:","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"–        either was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial,","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"–        was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for the trial;","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"(ii)      being aware of the scheduled trial had given a mandate to a legal counsellor, who was either appointed by the person concerned or by the State, to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that counsellor at the trial;","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"(iii)      after being served with the decision and being expressly informed of the right to a retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be re-examined, and which may lead to the original decision being reversed:","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"–        expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision;","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"or","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"–        did not request a retrial or appeal within the applicable time frame;","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"Framework Decision 2009/299","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"9         Recitals 1, 4, 6, 8 and 15 of Framework Decision 2009/299 state:","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"‘(1)      The right of an accused person to appear in person at the trial is included in the right to a fair trial provided for in Article 6 of the [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [signed in Rome on 4 November 1950], as interpreted by the European Co …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"(4)      It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common grounds for non-recognition of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person. This Framework Decision is aimed at refining the definition of such common grounds allowing the executing authori …","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"(6)      The provisions of this Framework Decision amending other Framework Decisions set conditions under which the recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person should not be refused. These are alternative conditions; when …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"(8)      The right to a fair trial of an accused person is guaranteed by the [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. This right includes the right of the person concerned to appear in person at the trial …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"(15)      The grounds for non-recognition are optional. However, the discretion of Member States for transposing these grounds into national law is particularly governed by the right to a fair trial, while taking into account the overall objective of this Framework Decision to enhance the procedural rights of persons and to facilitate judicial cooperation in criminal matters’.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"10       Article 1 of Framework Decision 2009/299, entitled ‘Objectives and scope’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"‘1.      The objectives of this Framework Decision are to enhance the procedural rights of persons subject to criminal proceedings, to facilitate judicial cooperation in criminal matters and, in particular, to improve mutual recognition of judicial decisions between Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"2.      This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the [EU] Treaty, including the right of defence of persons subject to criminal proceedings, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"3.      This Framework Decision establishes common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following proceedings at which the person concerned was not present, pursuant to the provisions of Article 5(1) of Framework Decision [2002/584], … of Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision [2008/909] …’","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"11       Article 2 of Framework Decision 2009/299, entitled ‘Amendments to Framework Decision [2002/584]’ inserted, pursuant to paragraph 1 thereof, Article 4a into Framework Decision 2002/584. Article 5 of Framework Decision 2009/299, entitled ‘Amendments to Framework Decision [2008/909]’, inserted, pursuant to paragraph 1 thereof, Article 9(1)(i) into Framework Decision 2008/909.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"Directive (EU) 2016/343","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"12       Recital 36 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1) is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"‘Under certain circumstances it should be possible for a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person to be handed down even if the person concerned is not present at the trial. This might be the case where the suspect or accused person has been informed, in due time, of the tri …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"13       Article 8 of that directive, entitled ‘Right to be present at the trial’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"‘Member States may provide that a trial which can result in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person can be held in his or her absence, provided that:","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"(a)      the suspect or accused person has been informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance; or","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"(b)      the suspect or accused person, having been informed of the trial, is represented by a mandated lawyer, who was appointed either by the suspect or accused person or by the State.’","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"German law","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"14       Paragraph 84b of the Gesetz über internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (Law on international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters) in the version published on 27 June 1994 (BGB1. 1994 I, p. 1537), as amended by the Law of 19 December 2022 (BGB1. 2022 I, p. 2632) (‘the IRG’), entitled ‘Additional conditions governing permissibility’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"‘(1)      Enforcement is not permissible if:","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"2.      the sentenced person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision,","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"(3)      By way of derogation from subparagraph (1)(2), enforcement shall also be permissible if:","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"1.      the sentenced person, in due time,","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"(a)      was summoned in person to appear at the trial which resulted in the decision, or","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"(b)      by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the sentenced person was aware of the hearing scheduled for the trial, and","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"(c)      was informed that a decision may also be handed down in absentia ,","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"3.      the sentenced person, being aware of the hearing scheduled for the trial, mandated a lawyer to defend him or her at the hearing and was in fact defended by that lawyer at that trial.","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"(4)      By way of derogation from subparagraph (1)(2), enforcement shall furthermore be permissible if, following service of the decision, the sentenced person:","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"1.      has expressly stated that he or she will not contest the decision handed down; or","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"2.      did not request a retrial or lodge an appeal within the applicable time limits.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"Sentenced persons must first be expressly instructed about their right to a retrial or to an appeal on points of fact and law in which they have a right to participate and in which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, may be re-examined and which may lead to the original decision being quashed.’","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"The main proceedings and the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"15       By judgment handed down on 5 August 2019, the Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (Regional Court, Zielona Góra, Poland) sentenced SO to a one-year custodial sentence for participation in an organised crime group.","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"16       By judgment of 24 March 2022, the Sąd Apelacyjny w Poznaniu (Court of Appeal, Poznań, Poland) dismissed the appeal brought against that judgment by SO’s defence counsel.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"17       By order of 30 January 2023, the Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (Regional Court, Zielona Góra) granted SO’s application to have the custodial sentence enforced in Germany on the ground that he was a German national, that his centre of interests was in Berlin (Germany) and that his family also lived in that Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"18       By letter of 2 February 2023, to which that order, the certificate referred to in Article 4(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909, the judgment of 5 August 2019 delivered at first instance, the judgment of 24 March 2022 delivered on appeal, together with the notification of SO’s application in …","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"19       The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Berlin, thus filed an application with the chamber responsible for the enforcement of sentences of the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin, Germany) seeking a declaration that enforcement of the custodial sentence handed down in the judgment of 5 August 2019 was permissible.","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"20       Before that chamber responsible for the enforcement of sentences, SO objected to the application filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Berlin, claiming, inter alia, that he had appeared in person at only 2 of the 28 hearings of his trial in Poland, which, according to him, at first insta …","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"21       Since the chamber responsible for the enforcement of sentences had requested additional information from the Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (Regional Court, Zielona Góra), the latter stated, by letter of 31 July 2023, that SO had appeared at first instance at three hearings in 2012 and 2014, …","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"22       By letter dated 19 September 2023, the Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (Regional Court, Zielona Góra), following a further request from the chamber responsible for the enforcement of sentences of the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin), provided additional information concerning the trial at first instance.","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"23       By decision of 24 November 2023, the chamber responsible for the enforcement of sentences of the Landgericht Berlin (Regional Court, Berlin) rejected the application made by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Berlin, seeking a declaration that enforcement of SO’s sentence in Germany was permis …","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"24       The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Berlin, brought an appeal against that decision before the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court, Berlin, Germany), which is the referring court. In support of that action, it submits that the appearance of SO at certain hearings, during which he expressed his …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"25       According to a statement made by SO’s defence counsel, he was not aware of the appeal proceedings. A summons had not been served at his German address. Consequently, nor could he have given a mandate to a defence counsel to defend him at that trial while being aware of the hearing scheduled for that trial.","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"26       Following a request from the referring court, SO’s defence counsel before the Polish courts, by declaration dated 28 February 2024, stated that his powers extended both to the proceedings at first instance and to the appeal proceedings, that SO had designated the address of his law firm as …","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"27       In the first place, the referring court is uncertain whether a summons served on an agent appointed by the sentenced person to accept service, without the sentenced person having appeared himself or herself, satisfies the requirements of the first indent of Article 9(1)(i)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, so that it must recognise and enforce the judgment sentencing that person.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"28       In that regard, that court considers that the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ in Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be understood in the same way as the identical concept in Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584, which the Court has previously interpreted i …","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"29       The referring court is inclined to take the view that an answer in the negative to the question referred follows from the judgments of 24 May 2016, Dworzecki (C‑108/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:346), and of 21 December 2023, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Conviction in absentia) (C‑397/22, EU:C:202 …","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"30       That being said, the facts of the dispute in the main proceedings differ from those which were examined in the cases which gave rise to those judgments in so far as, in the present case, the person on whom service was effected had been expressly designated by SO before the competent judicia …","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"31       In the second place, in the event that the first question is answered in the negative, the referring court considers that it is necessary to examine whether the sentenced person who did not appear in person himself or herself was represented on appeal in such a way as to eliminate the groun …","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"32       That court states that, under that provision, the scheduling of the trial hearing must precede the granting of the mandate to a defence counsel. However, that does not necessarily apply to appeal proceedings. That court notes that, as a general rule, a person convicted at first instance who …","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"33       According to the referring court, the mere fact of knowing that appeal proceedings will take place is sufficient, since, in the further course of the proceedings, it will be for the sentenced person who did not appear in person himself or herself at first instance to decide whether or not to maintain contact with the court and his or her defence counsel so as to be informed of the scheduled date for the appeal proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"34       The referring court adds that, even in cases where the defence counsel lodges an appeal without the client’s knowledge, where, in the absence of contact with the client, he or she seeks, as a precautionary measure, to comply with the time limit for lodging the appeal, the appeal proceedings …","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"35       In the third place, in the event that the first question is answered in the negative and the second question is answered to the effect that the trial hearing must already have been scheduled and that the person concerned must be aware of it at the time when the mandate is given to his or he …","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"36       However, that court observes that, while Article 9(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909 grants discretion to the competent authority of the executing Member State, Paragraph 84b(1)(2) of the IRG provides for an absolute ground for refusal of recognition and enforcement. That court considers th …","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"37       The referring court states that, if it had discretion, the assumption of responsibility for enforcement of the sentence would be deemed permissible. Despite the appeal that he lodged, SO did not maintain sufficient contact with the Polish judicial authorities and with his defence counsel, w …","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"38       That leads the referring court to ask the Court of Justice about the compatibility of the German legislation with the principle of the primacy of EU law, even if an answer to the effect that it is incompatible may be inferred from the judgment of 21 December 2023, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft …","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"39       In the fourth place, the referring court asks whether the sentenced person who did not appear himself or herself may waive the protection afforded by Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 and, if so, whether the application made by that person to the competent authority of the issuing Member State for the sentence to be enforced in his or her home Member State constitutes such a waiver.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"40       SO’s conduct, in the present case, is contradictory since, on the one hand, he applied in Poland, without expressing any reservations or objections to the sentence, for the sentence to be enforced in Germany and, on the other, he is now raising objections in that regard in Germany, at the s …","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"41       Even though Framework Decision 2008/909 does not contain any legal basis from which it could infer that the sentenced person who did not appear himself or herself may waive the protection arising from Article 9(1)(i) thereof, that court notes that that provision also covers situations in wh …","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"42       In those circumstances the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court, Berlin) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"‘(1)      Does a summons served on [an addressee for service in Poland mandated] by the sentenced person satisfy the requirements of the first indent of Article 9(1)(i)(i) of [Framework Decision 2008/909]?","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"(2)      Is Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] to be understood as meaning that the trial must already have been scheduled at the time the mandate is given and that the person concerned must be aware of the scheduled date, or is it sufficient that the person concerned gives or confirms the mandate in the certain knowledge that a trial will take place?","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"(3)      Is it compatible with the primacy of [EU] law that the German legislature has framed the case of conviction in absentia as an absolute ground of non-admissibility under Paragraph 84(1)(2) of the [IRG], even though Article 9(1)(i) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] provides only for an optional ground for refusal in that respect?","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"(4)      Can the person concerned waive the protection afforded by Article 9(1)(i) of [Framework Decision 2008/909] and thus enable a decision rendered in absentia to be enforced even if the conditions laid down in Article 9(1)(i)(i) [to] (iii) of the framework decision are not met? Does making an application to the competent authority of the issuing State for enforcement in the home State constitute such a waiver?’","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Preliminary observations","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"43       It must be borne in mind that, like Framework Decision 2002/584, Framework Decision 2008/909 gives concrete expression, in criminal matters, to the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition. That framework decision further develops judicial cooperation concerning the recognition and …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"44       Under Article 3(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909, the purpose of that framework decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a view to facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, is to recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence handed down by a court of another Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"45       To that end, Article 4(1)(a) of Framework Decision 2008/909 provides for the possibility that a judgment, together with the certificate for which the standard form is given in Annex I to that framework decision, is forwarded to the Member State of nationality of the sentenced person in the territory in which he or she lives.","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"46       In that context, Article 8(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909 provides that the competent authority of the executing Member State is, in principle, required to grant the request seeking recognition of a judgment and enforcement of a custodial sentence or measure involving deprivation of libe …","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"47       In particular, under Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, which is the subject of the request for a preliminary ruling, the competent authority of the executing Member State may refuse to recognise a judgment and enforce a sentence if, according to the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framework decision, the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision concerned.","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"48       In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the Court has held, in respect of Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584, that the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’, within the meaning of that provision, must be understood as referring to the proceedings that led to the judicial …","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"49       With regard, more specifically, to a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which the trial took place at two successive instances, namely a first instance followed by appeal proceedings, the Court has held that it is the instance which led to the decision on appeal which is …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"50       As the Advocate General noted in point 45 of his Opinion, that interpretation of the concept of ‘trial resulting in the decision’ in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 may be applied to Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, since those two provisions, which were inserted …","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"51       The same applies, for identical reasons, to the interpretation of other concepts set out in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as carried out by the Court in its case-law relating to that provision, in particular the interpretation concerning the concepts and expressions which ar …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"52       It is in the light of the foregoing preliminary observations that those questions must be answered.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"The first question","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"53       According to settled case-law, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before i …","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"54       In the present case, it is clear from the wording of the first question that it refers expressly to the situation covered in Article 9(1)(i)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909. That situation concerns a situation in which, according to the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framew …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"55       It follows, however, from the order for reference that, in the case in the main proceedings, the referring court is not called upon to rule on a situation in which the person concerned was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear, but on a situation in which t …","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"56       Therefore, the first question must be understood as inviting the Court to determine whether the latter provision must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of awareness of the scheduled trial set out in that provision is satisfied where a summons was not directly served on the person …","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"57       Under Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, the competent authority of the executing Member State may refuse to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment if, according to the certificate provided for in Article 4 of that framework decision, the person concerned did not appear in …","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"58       It follows that the competent authority of the executing Member State is in principle required to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment, notwithstanding the person’s failure to appear in person at the trial resulting in that decision, if the conditions for applying one of the situatio …","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"59       In each of the situations referred to in those points, the recognition and enforcement of a sentencing judgment do not infringe the rights of the defence of the person concerned or the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 47 and Article 48(2) of …","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"60       As regards, more specifically, Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909, the competent authority of the executing Member State is subject to the obligation to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment, notwithstanding the fact that the person concerned did not appear in person a …","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"61       Indeed, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law concerning Article 9(1)(i)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, which refers, in essence, as stated in paragraph 54 above, to the situation where the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial resulting in his or her conviction, but …","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"62       However, the situation is different, as the Advocate General noted in point 53 of his Opinion, where a summons was served on a legal counsellor to whom the person concerned has given a mandate to defend him or her at the trial and who he or she designated in the issuing Member State to accept service.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"63       The sending, by the competent authority of the issuing Member State, of that summons to the address of the firm of the legal counsellor for the person concerned is tantamount to informing the person concerned himself or herself, the latter being deemed, in that situation, to have received the summons (see, by analogy, judgment of 20 May 2025, Kachev , C‑135/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:366, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"64       Consequently, the answer to the first question is that Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of awareness of the scheduled trial set out in that provision is satisfied where a summons was not directly served on the person concer …","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"The second question","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"65       By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the person concerned being aware of the scheduled date of the hearing for his or her trial when he or she gave a mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him or her at that trial.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"66       It must be stated, at the outset, that under that provision, the competent authority of the executing Member State, in accordance with the case-law set out in paragraphs 57 to 59 above, is required to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment where the person concerned did not appear in p …","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"67       In order to answer the second question, it is necessary therefore to determine the scope of the requirement at the start of point (ii) of Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 relating to the person concerned’s awareness of the scheduled trial, which constitutes, in the absence of …","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"68       In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, it is necessary, in order to interpret a provision of EU law, to consider not only its wording, but also its context and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck , 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 4 September 2025, Casa Judeţeană de Asigurări de Sănătate Mureș and Others , C‑489/23, EU:C:2025:651, paragraph 31).","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"69       As regards the wording of Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909, it must be noted that the wording of that provision, in the various language versions, does not make it possible to determine unequivocally whether that provision requires, for the purposes of its application, that the person concerned was aware of the exact scheduled hearing date for the trial resulting in his or her conviction.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"70       In particular, although the Italian-language version of Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of that framework decision expressly includes such a requirement, some versions, such as the English- and French-language versions, merely require ‘being aware of the scheduled trial’, whereas others, such as the Ge …","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"71       While it is true that those various expressions could suggest that the person concerned must, as the Italian-language version of that provision expressly provides, have been aware of the exact scheduled hearing date for the trial resulting in his or her conviction, the fact remains that, ac …","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"72       In that regard, so far as concerns the context of which point (ii) of Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 forms part, it must be noted that point (i) of that provision requires that the person concerned either was summoned in person and thereby informed of the ‘scheduled date and …","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"73       It must therefore be stated that it is apparent from the very wording of Article 9(1)(i)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 that the expression ‘aware of the scheduled trial’ set out therein requires that the person concerned was informed of the scheduled date of the hearing and place of the trial which resulted in his or her conviction.","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"74       As part of a contextual interpretation, it is possible to infer that the corresponding requirement, at the start of point (ii) of Article 9(1)(i), may be given, on grounds of consistency, the same scope, so that that provision must be interpreted as meaning that it requires that the person concerned was informed of the scheduled date of the hearing and place of the trial which resulted in his or her conviction.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"75       That interpretation is supported by the provisions of Directive 2016/343, which lays down the minimum rules concerning certain aspects of criminal proceedings, including the ‘right to be present at the trial’, in particular Article 8(2) thereof, which is a relevant contextual element for th …","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"76       In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, under Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343, Member States may provide that a trial which can result in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person can be held in his or her absence, provided that, in accordance with point …","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"77       The Court has held that Article 8(2) of Directive 2016/343 attaches particular importance to keeping the person concerned informed, in that it expressly makes any possibility of holding a trial in absentia subject to the condition that that person has been informed of that trial. Relying, i …","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"78       The teleological interpretation of point (ii) of Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 further supports the interpretation that the requirement at the start of point (ii) necessitates that the person concerned was informed of the scheduled date of the hearing and place of the trial which resulted in his or her conviction.","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"79       As is expressly apparent from Article 1 of Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of recitals 1 and 15 thereof, Article 9(1)(i) seeks, setting out the definition of the common grounds for enforcement of a sentencing judgment despite the failure of the person concerned to attend his …","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"80       The interpretation of Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909, according to which the person concerned must be informed of the scheduled date of the hearing and place of his or her trial, contributes to the achievement of those objectives, since it enables the person concerned to …","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"81       In that context, it must again be stated that, contrary to what the wording of Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909 could suggest, that provision cannot be understood as requiring that the information regarding the scheduled date and place of the hearing for the trial of the p …","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"82       In so far as that information seeks to enable the person concerned to appear in person at his or her trial, it is not important that he or she received that information before or after having given a mandate to a legal counsellor. Moreover, it must be noted that where the person concerned g …","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"83       It thus follows from the foregoing that the requirement at the start of point (ii) of Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 requires the person concerned to be informed, in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing for that trial without it being necessary for that person to have received that information before or after he or she gave a mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him or her during the trial.","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"84       Consequently, the answer to the second question is that Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the person concerned being informed, in due time, of the scheduled date of the hearing for his or her trial but not that the person concerned has that information before a mandate is given to a legal counsellor to defend him or her at that trial.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"The third question","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"85       By its third question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires the competent authority of an executing Member State to refuse to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment handed down in the issuing Member State where the conditions for applying the situations referred to in points (i) to (iii) of that provision are not satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"86       That question is useful in the context of the main proceedings only if the referring court were to find, in the light of the answer to the second question, that the conditions for applying the situation referred to in Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of that framework decision are not satisfied in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"87       It is apparent from the very wording of Article 9(1)(i), in particular the statement that the executing judicial authority ‘may’ refuse to recognise and enforce the sentencing judgment concerned, that the competent authority of the executing Member State has the right to refuse to recognise …","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"88       Article 9(1)(i) therefore restricts the possibility of refusing to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment by listing, in a precise and uniform manner, the conditions under which the recognition and enforcement of such a judgment following a trial at which the person concerned did not a …","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"89       It follows that, as is apparent from paragraph 58 above, the competent authority of the executing Member State is required to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment, notwithstanding the failure of the person concerned to attend the trial resulting in that judgment, where the conditions for applying one of the situations referred to in points (i), (ii) or (iii) of Article 9(1)(i) respectively are satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"90       That being said, in the light of the fact that Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 provides an optional ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement of a sentencing judgment, the competent authority of the executing Member State may, in any event, after having found that the co …","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"91       In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings requires the competent authority of the executing Member State to refuse to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment handed down in the issuing Member State whe …","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"92       In those circumstances, it is apparent that such national legislation is contrary to Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"93       In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the principle of the primacy of EU law must be interpreted as not requiring a national court to disapply a provision of national law which is incompatible with the provisions of that framework decision, since those provisions do not have direct …","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"94       Indeed, although the framework decisions cannot have direct effect, their binding character nevertheless places on national authorities of Member States an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law as from the date of expiry of the period for the transposition of those …","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"95       It follows that, should the referring court find that the conditions for applying the situations referred to in Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, in particular in point (ii) of that provision, are not satisfied, it would be for that court, taking into consideration the whole b …","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"96       Consequently, the answer to the third question is that Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires the competent authority of an executing Member State to refuse to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment handed down in the issuing Member State where none of the conditions for applying the situations referred to in points (i) to (iii) of that provision is satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"The fourth question","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"97       By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the executing Member State may, where it finds that the conditions for applying the situations referred to in p …","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"98       From the outset, it must be stated that the answer to that question, like the answer to the third question, is useful in the context of the main proceedings only where the referring court finds that, in the light of the answer to the second question, the conditions for applying the situation referred to in Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of that framework decision are not satisfied in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"99       As has been noted in paragraphs 57 to 59 above, Article 9(1)(i) of that framework decision sets out in points (i) to (iii) thereof the conditions under which the person concerned must be deemed to have voluntarily and unequivocally waived his or her right to be present at the trial so that the competent authority of the executing Member State is required to recognise and enforce the sentencing judgment handed down following such a trial.","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"100     As the referring court observes in the order for reference, such a waiver may result from the conduct of the person concerned where, in accordance with the situation referred to in point (iii) of Article 9(1)(i), that person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision handed down following a trial at which he or she did not appear in person or that he or she did not apply for a retrial or an appeal within the prescribed time limit.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"101     However, as the Advocate General stated in points 129 and 130 of his Opinion, the fact that the person concerned requested, as in the case in the main proceedings, the competent authority of the issuing Member State to enforce the sentence imposed on him or her following the trial at which h …","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"102     That said, it must be borne in mind that it follows from the case-law set out in paragraph 90 above that the competent authority of the executing Member State may, after having found that the conditions for applying one of the situations referred to in points (i) to (iii) of Article 9(1)(i) …","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"103     In those circumstances, the competent authority of the executing Member State may take into account an application, such as that made in the case in the main proceedings, to have the sentence enforced in the Member State in which the person concerned is a national and in which that person ha …","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"104     Consequently, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909 must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the executing Member State may, where it finds that the conditions for applying the situations referred to in points (i) to (i …","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"105     Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"1.       Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that the condition of awareness of the scheduled trial set out in that provision is satisfied where a summons was not directly served on the person concerned, but on a legal counsellor who was given a mandate by the person concerned to defend him or her at the trial and who he or she has designated in the issuing Member State to accept service.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"2.       Article 9(1)(i)(ii) of Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that the application of that provision is subject to the person concerned being informed, in due time, of the scheduled date of the hearing for his or her trial but not that the person concerned has that information before a mandate is given to a legal counsellor to defend him or her at that trial.","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"3.       Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires the competent authority of an executing Member State to refuse to recognise and enforce a sentencing judgment handed down in the issuing Member State where none of the conditions for applying the situations referred to in points (i) to (iii) of that provision is satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"4.       Article 9(1)(i) of Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that the competent authority of the executing Member State may, where it finds that the conditions for applying the situations referred to in points (i) to (iii) of that provision are not satisfied, take into account the fact that the person concerned applied to the co …","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: German.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"i i       The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_230"}],"word_count":12544,"cites":["C-270/17","C-397/22","C-108/16","C-305/22","C-819/21","C-398/22","C-349/24","C-514/21","C-515/21","C-399/11","C-135/25","C-489/23","C-221/24","C-222/24","C-400/23","C-420/20","C-396/22"],"sha256":"cc1351afa39daf35ebd82824f02e7877de5eb7a0b3b88aca3dae04d161ceaa3f","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0447","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T20:31:35.237+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-447-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-447-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-447-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-447-24","verification":{"stored_sha256":"cc1351afa39daf35ebd82824f02e7877de5eb7a0b3b88aca3dae04d161ceaa3f","recomputed_sha256":"cc1351afa39daf35ebd82824f02e7877de5eb7a0b3b88aca3dae04d161ceaa3f","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-23T21:54:46.661Z"}},"hash":"sha256:aee1b760a2e082d5271523288c02b2419cbb3dd201a7c469193d71d367f6e3d4","version":"legal-2026-10-23","expires":"2026-10-24T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-23+legal-2026-10-23+2026-10-23T14:34:08","content_hash":"sha256:aee1b760a2e082d5271523288c02b2419cbb3dd201a7c469193d71d367f6e3d4","revalidate_after":"2026-10-23T22:54:47.104Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-447-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-447-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-447-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-447-24"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"withheld":{"item.cited_by":2},"access":{"status":"partner_key_required","header":"x-partner-key","contact":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/kontakt","note":"Facts and counts are public. Relationships and decision paths stay inside NovaCopilot."},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-447-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-bf979be5bb1b5f148c4dabf316d087f4","response_hash":"sha256:aee1b760a2e082d5271523288c02b2419cbb3dd201a7c469193d71d367f6e3d4"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T22:57:02.983Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-447-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":19521}}