Key Benefits:
(Mr. JEREMY F.)
The Constitutional Council was seized on 27 February 2013 by the Court of Cassation (Criminal Division, Judgment No. 1087 of 19 February 2013), under the conditions laid down in Article 61-1 of the Constitution, of a question Mr. Jeremy F.'s constitutional priority, relating to the constitutionality of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution Href=" /viewCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006577385&dateTexte= &categorieLink = cid"> fourth paragraph of article 695-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Constitutional Council,
Given the Constitution;
SeenOrder No. 58-1067 of 7 November 1958 as amended by the Organic Law on the Constitutional Council ;
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union;
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union;
Seen Criminal procedure ;
Due to Act No. 2004-204 of 9 March 2004 adapting justice to developments in crime, in particular Article 17;
Seen Law n ° 2009-526 of 12 May 2009 simplifying and clarifying the law and streamlining procedures, in particular Article 130;
In view of Framework Decision No 2002 /584/JHA Council of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant And the surrender procedures between Member States;
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of 4 February 2010 on the procedure followed before the Constitutional Council for priority questions of constitutionality;
In view of the observations made in intervention For the applicant by the CPC Waquet, Farge, Hazan, lawyer at the Conseil d' Etat and the Court of Cassation, registered on 21 and 28 March 2013;
Seen the observations made by the Prime Minister, registered on 21 March 2013;
Seen the coins Filed and attached to the file;
Me Claire Waquet for the applicant and Mr. Thierry-Xavier Girardot, appointed by the Prime Minister, having been heard at the public hearing on 2 April 2013;
The rapporteur has been heard;
1. Considering that the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 laid down the European arrest warrant in order to simplify and speed up the arrest and surrender between the States of the European Union of persons wanted for prosecution Criminal or for the execution of a penalty or a measure of security deprivation of liberty; that17 of the Act of 9 March 2004 Inserted,the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Articles 695-11 to 695-51 relating to the European arrest warrant;
2. Considering thatArticle 695-46 of the Code of Procedure down the rules of the procedure concerning decisions taken by the French judicial authorities after the surrender to the authorities of another Member State of the European Union of a person arrested in France under a European arrest warrant issued by these authorities; Written as a result of the Act of 12 May 2009 referred to above, the first two paragraphs of Article 695-46 entrust the Chamber of Education with the competence to rule on all Request from the competent authorities of the Member State which issued the European arrest warrant with a view to consenting either to prosecution or to the execution of a sentence or a measure of security deprivation of liberty pronounced for others Offences that were previously committed and committed to The surrender of the person sought to another Member State with a view to the pursuit or execution of a penalty or a measure of security deprivation of liberty for any fact prior to the surrender and different from The offence which gave rise to the measure; that under the fourth paragraph of695-46 of the Code of Criminal : The Chamber of Education shall act without recourse after ensuring that the application also contains the information provided for in Article 695-13 and, where appropriate, obtained guarantees under the provisions of Article 695-32, within the time limit Within 30 days of receipt of the application " ;
3. Considering that, according to the applicant, by excluding any appeal against the decision of the Chamber of inquiry authorizing, after the surrender of a person to a Member State of the European Union pursuant to a European arrest warrant, the extension of the Effects of this mandate on other offences, the provisions of the fourth paragraph of Article 695-46 infringe the principle of equality before the courts and the right to an effective judicial remedy;
4. Considering, on the one hand, that under Article 16 of the Declaration on Human and Citizen's Rights of 1789: Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not guaranteed, nor the separation of powers, has no Constitution " ; that it is clear from this provision that there must be no substantial infringement of the right of interested persons to bring an effective remedy before a court; that, according to Article 6, the law " Must be the same for all, either protecting or punishing " ; that, if the legislator may provide for different rules of procedure according to the facts, the situations and the persons to whom they apply, it is on the condition that these differences do not make unjustified distinctions and that they are Guaranteed equal guarantees, in particular with respect to the principle of the rights of the defence, which in particular implies the existence of a fair and just procedure guaranteeing the balance of the rights of the parties;
5. Considering, on the other hand, that under Article 88-2 of the Constitution: The law lays down the rules on the European arrest warrant in application of the acts adopted by the institutions of the European Union " ; that, by these special provisions, the constituent has heard the removal of the constitutional obstacles to the adoption of the legislative provisions necessarily arising from acts taken by the institutions of the European Union relating to the European Arrest Warrant; that, as a result, it is for the Constitutional Council to have legislative provisions on the European arrest warrant to monitor compliance with the Constitution of those legislative provisions which Exercise, by the legislature, of the margin of appreciation that Provides for Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, in its applicable wording;
6. Considering that, according to Article 1, paragraph 3, the framework decision " Shall not have the effect of amending the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union ' ; Article 27 provides for the conditions under which the judicial authority which has ordered the surrender of a person pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall rule on an application by the authorities to whom the person has been surrendered, That person may be prosecuted, convicted or deprived of liberty for an offence committed before his surrender other than that which motivated the person; Article 28 lays down the conditions under which the same judicial authority consents to the That the person is subsequently given to another Member State; that the last sentence of the Article 27, paragraph 4, and article 28, paragraph 3, indicate that " The decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after receipt of the request " ;
7. Considering that, in order to determine the conformity of the fourth paragraph of Article 695-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the rights and Freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, it is for the Constitutional Council to determine whether the provision of this text which provides for the Chamber of Education " Act without appeal within the 30-day period ... from the date of receipt of the application " Necessarily derives from the obligation of the judicial authority of the Member State by Article 27 (4) and Article 28 (3) of the Framework Decision to make its decision no later than 30 days after receipt of the The application; that, in the light of the abovementioned terms of the Framework Decision, an assessment of the possibility of an appeal against the decision of the court initially seized beyond the 30-day period and suspending the execution of that decision Decision requires a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the act in question; That, in accordance with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union has sole jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on such a question; that, as a result, it should Refer and stay to rule on the priority question of constitutionality raised by Mr. F.;
8. Considering that, taking into account the three-month time limit within which the Constitutional Council is obliged, in accordance with the 23-10 of the order of 7 November 1958 referred to above, to examine the priority question of constitutionality, the subject-matter of the question referred for a preliminary ruling on the area of freedom, security and justice, and the deprivation of liberty of which the The applicant is the subject of the proceedings initiated by the Application of the emergency procedure laid down in Article 23a of Protocol No 3 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union on the Statute of the Court of Justice Justice of the European Union,
Decides:
The Court of Justice of the European Union should be asked to rule Preliminary ruling on the following question:
Articles 27 and 28 of Council Framework Decision No 2002 /584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as precluding States Members shall provide for an appeal to suspend the execution of the decision of the judicial authority which decides, within 30 days of receipt of the application, or in order to give consent for a person to be prosecuted, Convicted or detained for the purpose of carrying out a sentence or a security measure Freedom, for an offence committed before the surrender of a European arrest warrant, other than that which gave cause for surrender, or for the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the Member State of enforcement, by virtue of a warrant of arrest European issued for an offence committed before it is surrendered?
The European Court of Justice is asked to rule according to the urgency procedure.
It is suspended to rule on the priority constitutionality question posed by Mr. Jeremy F.
This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the French Republic, notified under the conditions set out in The Order of 7 November 1958 referred to above and to the President of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Issued by the Constitutional Council at its meeting on 4 April 2013, attended by Mr Jean-Louis DEBRÉ, President, Mr Jacques BARROT, Claire BAZY MALAURIE, Nicole BELLOUBET, MM. Guy CANIVET, Michel CHARASSE, Renaud DENOIX de SAINT MARC, Hubert HAENEL and Nicole MAESTRACCI.
Public Rendu public April 4, 2013.
The President,
Jean-Louis Debré
