|
2001年3月、EU理事会は、刑事手続における被害者の保護に関する枠組み決定 を制定しているが、イタリア刑法はこれに合致するように改正されていなかった。そのため、被害者の保護が十分になされないおそれがあった。このような弊害を回避するため、イタリアの裁判所は、枠組み決定の文言や目的に合致するように刑法を解釈すべきかどうかという問題が生じた。
EC条約に基づき制定される 指令（directives） に関し、EC裁判所は、指令に従い国内法が整備されていない場合、国内法は指令の文言や目的に合致するように解釈しなければならないと判断している（指令の間接的効力）。EU条約第34条第2項所定の 枠組み決定 にも、この判例法理が適用されるかどうかについて、複数の加盟国政府は否定的な見解を述べているが（Case C-105/03, Pupino
[2005] ECR I-5285,
paras. 24-27）、これは、主として、超国家的組織の法令（EC指令）と、加盟国間の政策協力にととどまる分野の法令（枠組み決定）の性質の違いに基づいている。なお、後者の直接的効力は明確に否認されている点でも（EU条約34条第2項参照）、両者は異なっている。
この問題について、EC裁判所は、枠組み協定について定めるEU条約第34条第2項第b号の文言は、指令について定めるEC条約第249条第3項に強く依拠しており、その意味において、枠組み協定は、指令と同じように、拘束的な性質（binding
character/zwingender Charakter）を有すると述べている。また、このことより、国内法は枠組み協定に合致するように解釈しなければならないことが導かれるとし、上掲の問題を肯定している（paras.
35-36）。
また、EU条約とEC条約の違いによって、この結論が左右されるものではないと判示している。 なお、EU条約第34条第2項第b号は 直接的効力 を否認しているが、EC裁判所は、以下のように述べ、これを容認しないと解される判断を下している。
|
35. The fact
that, by virtue of Article 35 EU, the jurisdiction of the
Court of Justice is less extensive under Title VI of the
Treaty on European Union than it is under the EC Treaty, and
the fact that there is no complete system of actions and
procedures designed to ensure the legality of the acts of
the institutions in the context of Title VI, does nothing to
invalidate that conclusion.
36. Irrespective of the degree of integration envisaged by
the Treaty of Amsterdam in the process of creating an ever
closer union among the peoples of Europe within the meaning
of the second paragraph of Article 1 EU, it is perfectly
comprehensible that the authors of the Treaty on European
Union should have considered it useful to make provision, in
the context of Title VI of that treaty, for recourse to
legal instruments with effects similar to those provided for
by the EC Treaty, in order to contribute effectively to the
pursuit of the Union's objectives.
37. The importance of the Court's jurisdiction to give
preliminary rulings under Article 35 EU is confirmed by the
fact that, under Article 35(4), any Member State, whether or
not it has made a declaration pursuant to Article 35(2), is
entitled to submit statements of case or written
observations to the Court in cases which arise under Article
35(1).
38. That jurisdiction would be deprived of most of its
useful effect if individuals were not entitled to invoke
framework decisions in order to obtain a conforming
interpretation of national law before the courts of the
Member States.
|
|
さらに、指令の間接的効力 の根拠の一つとなる EC条約第10条 は、EU条約には適用されないとする論拠も、以下のように述べて排斥している。
|
41. The second
and third paragraphs of Article 1 of the Treaty on European
Union provide that that treaty marks a new stage in the
process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples
of Europe and that the task of the Union, which is founded
on the European Communities, supplemented by the policies
and forms of cooperation established by that treaty, shall
be to organise, in a manner demonstrating consistency and
solidarity, relations between the Member States and between
their peoples.
42. It would be difficult for the Union to carry out its
task effectively if the principle of loyal cooperation,
requiring in particular that Member States take all
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
ensure fulfilment of their obligations under European Union
law, were not also binding in the area of police and
judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which is moreover
entirely based on cooperation between the Member States and
the institutions, as the Advocate General has rightly
pointed out in paragraph 26 of her Opinion.
43. In the light of all the above considerations, the Court
concludes that the principle of interpretation in conformity
with Community law is binding in relation to framework
decisions adopted in the context of Title VI of the Treaty
on European Union. When applying national law, the national
court that is called upon to interpret it must do so as far
as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the
framework decision in order to attain the result which it
pursues and thus comply with Article 34(2)(b) EU.
|
|
 |
Pupino 判決では、裁判所の機能を果たす予備審問官も、EC裁判所に先行判断を求めることのできる裁判所に当たると判断している。
|
22. It is
undisputed, first, that the judge in charge of preliminary
enquiries in criminal proceedings, such as those instituted
in this case, acts in a judicial capacity, so that he must
be regarded as a court or tribunal of a Member State' within
the meaning of Article 35 EU (see to that effect, in
relation to Article 234 EC, Joined Cases C54/94 and C-74/94
Cacchiarelli and Stanghellini [1995] ECR I-391, and Joined
Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 X [1996] ECR I-6609) and,
secondly, that the Framework Decision, based on Articles 31
EU and 34 EU, is one of the acts referred to in Article
35(1) EU, in respect of which the Court may give a
preliminary ruling.
|
|
|
