LM.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
Writing for the CourtSilva de Lapuerta
Docket NumberC-216/18
Date25 July 2018
Procedure TypePetición de decisión prejudicial - procedimiento de urgencia
Celex Number62018CJ0216
62018CJ0216

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

25 July 2018 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal)

In Case C‑216/18 PPU,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 23 March 2018, received at the Court on 27 March 2018, in proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued against

LM,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, J. Malenovský, E. Levits and C.G. Fernlund, Presidents of Chambers, A. Borg Barthet, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, S. Rodin, F. Biltgen, C. Lycourgos and E. Regan, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Tanchev,

Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the referring court’s request of 23 March 2018, received at the Court on 27 March 2018, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure, pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,

having regard to the decision of 12 April 2018 of the First Chamber granting that request,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 June 2018,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

the Minister for Justice and Equality, by M. Browne, acting as Agent, S. Ní Chúlacháin, Barrister-at-Law, R. Farrell, Senior Counsel and K. Colmcille, Barrister-at-Law,

LM, by C. Ó Maolchallann, Solicitor, M. Lynam, Barrister-at-Law, S. Guerin, Senior Counsel, and D. Stuart, Barrister-at-Law,

the Spanish Government, by M.A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agent,

the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér, acting as Agent,

the Netherlands Government, by M.K. Bulterman, acting as Agent,

the Polish Government, by Ł. Piebiak, B. Majczyna and J. Sawicka, acting as Agents,

the European Commission, by J. Tomkin, H. Krämer, B. Martenczuk, R. Troosters and K. Banks, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 28 June 2018,

gives the following

Judgment

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(3) 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), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’).

2

The request has been made in connection with the execution, in Ireland, of European arrest warrants issued by Polish courts against LM (‘the person concerned’).

Legal context

The EU Treaty

3

Article 7 TEU provides:

‘1. On a reasoned proposal by one third of the Member States, by the European Parliament or by the European Commission, the Council, acting by a majority of four fifths of its members after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2. Before making such a determination, the Council shall hear the Member State in question and may address recommendations to it, acting in accordance with the same procedure.

The Council shall regularly verify that the grounds on which such a determination was made continue to apply.

2. The European Council, acting by unanimity on a proposal by one third of the Member States or by the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, may determine the existence of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the values referred to in Article 2, after inviting the Member State in question to submit its observations.

3. Where a determination under paragraph 2 has been made, the Council, acting by a qualified majority, may decide to suspend certain of the rights deriving from the application of the Treaties to the Member State in question, including the voting rights of the representative of the government of that Member State in the Council. In doing so, the Council shall take into account the possible consequences of such a suspension on the rights and obligations of natural and legal persons.

The obligations of the Member State in question under the Treaties shall in any case continue to be binding on that State.

…’

The Charter

4

Title VI of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), headed ‘Justice’, includes Article 47, entitled ‘Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial’, which states:

‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.

Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.

...’

5

The Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17) point out that the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter corresponds to Article 6(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).

6

Article 48 of the Charter, entitled ‘Presumption of innocence and rights of defence’, states:

‘1. Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

2. Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed.’

Framework Decision 2002/584

7

Recitals 5 to 8, 10 and 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 are worded as follows:

‘(5)

... the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. ...

(6)

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.

(7)

Since the aim of replacing the system of multilateral extradition built upon the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 [EU] and Article 5 [EC]. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this Framework Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(8)

Decisions on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be subject to sufficient controls, which means that a judicial authority of the Member State where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender.

...

(10)

The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) [EU, now, after amendment, Article 2 TEU], determined by the [European] Council pursuant to Article 7(1) [EU, now, after amendment, Article 7(2) TEU,] with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof [now, after amendment, Article 7(3) TEU].

...

(12)

This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 [EU] and reflected in the [Charter], in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.

...’

8

Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584, 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.

3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 practice notes
  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 23 January 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 January 2020
    ...32 and 41 to 45); and of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice) (C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraphs 50 to 54) — under national law, magistrates do not, because of their job insecurity, enjoy working conditions equivalent to those of prof......
  • Conclusiones de la Abogado General Sra. J. Kokott, presentadas el 29 de abril de 2021.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 29 April 2021
    ...EU:C:2018:117, point 30), du 25 juillet 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Défaillances du système judiciaire) (C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, point 35), et du 24 juin 2019, Commission/Pologne (Indépendance de la Cour suprême) (C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, point 98 Arrêt du 26 février 2019,......
  • Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” e.a. contre Inspecţia Judiciară e.a.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 May 2021
    ...tirent de ce droit [arrêts du 25 juillet 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Défaillances du système judiciaire), C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, point 50 ; du 24 juin 2019, Commission/Pologne (Indépendance de la Cour suprême), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, point 47, ainsi que du 5 novembre 20......
  • UX contra Governo della Repubblica italiana.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 16 July 2020
    ...punti 47-53), Associaçâo Sindical dos Juizes Portugueses (EU:C:2018:117, punto 32 e punti 41-45), Minister for Justice and Equality (EU:C:2018:586, punti 50-54). 2) Nel caso di risposta affermativa al quesito sub.1), se l’attività di servizio del giudice di pace ricorrente rientra nella noz......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
81 cases
  • Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 23 January 2020.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 23 January 2020
    ...32 and 41 to 45); and of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice) (C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraphs 50 to 54) — under national law, magistrates do not, because of their job insecurity, enjoy working conditions equivalent to those of prof......
  • Conclusiones de la Abogado General Sra. J. Kokott, presentadas el 29 de abril de 2021.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 29 April 2021
    ...EU:C:2018:117, point 30), du 25 juillet 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Défaillances du système judiciaire) (C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, point 35), et du 24 juin 2019, Commission/Pologne (Indépendance de la Cour suprême) (C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, point 98 Arrêt du 26 février 2019,......
  • Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor din România” e.a. contre Inspecţia Judiciară e.a.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 18 May 2021
    ...tirent de ce droit [arrêts du 25 juillet 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Défaillances du système judiciaire), C‑216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, point 50 ; du 24 juin 2019, Commission/Pologne (Indépendance de la Cour suprême), C‑619/18, EU:C:2019:531, point 47, ainsi que du 5 novembre 20......
  • UX contra Governo della Repubblica italiana.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 16 July 2020
    ...punti 47-53), Associaçâo Sindical dos Juizes Portugueses (EU:C:2018:117, punto 32 e punti 41-45), Minister for Justice and Equality (EU:C:2018:586, punti 50-54). 2) Nel caso di risposta affermativa al quesito sub.1), se l’attività di servizio del giudice di pace ricorrente rientra nella noz......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 books & journal articles
  • Key issues and challenges in the implementation of the FD EAW
    • European Union
    • European arrest warrant. European implementation assessment
    • 3 August 2020
    ...COM (2014) 158 of 19 March 2014, p. 2. 239 CJEU judgment of 25 July 2018 in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v LM ECLI:EU:C:2018:586 240 Ibid , paras 47, 48. 241 Proposal for a Council decision on the determination of a clear risk of a serious breach by the Republic of Po......
  • Case-law of the court of justice in 2018
    • European Union
    • Annual report 2018. Judicial activity : synopsis of the judicial activity of the Court of Justice and the General Court Chapter I. The court of justice
    • 2 September 2019
    ...in civil mattersȇ; judgments of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deȴciencies in the system of justice) (C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586 ) and Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions of detention in Hungary) (C-220/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:589 ), and of 5 June 2018, Kolev and Others (C-61......
  • El régimen general de condicionalidad para la protección del presupuesto de la Unión Europea: ¿un mecanismo efectivo de garantía del estado de derecho en los estados miembros de la Unión Europea?
    • European Union
    • Revista Española de Derecho Europeo Nbr. 78-79, April 2021
    • 1 April 2021
    ...(2018), Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses/ Tribunal de Contas, Asunto C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117. Sentencia TJUE (2018), Asunto LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586. Sentencia TJUE (2018), Wightman y otros, C-621/18, EU:C:2018:999. Sentencia TJUE (2019), Comisión Europea/ República de Polon......
  • Key findings of the 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard
    • European Union
    • The 2020 EU justice scoreboard
    • 8 September 2020
    ...dos Juízes Portugueses, C-64/16, EU:C:2018:117, paragraph 44; judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 87 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:531 para 44. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT