## Facts

- Italian criminal proceedings were brought against Maria Pupino, a nursery-school teacher in Florence, for alleged injuries to pupils under five years old.
- Italian procedure generally takes evidence at trial; anticipatory (pre-trial) taking of evidence was permitted only in limited statutory situations.
- The prosecutor sought to hear the very young alleged victims during the preliminary phase using special arrangements to reduce repeated questioning and trauma.
- The referring judge questioned whether domestic procedural rules could be interpreted to permit protective pre-trial testimony measures required by Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on victims in criminal proceedings.
- The reference for a preliminary ruling was made under Article 35 EU (then applicable to police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters).

## Issues

1. Whether the Court of Justice had jurisdiction under Article 35 EU and whether the Italian judge in charge of preliminary enquiries qualified as a “court or tribunal.”
2. Whether framework decisions (which lack direct effect) nevertheless require national courts to interpret national law, as far as possible, in conformity with the framework decision’s wording and purpose.
3. Whether Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (especially Articles 2, 3, and 8(4)) permits or requires protective arrangements for testimony by particularly vulnerable victims, including very young children, potentially through pre-trial hearings.

## Decision

- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the referring judge acted in a judicial capacity and qualified as a “court or tribunal” under Article 35 EU (given the Member State’s acceptance of that jurisdiction).
- The Court held that framework decisions do not have direct effect, but national courts must interpret domestic law, as far as possible, in light of the framework decision’s wording and purpose to achieve its intended result.
- The Court held that Articles 2, 3, and 8(4) of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA contemplate special protective arrangements for particularly vulnerable victims, including young children, which may include taking testimony at the pre-trial stage, provided the rights of the defence are respected.
- The Court instructed the national court to apply this interpretive approach within the limits of national law and general principles, leaving the ultimate application to the referring court.

## Legal Principles

- Framework decisions are binding on Member States as to the result to be achieved, but they “shall not entail direct effect.”
- National courts must interpret national law, as far as possible, in conformity with a framework decision’s wording and purpose, based on the duty of loyal cooperation and the binding character of the result required.
- Conforming interpretation is limited: it may not require a reading contra legem and must respect general principles of law, including legal certainty and non-retroactivity in criminal matters; it cannot be used to aggravate criminal liability.
- Victim-protection obligations for “particularly vulnerable victims” may require procedural arrangements that reduce trauma when giving evidence, including measures affecting how and when testimony is taken, while preserving defence rights.

## Conclusion

The Court confirmed its Article 35 EU jurisdiction, extended the duty of conforming interpretation to EU framework decisions, and held that national procedural rules should, where possible, be read to allow protective testimony measures for very young child victims consistent with the framework decision and the accused’s defence rights.


Criminal Proceedings Against Pupino (Case C-105/03), 2005 E.C.R. I-5285 (C.J. June 16, 2005)