Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued agains Ciprian Vasile Radu.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62011CJ0396
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2013:39
• Date: 29 January 2013
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: C-396/11

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

29 January 2013 ( *1 )

‛Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution — Grounds for refusing execution’

In Case C-396/11,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curte de Apel Constanţa (Romania), made by decision of 18 May 2011, received at the Court on 27 July 2011, in proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued against

Ciprian Vasile Radu,

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, A. Tizzano, R. Silva de Lapuerta, L. Bay Larsen, A. Rosas, M. Berger and E. Jarašiūnas, Presidents of Chambers, E. Juhász, A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), J.-C. Bonichot, A. Prechal and C.G. Fernlund, Judges,

Advocate General: E. Sharpston,

Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 July 2012,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Radu, by C. Cojocaru and T. Chiuariu, lawyers,

— Ministerul Public, Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa, by E.C. Grecu, Procurator-General,

— the Romanian Government, by R.-M. Giurescu, A. Voicu and R. Radu, acting as Agents,

— the Czech Government, by M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

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

— the Lithuanian Government, by R. Mackevičienė and A. Svinkūnaitė, acting as Agents,

— the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent,

— the Polish Government, by M. Szpunar, acting as Agent,

— the United Kingdom Government, by C. Murrel, acting as Agent,

— the European Commission, by L. Bouyon, W. Bogensberger and H. Krämer, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 October 2012,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation 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’), read in conjunction with Articles 6, 48 and 52 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and with Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings relating to the execution in Romania of four European arrest warrants issued by the German authorities against Mr Radu, a Romanian national, for the purposes of prosecution in respect of acts of aggravated robbery.

Legal context

European Union law

3 Recitals 1, 5 to 8, 10, 12 and 13 in the preamble to Framework Decision 2002/584 read as follows: ‘(1) According to the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 35 thereof, the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States in respect of persons who are fleeing from justice after having been finally sentenced and extradition procedures should be speeded up in respect of persons suspected of having committed an offence. ... (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. (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]. ... (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], determined by the Council pursuant to Article 7(1) [EU] with the consequences set out in Article 7(2) thereof. ... (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. This Framework Decision does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media. (13) No person should be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

4 Article 1 of that framework decision defines the European arrest warrant and the obligation to execute it in the following terms: ‘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 [EU].’

5 Article 3 of the Framework Decision, entitled ‘Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant’, provides as follows: ‘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; ...’.

6 In accordance with Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant’: ‘The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant: ... 2. where the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant is being prosecuted in the executing Member State for the same act as that on which the European arrest warrant is based; ... 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; ...’.

7 Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Decisions rendered following a trial at which the person did not appear in person’, allows the executing judicial authority, in certain circumstances, to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a sentence if the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.

8 Article 5 of that framework decision concerns guarantees to be given by the...