Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62015CJ0237
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2015:474
• Date: 16 July 2015
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Petición de decisión prejudicial - procedimiento de urgencia
• Docket Number: C-237/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

16 July 2015 ( *1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 6 — Right to liberty and security — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Obligation to execute the European arrest warrant — Article 12 — Keeping the requested person in detention — Article 15 — Surrender decision — Article 17 — Time-limits and detailed procedure for the decision on execution — Consequences of a failure to observe the time-limits’

In Case C‑237/15 PPU,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 19 May 2015, received at the Court on 22 May 2015, in the proceedings

Minister for Justice and Equality

v

Francis Lanigan,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, A. Tizzano, R. Silva de Lapuerta, L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), A. Ó Caoimh, J.-C. Bonichot, C. Vajda, S. Rodin and K. Jürimäe, Presidents of Chambers, J. Malenovský, E. Levits, M. Safjan, A. Prechal and J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Cruz Villalón,

Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 July 2015,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Lanigan, by K. Kelly, BL, M. Forde, SC, and P. O’Donovan, Solicitor,

— Ireland, by E. Creedon, acting as Agent, and R. Barron, SC, T. McGillicuddy, BL, and H. Dockry, Solicitor,

— the German Government, by T. Henze and J. Kemper, acting as Agents,

— the Spanish Government, by A. Rubio González, acting as Agent,

— the French Government, by F.-X. Bréchot, acting as Agent,

— the Netherlands Government, by J. Langer, acting as Agent,

— the United Kingdom Government, by V. Kaye, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes, Barrister,

— the European Commission, by R. Troosters and W. Bogensberger, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Advocate General,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 15 and 17 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) (‘the Framework Decision’).

2 The request has been made in the context of the execution, in Ireland, of a European arrest warrant issued on 17 December 2012 by the Magistrates’ Courts in Dungannon (United Kingdom) in respect of Mr Lanigan.

Legal context

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

3 Under the heading ‘Right to liberty and security’, Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), provides: ‘1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: … (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. … 4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. ...’

EU law

4 Recitals 5 and 7 in the preamble to the Framework Decision are worded as follows: ‘(5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, 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. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice. … (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.’

5 Under the heading ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, Article 1 of the Framework Decision states: ‘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 Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.’

6 Articles 3, 4 and 4a of the Framework Decision set out the grounds for mandatory and optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant.

7 Under the heading ‘Keeping the person in detention’, Article 12 of the Framework Decision 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. The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent authority of the said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding.’

8 Article 15(1) of the Framework Decision provides that ‘the executing judicial authority is to decide, within the time-limits and in accordance with the conditions defined in the Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered’.

9 Article 17 of the Framework Decision states: ‘1. A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency. 2. In cases where the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given. 3. In other cases, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person. 4. Where in specific cases the European arrest warrant cannot be executed within the time-limits laid down in paragraphs 2 or 3, the executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority thereof, giving the reasons for the delay. In such case, the time-limits may be extended by a further 30 days. 5. As long as the executing judicial authority has not taken a final decision on the European arrest warrant, it shall ensure that the material conditions necessary for effective surrender of the person remain fulfilled. … 7. Where in exceptional circumstances a Member State cannot observe the time-limits provided for in this Article, it shall inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay. In addition, a Member State which has experienced repeated delays on the part of another Member State in the execution of European arrest warrants shall inform the Council with a view to evaluating the implementation of this Framework Decision at Member State level.’

10 Article 23 of the Framework Decision provides: ‘1. The person requested shall be surrendered as soon as possible on a date agreed between the authorities concerned. 2. He or she shall be surrendered no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant. 3. If the surrender of the requested person within the period laid down in paragraph 2 is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of the Member States, the executing and issuing judicial authorities shall immediately contact each other and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed. 4. The surrender may exceptionally be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons, for example if there are substantial grounds for believing that it would manifestly endanger the requested person’s life or health. The execution of the European arrest warrant shall take place as soon as these grounds have ceased to exist. The executing judicial authority shall immediately inform...