Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2025. Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence – Article 4(6) – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Conditions for an executing Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the execution of that sentence – Article 3(2) – Concept of ‘finally judged … in respect of the same acts’ – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters for the purpose of their enforcement in another Member State – Article 25 – Compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the framework decision in the event that a Member State undertakes to enforce a sentence handed down by a judgment delivered by an issuing State – Requirement of consent on the part of the issuing State as regards another Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of such a sentence – Article 4 – Possibility for the issuing State to forward the judgment and certificate referred to in that article to the executing State – Consequences where forwarding does not take place – Principle of sincere cooperation – Article 22 – Right of the issuing State to enforce that sentence – Maintenance of the European arrest warrant – Obligation on the part of the executing judicial authority to enforce a European arrest warrant.#Case C-305/22.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:665
• Docket Number: C-305/22
• Date: 04 September 2025

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

4 September 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence – Article 4(6) – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Conditions for an executing Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the execution of that sentence – Article 3(2) – Concept of ‘finally judged … in respect of the same acts’ – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters for the purpose of their enforcement in another Member State – Article 25 – Compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the framework decision in the event that a Member State undertakes to enforce a sentence handed down by a judgment delivered by an issuing State – Requirement of consent on the part of the issuing State as regards another Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of such a sentence – Article 4 – Possibility for the issuing State to forward the judgment and certificate referred to in that article to the executing State – Consequences where forwarding does not take place – Principle of sincere cooperation – Article 22 – Right of the issuing State to enforce that sentence – Maintenance of the European arrest warrant – Obligation on the part of the executing judicial authority to enforce a European arrest warrant )

In Case C‑305/22,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania), made by decision of 11 April 2022, received at the Court on 6 May 2022, in the proceedings relating to the execution of the European arrest warrant issued against

C.J.,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, T. von Danwitz, Vice-President, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos, M.L. Arastey Sahún, S. Rodin, A. Kumin, N. Jääskinen (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias and M. Gavalec, Presidents of Chambers, E. Regan, I. Ziemele, Z. Csehi and O. Spineanu-Matei, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,

Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 March 2024,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– C.J., representing himself,

– the Romanian Government, by M. Chicu and E. Gane, acting as Agents,

– the Czech Government, by L. Halajová, M. Smolek, T. Suchá and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

– the French Government, by B. Dourthe, acting as Agent,

– the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman, M.H.S. Gijzen and C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by H. Leupold and L. Nicolae, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 June 2024,

having regard to the order of 13 September 2024 to reopen the oral procedure, and further to the hearing on 14 October 2024,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– the Romanian Government, by M. Chicu, E. Gane and L. Liţu, acting as Agents,

– the Czech Government, by L. Halajová, M. Smolek, T. Suchá and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

– the French Government, by B. Dourthe, acting as Agent,

– the Netherlands Government, by C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agent,

– the European Commission, by H. Leupold, L. Nicolae and J. Vondung, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 12 December 2024,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(5) and (6) and Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), and of Article 4(2), Article 22(1) and Article 25 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27).

2 The request has been made in the proceedings relating to the execution of the European arrest warrant issued against C.J. by the Curtea de Apel Bucureşti – Biroul executări penale (Court of Appeal, Bucharest – Office for Criminal Enforcement, Romania).

Legal context

International law

3 Article 3 of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons, signed in Strasbourg on 21 March 1983, entitled ‘Conditions for transfer’ provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘A sentenced person may be transferred under this Convention only on the following conditions:

…

(f) if the sentencing and administering States agree to the transfer.’

European Union law

Framework Decision 2002/584

4 Recital 6 of Framework Decision 2002/584 states:

‘The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation.’

5 Article 1 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides:

‘1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

…’

6 Article 3 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant’, provides:

‘The judicial authority of the Member State of execution (hereinafter “executing judicial authority”) shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases:

…

2. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing Member State:

…’

7 Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant’, is worded as follows:

‘The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:

…

5. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a third State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country;

6. if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law;

…’

8 Article 5 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State in particular cases’, provides:

‘The execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may, by the law of the executing Member State, be subject to the following conditions:

…

3. where a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution is a national or resident of the executing Member State, surrender may be subject to the condition that the person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State.’

9 Article 8 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Content and form of the European arrest warrant’ provides:

‘1. The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:

…

(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2;

…’

10 Article 12 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Keeping the person in detention’, is worded as follows:

‘When a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State. …’

11 Article 26 of that Framework Decision, entitled ‘Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The issuing Member State shall deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in the issuing Member State as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed.’

Framework Decision 2008/909

12 Recitals 2, 8 and 12 of Framework Decision 2008/909 state:

‘(2) On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, in which it called for an assessment of the need for modern mechanisms for the mutual recognition of final sentences involving deprivation of liberty … and for extended application of the principle of the transfer of sentenced persons to cover persons resident in a Member State …

…

(8) In cases referred to in Article 4(1)(c) the forwarding of the judgment and the certificate to the executing State is subject to consultations between the competent...