14.4.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/7


Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vrchní soud v Praze (Czech Republic) lodged on 7 February 2012 — Marián Baláž

(Case C-60/12)

2012/C 109/13

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Vrchní soud v Praze

Party to the main proceedings

Appellant: Marián Baláž

Questions referred

1.

Must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ in Article 1(a)(iii) of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 (1) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (‘the Framework Decision’) be interpreted as an autonomous concept of European Union law?

2(a)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what general defining characteristics must a court of a State which can, on the initiative of the person concerned, hear that person’s case in relation to a decision issued by an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority) have in order to qualify as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

2(b)

May an Austrian independent administrative tribunal (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat) be regarded as a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision?

2(c)

If the answer to the first question is in the negative, must the term ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision be interpreted by the competent authority of the executing State under the law of the State whose authority issued a decision within the meaning of Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision, or under the law of the State deciding on the recognition and enforcement of such a decision?

3.

Is the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’ before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ under Article 1(a)(iii) of the Framework Decision maintained even if the person concerned cannot have a case tried before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ directly, but must first contest a decision of an authority other than a court of law (an administrative authority), the submission of such a contestation rendering that authority’s decision ineffective and leading to the initiation of an ordinary procedure before the same authority, and only against its decision in that ordinary procedure may an appeal be brought before a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’?

In relation to maintaining the ‘opportunity to have the case tried’, is it necessary to decide questions of whether an appeal heard by a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’ is in the nature of an ordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a decision not yet final) or an extraordinary appeal (i.e. an appeal against a final decision) and whether a ‘court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters’, on the basis of that appeal, has the authority to review the case in its entirety both in fact and in law?


(1)  OJ 2005 L 76, p. 16.