Minister for Justice and Equality v Tomas Vilkas.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 62015CJ0640
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2017:39
• Docket Number: C-640/15
• Date: 25 January 2017
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)

25 January 2017 ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 23 — Time limit for surrender of the requested person — Possibility of agreeing on a new surrender date on a number of occasions — Resistance of the requested person to his surrender — Force majeure’

In Case C‑640/15,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Court of Appeal (Ireland), made by decision of 24 November 2015, received at the Court on 2 December 2015, in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant in respect of

Tomas Vilkas,

THE COURT (Third Chamber),

composed of L. Bay Larsen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Vilaras, J. Malenovský, M. Safjan and D. Šváby, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Bobek,

Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 July 2016,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

— Mr Vilkas, by M. Kelly QC, M. Lynam, Barrister-at-Law, B. Coveney, J. Wood and T. Horan, Solicitors,

— Ireland, by E. Creedon, D. Curley and E. Pearson, acting as Agents, S. Stack, Senior Counsel, and J. Benson, Barrister-at-Law,

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

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

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

— the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,

— the United Kingdom Government, by S. Brandon, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes, Barrister,

— the European Commission, by R. Troosters and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 October 2016,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 23 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 connection with the execution in Ireland of European arrest warrants issued by a Lithuanian court in respect of Tomas Vilkas.

Legal context

EU law

The Convention on simplified extradition procedure

3 Article 11(3) of the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union, signed on 10 March 1995 (OJ 1995 C 78, p. 2; ‘the Convention on simplified extradition procedure’), provides: ‘Should surrender of the person within the deadline laid down … be prevented by circumstances beyond its control, the authority concerned … shall so inform the other authority. The two authorities shall agree on a new surrender date. In that event, surrender will take place within 20 days of the new date thus agreed. If the person in question is still being held after expiry of this period, he shall be released.’

The Framework Decision

4 Recitals 5 and 7 of 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 Article 1 of the Framework Decision, headed ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2: ‘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 12 of the Framework Decision, headed ‘Keeping the person in detention’, provides: ‘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.’

7 Article 15(1) of the Framework Decision states: ‘The executing judicial authority shall decide, within the time limits and under the conditions defined in this Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered.’

8 Article 23 of the Framework Decision, headed ‘Time limits for surrender of the person’, 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 the issuing judicial authority and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed. 5. Upon expiry of the time limits referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4, if the person is still being held in custody he shall be released.’

Irish law

9 Section 16(1) and (2) of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, governs the making by the High Court (Ireland) of orders directing that persons in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued be surrendered.

10 Section 16(3A) of the Act provides that a person to whom such an order applies is, in principle, to be surrendered to the issuing Member State not later than 10 days after the order takes effect.

11 Section 16(4) and (5) of the Act is worded as follows: ‘(4) Where the High Court makes an order under subsection (1) or (2), it shall, unless it orders postponement of surrender under section 18— ... (b) order that that person be detained in a prison … for a period not exceeding 25 days pending the carrying out of the terms of the order, and (c) direct that the person be again brought before the High Court— (i) if he or she is not surrendered before the expiration of the time for surrender under subsection (3A), as soon as practicable after that expiration, or (ii) if it appears to the Central Authority in the State that, because of circumstances beyond the control of the State or the issuing state concerned, that person will not be surrendered on the expiration referred to in subparagraph (i), before that expiration. (5) Where a person is brought before the High Court pursuant to subsection (4)(c), the High Court shall— (a) if satisfied that, because of circumstances beyond the control of the State or the issuing state concerned, the person was not surrendered within the time for surrender under subsection (3A) or, as the case may be, will not be so surrendered— (i) with the agreement of the issuing judicial authority, fix a new date for the surrender of the person, and

...