Corte di giustizia UE/2016

[OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 10 November 2016 ( * ) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 — Powers of the national criminal prosecution authorities — Failure to implement EU law — [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] — Clear lack of jurisdiction of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑321/16, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Ireland), made by decision of 27 May 2016, received at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 6 June 2016, in the criminal proceedings against [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], M. Safjan (Rapporteur) and D. Šváby, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: E. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having decided, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to give a decision by reasoned order, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], makes the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’). 2 This request has been submitted in criminal proceedings brought in Ireland against [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Irish law 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1974 established the role of the Director of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (‘the DPP’), responsible for criminal prosecutions. The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 4 The order for reference indicates that, on 9 February 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] had an altercation with his landlord. The next day, he was arrested in connection with those facts by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a police officer, who charged him with offences under: (i) section 12(1)(b) and (3) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Theft and [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) Act 2001, for trespass; and (ii) section 11 of the Firearms and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1990, for possession of a screwdriver at the time of the altercation. 5 On 10 February 2014, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Ireland) admitted [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to bail and remanded him to 24 February 2014, pending the decision of the DPP on the point whether the case was to proceed to trial as a minor offence to be heard by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or by way of indictment to be heard by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 6 The referring court states that, at the hearing on 24 February 2014 before the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], however, the DPP had still not taken a decision whether the case was to proceed summarily or on indictment; nor were any reasons given for the failure to take a decision. In those circumstances, the referring court set a new hearing date, namely 7 April 2014, and ordered the DPP to inform it of how the case was to proceed against [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 7 At the hearing on 7 April 2014, neither the DPP nor the police officer who laid the charges were in a position to advise the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of whether the case was to proceed by way of indictment or otherwise. To that end and in order to obtain a decision from the DPP, the police officer asked the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for more time, which was granted, further to which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was again ordered remanded in custody to 10 April 2014. 8 At the hearing on 10 April 2014, the DPP failed to inform the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the decision as to how the case was to proceed against [OSCURATO:PERSONA], in consequence of which the proceedings were struck out. 9 On 12 June 2014, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was arrested a second time in respect of the same incident on 9 February 2014, although this time the police officer preferred a different charge against him, committed in a different location. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ordered the DPP to serve it with the Book of Evidence for 24 July 2014, the date to which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was remanded. 10 Despite that order, the DPP was not in a position to serve the Book of Evidence on 24 July 2014. Consequently, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] struck out the proceedings. 11 On 9 December 2015, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] was arrested a third time in respect of the incident that occurred on 9 February 2014, with the charges against him as recorded by the police officer being the same as those that had been struck out on 24 July 2014, with a change being made to the location where the incident occurred. 12 The referring court is concerned about the impact of this third arrest on [OSCURATO:PERSONA] liberty and takes the view that his fundamental rights as a citizen of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] have been infringed in this case. 13 It was in those circumstances that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)  Having regard to [what is set out in the order for reference], has the DPP breached the fundamental rights of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and in particular those rights as provided for in Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 and supplemented for in the preamble to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]? (2)      Having regard to [what is set out in the order for reference], has the DPP the right to refuse to comply with legitimate [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and/or if she fails to comply and/or fails to give an explanation or reason for the non-compliance, is this compatible with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]? (3)      Having regard to [what is set out in the order for reference], and given that the DPP’s decisions are only reviewable by a court if demonstrated that the DPP reached a decision mala fides or influenced by an improper motive or improper policy, as the present state of Irish law permits, is this consistent and compatible with the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] having regard to the facts of this case?’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] jurisdiction 14 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], where it is clear that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case or where a request or an application is manifestly inadmissible, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], at any time decide to give a decision by reasoned order without taking further steps in the proceedings. 15 That provision should be applied in the present case. 16 According to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] settled case-law, in a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may interpret EU law only within the parameters of the jurisdiction conferred on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (order of 18 February 2016, Rîpanu , C‑407/15, not published, EU:C:2016:167, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). 17 The questions referred in the present case concern the interpretation of the preamble and Articles 6, 20, 41, 47 and 48 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 18 Furthermore, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the provisions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are addressed to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] only when they are implementing EU law. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(2) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) TEU states that the provisions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] do not in any way extend the scope of EU law beyond the competences of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as defined in the Treaties (see orders of 19 June 2014, Balázs and Papp , C‑45/14, not published, EU:C:2014:2021, paragraph 20, and of 15 April 2015, Burzio , C‑497/14, not published, EU:C:2015:251, paragraph 27). 19 It follows from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] consistent case-law that where a legal situation does not come within the scope of EU law, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction (judgment of 26 February 2013, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] , C‑617/10, EU:C:2013:105, paragraph 22, and order of 25 February 2016, Aiudapds , C‑520/15, not published, EU:C:2016:124, paragraph 20). 20 In the present case, there is nothing in the order for reference to indicate that the main proceedings, in which the national authorities responsible for criminal prosecutions are exercising their powers, concern an interpretation or application of a rule of EU law other than what is laid down in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. It gives no basis for considering that in the main proceedings national rules are at issue involving the implementation of EU law within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 51(1) of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, orders of 15 April 2015, Burzio , C‑497/14, not published, EU:C:2015:251, paragraph 29, and of 25 February 2016, Aiudapds , C‑520/15, not published, EU:C:2016:124, paragraph 21). 21 In those circumstances, it is clear, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Costs 22 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby orders: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] clearly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (Ireland) by decision of 27 May 2016. Luxembourg, 10 November 2016. A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] M. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] * Language of the case: English.