Fundamental rights
Translation generated by AI. Access the original version
Refusal of European Arrest Warrant due to risk of violation
In Belgium, two European Arrest Warrants (EAW) were being processed for the enforcement of prison sentences imposed in other countries , one from Romania (4 years for human trafficking, against a Romanian citizen residing in Belgium) and the other from Greece (5 years, against a Belgian citizen residing in Belgium). In both cases, Belgian authorities identified a serious issue: if they handed over these individuals, there was a real risk that, in the issuing State, they would end up in detention conditions that could violate fundamental rights, especially Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, regarding inhuman or degrading treatment; and in the Greek case, Articles 3 and 5 are also mentioned, due to the mental condition of the individual and the impact on their deprivation of liberty.
In the Romanian case, furthermore, the Brussels Court of Appeal stated, do not extradite, but the sentence could be carried out in Belgium using a Belgian rule linked to Framework Decision (EU) 2002/584 (art. 4.6). The affected person appealed, arguing that if the surrender is denied for a "mandatory" reason linked to fundamental rights, it makes no sense to "hook" on a "discretionary" reason afterwards to end up executing the sentence in Belgium anyway. In the Greek case, the Public Prosecutor's Office argued the opposite, that in order to prevent impunity , when denying the EAW, consideration should be given to applying that art. 4.6.
The CJEU (Grand Chamber) clarifies that, if that risk is established and it refused under art. 1.3, the surrender procedure must be closed, and art. 4.6 cannot be subsequently used "as a complement" to order execution in Belgium of that foreign sentence, even if invoking the prevention of impunity. Belgium must act to prevent impunity, but the appropriate route is another one, Framework Decision (EU) 2008/909, requesting the issuing State on its own initiative to send the judgment and the certificate so that the sentence is executed in Belgium. This does not automatically oblige the issuing State to send the documentation, but its possible refusal must be compatible with effective judicial cooperation and taking into account the risk of impunity.
Our lawyers can provide you with the appropriate advice and defend your interests in proceedings arising from acts that constitute or may constitute a criminal offense-
Misappropriation
Instrumental transmission of social shares to operate bank accounts
-
Crimes of misappropriation and fraud
Misappropriation of amounts delivered to complete a housing promotion The case revolves around a real estate promotion in Riogordo (Málaga), consisting of 20 homes, managed by a promoting company. In the first stage, two people were listed as joint administrators (although one of them handled the daily management). Between 2008 and 2009, several homes were sold and buyers delivered amounts on account. Some were even given the keys, despite the fact that the work was not actually finished (it was said to be 90% complete), no deed was granted, and the construction company ended up abandoning due to non-payments. The result was that buyers found themselves living in houses without deeds and without a clear situation in the Registry. Some time later, those administrators sold their shares and a third person entered as the sole administrator. This new administrator was aware of the previous problem, but still asked some buyers for additional money (for example, 8,000 euros) on the argument that it was to complete the promotion. The relevant point is that this money was not used for what was promised nor was it returned. Furthermore, between 2010 and 2011, new sales of homes occurred under similar conditions, and later the entire set of 20 homes was sold to another company, generating a serious conflict between those who had bought earlier and those who appeared later as titleholders. The Provincial Court acquitted the first two administrators (it was not proven that they had diverted the money), but convicted the last one for aggravated misappropriation and fraud. The Supreme Court (TS) confirmed the conviction and rejected the appeal as it did not accept reopening the evaluation of the evidence and considered the denial of new documentation correct because it referred to subsequent facts and was not relevant to what was judged.
-
Union law
The CJEU supports the Amnesty Law for normalizing the situation in Catalonia
This website uses both its own and third-party cookies to analyze our services and navigation on our website in order to improve its contents (analytical purposes: measure visits and sources of web traffic). The legal basis is the consent of the user, except in the case of basic cookies, which are essential to navigate this website.