# C_2023252EN.01000701.xml

| 17.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 252/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 252/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 June 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte costituzionale- Italy) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against O.G.

(Case C-700/21, (1) O.G. (Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Article 4(6) - Objective of social rehabilitation - Third-country nationals staying or residing on the territory of the executing Member State - Equal treatment - Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

(2023/C 252/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte costituzionale

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: O.G.

Intervener: Presidenza dei Consiglio dei Ministri

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
  must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State.

| 2. | Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584
  must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 73, 14.2.2022.

---