CJEU Case C-404/24 / Judgment
-
CJEU Case C-404/24 / Judgment
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Directive (EU) 2016/343 – Article 6 – Burden of proof that the accused person is guilty – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal – Charge withdrawn in part by the public prosecutor’s office during the hearing – Obligation for the court to rule on the elements of the charge not maintained at the hearing.
Outcome of the Case:
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 6(1) 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, and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which a criminal court is required to rule on the indictment on the basis of its own firm conviction, even though the public prosecutor, after submitting evidence at the hearing which, according to that criminal court, makes it possible to convict the accused person of the offences set out in that indictment, requests, as regards some of the acts referred to in that indictment, that that person be acquitted or convicted of a less serious offence.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
26. By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 6(1) of Directive 2016/343 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as precluding national legislation pursuant to which a criminal court is required to rule on the indictment on the basis of its own firm conviction, even though the public prosecutor, after submitting evidence at the hearing which, according to that criminal court, makes it possible to convict the accused person of the offences set out in that indictment, requests, as regards some of the acts referred to in that indictment, that that person be acquitted or convicted of a less serious offence.
...
36. In the second place, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, when the Member States implement EU law, they must respect the rights guaranteed by the Charter.
...
38. The right of every person to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law is one of the requirements inherent in the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, Breian, C‑318/24 PPU, EU:C:2024:658, paragraph 80).
39. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the requirements of independence and impartiality laid down in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter preclude national legislation which allows a criminal court, at the end of the criminal trial, to convict an accused person for an offence set out in the indictment, even where the public prosecutor, after submitting the evidence gathered, requests that the person be acquitted or convicted of a less serious offence.
...
44. It should be noted that, in so far as the Charter sets out rights corresponding to rights guaranteed under the ECHR, Article 52(3) of the Charter is intended to ensure the necessary consistency between the rights contained in the Charter and the corresponding rights guaranteed under the ECHR, without thereby adversely affecting the autonomy of EU law. According to the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter corresponds to Article 6(1) ECHR. The Court must therefore ensure that its interpretation in the present case safeguards a level of protection which does not fall below the level of protection established in Article 6(1) ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 19 December 2024, Vivacom Bulgaria, C‑369/23, EU:C:2024:1043, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
...
47. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 6(1) of Directive 2016/343 and the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation pursuant to which a criminal court is required to rule on the indictment on the basis of its own firm conviction, even though the public prosecutor, after submitting evidence at the hearing which, according to that criminal court, makes it possible to convict the accused person of the offences set out in that indictment, requests, as regards some of the acts referred to in that indictment, that that person be acquitted or convicted of a less serious offence.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)