Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62015CJ0404
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2016:198
• Date: 05 April 2016
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Docket Number: C-659/15,C-404/15

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)

5 April 2016 (*1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal to execute — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State’

In Joined Cases C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU,

REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU made by the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Higher Regional Court of Bremen, Germany), made by decisions of 23 July and 8 December 2015, received at the Court on 24 July and 9 December 2015 respectively, in proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of

Pál Aranyosi (C‑404/15)

Robert Căldăraru (C‑659/15 PPU),

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),

composed of K. Lenaerts, President, A. Tizzano, Vice-President, L. Bay Larsen, T. von Danwitz and D. Šváby, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, E. Juhász, A. Borg Barthet, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan (Rapporteur), M. Berger, A. Prechal, E. Jarašiūnas, M. Vilaras and E. Regan, Judges,

Advocate General: Y. Bot,

Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 15 February 2016,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Aranyosi, by R. Chekerov, Rechtsanwältin,

— Mr Căldăraru, by J. van Lengerich, Rechtsanwalt,

— the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, by M. Glasbrenner, Oberstaatsanwalt,

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

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

— Ireland, by E. Creedon, L. Williams, G. Mullan and A. Joyce, acting as Agents,

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

— the French Government, by F.-X. Bréchot, D. Colas and G. de Bergues, acting as Agents,

— the Lithuanian Government, by D. Kriaučiūnas and J. Nasutavičienė, acting as Agents,

— the Hungarian Government, by M. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Bóra, acting as Agents,

— the Netherlands Government, by M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents,

— the Austrian Government, by G. Eberhard, acting as Agent,

— the Romanian Government, by R. Radu and M. Bejenar, acting as Agents,

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

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

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 March 2016,

gives the following

Judgment

1 The requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 1(3), Article 5 and Article 6(1) 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 These requests have been made in the context of the execution, in Germany, of two European arrest warrants issued in respect of Mr Aranyosi on 4 November and 31 December 2014 respectively by the examining magistrate at the Miskolci járásbíróság (District Court of Miskolc, Hungary), and of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of Mr Căldăraru on 29 October 2015 by the Judecătoria Făgăraş (Court of first instance of Fagaras, Romania).

Legal context

ECHR

3 Under the heading ‘Prohibition of torture’, Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’), signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, provides: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

4 Article 15ECHR, headed ‘Derogation in time of emergency’, provides: ‘1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. 2. No derogation from … or from Articles 3 … shall be made under this provision. …’

5 Article 46(2) ECHR, that article being headed ‘Binding force and execution of judgments’, provides: ‘The final judgment of the [European Court of Human Rights; ‘EctHR’] shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its execution.’

EU law

The Charter

6 Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), headed ‘Human dignity’, states: ‘Human dignity is inviolable. It must be respected and protected.’

7 Article 4 of the Charter, headed ‘Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, states: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’

8 The Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17; ‘the Explanations relating to the Charter’) state that ‘[t]he right in Article 4 [of the Charter] is the right guaranteed by Article 3 of the ECHR which has the same wording … By virtue of Article 52(3) of the Charter, it therefore has the same meaning and the same scope as the ECHR Article’.

9 Article 6 of the Charter, headed ‘Right to liberty and security’, provides: ‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.’

10 Article 48(1) of the Charter, that article being headed ‘Presumption of innocence and rights of defence’, provides: ‘Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.’

11 Article 51(1) of the Charter, that article being headed ‘Field of application’, provides: ‘The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. …’

12 Article 52(1) of the Charter, that article being headed ‘Scope and interpretation of rights and principles’, provides: ‘Any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by this Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others.’

The Framework Decision

13 Recitals 5 to 8, 10 and 12 in the preamble of the Framework Decision 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 Council pursuant to Article 7(1) [EU, now after amendment, Article 7(2) TEU] with the consequences set out in Article [7(2) EU]. … (12) This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 [EU] and reflected by 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...