# C_2021278EN.01002401.xml

| 12.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 278/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 278/24

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against X

(Case C-665/20 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant - Grounds for optional non-execution - Article 4(5) - Requested person has been finally judged in a third State in respect of the same acts - Sentence has been served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country - Implementation - Margin of discretion of the executing judicial authority - Concept of ‘same acts’ - Remission of sentence granted by a non-judicial authority as part of a general leniency measure)

(2021/C 278/33)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Parties to the main proceedings

X

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 4(5) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into its domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a margin of discretion in order to determine whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the ground referred to in that provision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 4(5) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into its domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a margin of discretion in order to determine whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the ground referred to in that provision.

| 2. | Article 3(2) and Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘same acts’, contained in both provisions, must be interpreted uniformly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 3(2) and Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘same acts’, contained in both provisions, must be interpreted uniformly.

| 3. | Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which makes the application of the ground for optional non-execution laid down in that provision subject to the condition that, where there has been a sentence, the sentence has been served, is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country, must be interpreted as meaning that that condition is satisfied where the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a term of imprisonment, of which part has been served in the third State in which the sentence was handed down, whilst the remainder of that sentence has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that State, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to persons convicted of serious acts and is not based on objective criminal policy considerations. It is for the executing judicial authority, when exercising the discretion it enjoys, to strike a balance between, on the one hand, preventing impunity and combating crime and, on the other, ensuring legal certainty for the person concerned. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which makes the application of the ground for optional non-execution laid down in that provision subject to the condition that, where there has been a sentence, the sentence has been served, is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country, must be interpreted as meaning that that condition is satisfied where the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a term of imprisonment, of which part has been served in the third State in which the sentence was handed down, whilst the remainder of that sentence has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that State, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to persons convicted of serious acts and is not based on objective criminal policy considerations. It is for the executing judicial authority, when exercising the discretion it enjoys, to strike a balance between, on the one hand, preventing impunity and combating crime and, on the other, ensuring legal certainty for the person concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 12.4.2021.

---