Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principles of EU law — Procedural autonomy — Principles of effectiveness and equivalence — Legal remedy allowing for criminal proceedings closed by a decision having the force of res judicata to be reheard in the event of an infringement of the ECHR — Obligation to extend the scope of that remedy to include infringements of EU law — No such obligation — Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Principle of ne bis in idem
Outcome of the case:
In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) as follows:
EU law and, in particular, the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not requiring a national court to extend the scope of a legal remedy, provided for by a national provision allowing criminal proceedings closed by means of a decision with the force of res judicata to be reheard in the event of an infringement of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms or one of the protocols thereto, so as to include infringements of EU law, in particular infringements of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders signed in Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995, where the individual concerned has been able to exercise the rights conferred on him by EU law in the course of the criminal proceedings.