09.02.2015 Views

The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Subsequently, in Wolzenburg 767 , the Court gave guidance regarding the meaning <strong>of</strong><br />

‘resident’ and the conditions under which Member States can make use <strong>of</strong> Article 4(6)<br />

<strong>of</strong> the Framework Decision. <strong>The</strong> Court found that a Member State’s requirement for a<br />

continuous period <strong>of</strong> five years residence for nationals <strong>of</strong> other Member States for the<br />

ground for non-execution <strong>of</strong> the EAW to apply, was not to be considered excessive, in<br />

particular having regard the requirements <strong>of</strong> integration <strong>of</strong> the requested person into<br />

society when the sentence imposed expires. In particular, the Court found that such<br />

requirements did not violate Article 12 EC (the principle <strong>of</strong> non discrimination on<br />

grounds <strong>of</strong> nationality). 768 However, the Court did impose limits as to the demands that a<br />

Member State (in this case <strong>The</strong> Netherlands) could impose upon the requested person.<br />

<strong>The</strong> Court noted that a Member State cannot, in addition to the condition <strong>of</strong> the duration<br />

<strong>of</strong> residence, make application <strong>of</strong> the ground <strong>of</strong> non refusal <strong>of</strong> execution <strong>of</strong> the EAW<br />

subject to supplementary administrative requirements, such as the possession <strong>of</strong> a<br />

residence permit <strong>of</strong> indefinite duration. 769<br />

<strong>The</strong> Court further clarified in Lopes da Silva 770 that a Member State cannot limit the<br />

non-execution <strong>of</strong> a warrant on the grounds envisaged by Article 4(6) solely to their own<br />

nationals, by automatically and absolutely excluding nationals <strong>of</strong> other Member States<br />

who are staying in or are a resident <strong>of</strong> the executing Member State, irrespective <strong>of</strong> their<br />

connections with that Member State. This, the Court clarified, would not be compatible<br />

with the principle <strong>of</strong> non-discrimination on grounds <strong>of</strong> nationality (now enshrined in<br />

Article 18 TFEU).<br />

767 Case C-123/08 Proceedings concerning the execution <strong>of</strong> a <strong>European</strong> arrest warrant issued<br />

against Dominic Wolzenburg ECR I-09621 [2009].<br />

768 Para 62- 74; in particular para 74 <strong>of</strong> the judgement, ibid..<br />

769 See para 52 and 53 <strong>of</strong> the judgement, ibid..<br />

770 Case C-42/11 Proceedings concerning the execution <strong>of</strong> a <strong>European</strong> arrest warrant issued<br />

against João Pedro Lopes da Silva Jorge, not yet published.<br />

206

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!