Court of Justice 20 April 2023, C-219/22 (Criminal proceedings against QS.)

Also known as

Advocate General Pikame opines that Article 3(3) and (4) of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA precludes national legislation requiring a court to revoke the suspension of a sentence imposed by another Member State and order its actual execution. The Opinion argues that such a revocation constitutes prohibited 'interference' with the execution of a previous conviction, as the principle of mutual recognition does not permit a Member State to unilaterally alter the enforcement arrangements of a foreign judgment. Unless the execution has been formally transferred under Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA, jurisdiction to decide on the consequences of a new offence for a suspended sentence remains with the Member State of conviction.AI

European Union · · · Cited by 1 · 20-04-2023

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL PIKAMÄE delivered on 20 April 2023 ( 1 ) Case C‑219/22 Criminal proceedings against QS, interested party: Rayonna prokuratura Burgas, TO Nesebar (Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Nesebar (District Court, Nesebar, Bulgaria)) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA – Taking account

Read the full text

This document is published by eur-lex.europa.eu.

Moonlit adds the citation network (1 references), article-level links and cross-references, which are available to search for free.