# C_2022237EN.01002001.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/20

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 April 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — C and CD v Syyttäjä

(Case C-804/21 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 23(3) - Requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority - Article 6(2) - Police services - Not included - Force majeure - Concept - Legal obstacles to surrender - Legal actions brought by the requested person - Application for international protection - Not included - Article 23(5) - Expiry of the time limits provided for surrender - Consequences - Release - Obligation to adopt any other measure necessary to prevent absconding)

(2022/C 237/25)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: C and CD

Defendant: Syyttäjä

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 23(3) 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 the concept of force majeure does not extend to legal obstacles to surrender which arise from legal actions brought by the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant and are based on the law of the executing Member State, in cases where the final decision on surrender has been adopted by the executing judicial authority in accordance with Article 15(1) of that framework decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 23(3) 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 the concept of force majeure does not extend to legal obstacles to surrender which arise from legal actions brought by the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant and are based on the law of the executing Member State, in cases where the final decision on surrender has been adopted by the executing judicial authority in accordance with Article 15(1) of that framework decision.

| 2. | Article 23(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in that provision, is not met where the executing Member State makes a police service responsible for ascertaining whether there is a situation of force majeure and whether the necessary conditions for the continued detention of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant are satisfied and for deciding, as the case may be, on a new surrender date, even if that person is entitled to apply to the executing judicial authority at any time for a decision on the abovementioned matters.
  Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) must be regarded as having expired, with the result that that person must be released, where the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in Article 23(3) of that framework decision, has not been met. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 23(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in that provision, is not met where the executing Member State makes a police service responsible for ascertaining whether there is a situation of force majeure and whether the necessary conditions for the continued detention of the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant are satisfied and for deciding, as the case may be, on a new surrender date, even if that person is entitled to apply to the executing judicial authority at any time for a decision on the abovementioned matters.

Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) must be regarded as having expired, with the result that that person must be released, where the requirement of intervention on the part of the executing judicial authority, referred to in Article 23(3) of that framework decision, has not been met.

---

(1)  OJ C 95, 28.2.2022.

---