Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Article 53 - Level of protection
The Attorney General appealed against a trial court decision which had rejected the application of the Greek authorities for the execution of the European Arrest warrant against a Greek national residing in Cyprus convicted in Greece in absentia for economic crimes, on the ground that the Greek authorities had not provided the legal guarantees necessary when persons are tried and convicted in absentia. The wanted person argued that summons were wrongly served: they were given to his sister with whom he has no relations and to his mother who suffers from dementia and did not understand what the documents were about. The trial court had rejected the application to execute the arrest warrant on the ground that the legal guarantees offered by the Greek justice system were insufficient, since they provided only the right to appeal and not the right to a retrial. The Attorney General appealed the trial court decision on the ground that the legal guarantees provided by the Greek authorities were sufficient and that the trial court had no right to look into the content of these guarantees.
The key legal question was whether the court was justified in refusing to execute the European Arrest Warrant on the basis of the efficacy of the legal guarantees provided by the Greek authorities. Τhe Appeal Court relied on Melloni3 to conclude that article 4(a)(1) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant does not infringe Charter articles 47 and 48(2) and that member states are not at liberty to deny executing an arrest warrant provided the wanted person falls into one of the four categories foreseen in this article, however the case under consideration does not fall into any of these categories. Citing paragraph 64 of the Melloni4 ruling, that Charter article 53 cannot be used to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional open the conviction being open to review, the Appeal Court concluded that it is possible for the national court to exercise its right not to execute an arrest warrant where the review of the conviction in Greece is only possible through filing an appeal invoking force majeure. A dissenting judge disagreed with the rejection of the appeal, on the basis of article 5(2) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant which renders the execution of the arrest warrant conditional upon legal guarantees only if the offence at stake is punishable by custodial life sentence or life-time detention; the prison sentences imposed in this case ranged between 6-36 months. The dissenting judge relied on the CJEU ruling in Melloni5 which interpreted Article 4a(1) of the Framework Decision as precluding the rendering of the execution of a European arrest warrant conditional upon the conviction in absentia being open to review in the issuing Member State. The dissenting judge stressed that in Melloni, the CJEU concluded that this provision does not prejudice the rights to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, or the rights protected by Charter articles 47 and 48(2). According to the dissenting judge, article 4(a) of the Framework Decision should be read in light of this interpretation and the execution of the European arrest warrant should not be made conditional upon the adequacy of the legal guarantees safeguarding the wanted person’s right to a retrial. Relying on Melloni, the dissenting judge stated that although Charter Article 53 permits the use of more favourable national standards for the protection of fundamental rights, this presupposes that primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not compromised in the process; article 53 cannot be interpreted as enabling a court to make the surrender of person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review, as that would undermine the principles of mutual trust and recognition which the Framework Decision purports to uphold.
In the Melloni case, above, the following preliminary questions were raised: 1. Must Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as inserted by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA, be interpreted as precluding national judicial authorities, in the circumstances specified in that provision, from making the execution of a European arrest warrant conditional upon the conviction in question being open to review, in order to guarantee the rights of defence of the person requested under the warrant? 2. In the event of the first question being answered in the affirmative, is Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA compatible with the requirements deriving from the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, provided for in Article 47 of the Charter …, and from the rights of defence guaranteed under Article 48(2) of the Charter?
3. In the event of the second question being answered in the affirmative, does Article 53 of the Charter, interpreted schematically in conjunction with the rights recognised under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, allow a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the requesting State, thus affording those rights a greater level of protection than that deriving from European Union law, in order to avoid an interpretation which restricts or adversely affects a fundamental right recognised by the constitution of the first-mentioned Member State? Noting that in the Framework Decision 2009/299 there is no requirement that the conviction must be reviewed within the issuing member state (pararagraph 63*), the Court concluded as follows: ‘In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the third question is that Article 53 of the Charter must be interpreted as not allowing a Member State to make the surrender of a person convicted in absentia conditional upon the conviction being open to review in the issuing Member State, in order to avoid an adverse effect on the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence guaranteed by its constitution.’
Στη υπόθεση Melloni, πιο πάνω, τέθηκαν τα ακόλουθα προδικαστικά ερωτήματα:
1) Έχει το άρθρο 4α, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584/ΔΕΥ, όπως ισχύει μετά την τροποποίησή της από την απόφαση-πλαίσιο 2009/299/ΔΕΥ, την έννοια ότι απαγορεύει στις εθνικές δικαστικές αρχές, στις περιπτώσεις που προσδιορίζονται στη διάταξη αυτή, να εξαρτούν την εκτέλεση ενός ευρωπαϊκού εντάλματος συλλήψεως και παραδόσεως από τον όρο ότι η σχετική καταδικαστική απόφαση υπόκειται σε αναθεώρηση, προκειμένου να διασφαλιστούν τα δικαιώματα υπερασπίσεως του εκζητουμένου;
2) Σε περίπτωση καταφατικής απαντήσεως στο πρώτο ερώτημα, είναι το άρθρο 4α, παράγραφος 1, της αποφάσεως-πλαισίου 2002/584/ΔΕΥ συμβατό με τις υποχρεώσεις που απορρέουν από το δικαίωμα στην αποτελεσματική δικαστική προστασία και σε δίκαιη δίκη, το οποίο προβλέπεται στο άρθρο 47 του Χάρτη [.], καθώς και από τα δικαιώματα υπερασπίσεως, τα οποία κατοχυρώνονται στο άρθρο 48, παράγραφος 2, του ίδιου Χάρτη;
3) Σε περίπτωση καταφατικής απαντήσεως στο δεύτερο ερώτημα, παρέχει το άρθρο 53 του Χάρτη, ερμηνευόμενο συστηματικά σε συνάρτηση με τα δικαιώματα που αναγνωρίζονται από τα άρθρα του 47 και 48, τη δυνατότητα σε κράτος μέλος να εξαρτήσει την παράδοση ερήμην καταδικασθέντος προσώπου από τον όρο ότι η καταδικαστική απόφαση υπόκειται σε αναθεώρηση στο κράτος που ζητεί την έκδοση, αναγνωρίζοντας έτσι στα δικαιώματα αυτά υψηλότερο επίπεδο προστασίας από εκείνο που προβλέπει το δίκαιο της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, προκειμένου να αποφευχθεί μία ερμηνεία που θα περιόριζε ή θα έθιγε θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα αναγνωριζόμενο από το Σύνταγμα του οικείου κράτους μέλους; … Επισημαίνοντας πως στην Aπόφαση Πλαίσιο 2009/299 δεν προβλέπεται προϋπόθεση ότι η καταδικαστική απόφαση μπορεί να αναθεωρηθεί εντός του κράτους μέλους εκδόσεως (σκέψη 63), το Δικαστήριο κατέληξε στο εξής: «Υπό το φως των προηγηθεισών σκέψεων, στο τρίτο ερώτημα προσήκει η απάντηση ότι το άρθρο 53 του Χάρτη έχει την έννοια ότι δεν επιτρέπει σε κράτος μέλος να εξαρτά την παράδοση προσώπου καταδικασθέντος ερήμην από την προϋπόθεση ότι η καταδικαστική απόφαση μπορεί να αναθεωρηθεί εντός του κράτους μέλους εκδόσεως, ώστε να αποφεύγεται τυχόν προσβολή του δικαιώματος για δίκαιη δίκη και των κατοχυρωμένων στο Σύνταγμά του δικαιωμάτων άμυνας».
