Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:3
Date: 2026-01-15
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary  C-641/23 – 1 
Case C-641/23 [Dubers] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
26 October 2023 
Referring court:  
Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
26 October 2023 
Person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant:  
YM 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Execution of a European arrest warrant. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
In the course of dealing with a European arrest warrant (EAW), questions were 
raised on the compatibility of Netherlands law with EU law as regards the 
conditions for the request for guarantee of return after prosecution in the issuing 
Member State. The order for reference was made after the expiry of the time limit 
for taking a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant. This has 
also raised the formal question of whether this may preclude those substantive 
questions from being referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
I. Does Article 17(4) and (7) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, read in 
conjunction with Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, preclude a Member State from transposing the former provision in such a 
 
i This is a fictitious name that does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-641/23 
 
2  
way that an executing judicial authority against whose decisions no ordinary 
appeal is available cannot extend the time limit of 90 days for taking a decision 
for the sole purpose of carrying out its intention to refer questions to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling outside that time limit, with 
the result that that authority is thus required to take a decision on the execution of 
the European arrest warrant without referring those questions? 
II. Does Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, read in conjunction 
with Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and, as 
the case may be, in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21(2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, preclude a Member State from 
transposing the former provision in such a way that the surrender for the purpose 
of prosecution of residents of the executing Member State may be made subject to 
a guarantee of return only if that Member State has jurisdiction over the acts in 
respect of which the surrender for the purpose of prosecution is sought, with the 
result that that condition is not satisfied if those acts do not constitute offences 
under the law of that Member State, whereas that Member State does not lay 
down the same condition in respect of its own nationals? 
III. If Question II is answered in the affirmative: does Article 9(1)(d)  of 
Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, read in conjunction with Article 25 of that 
framework decision and Article 4(1) and Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA, preclude a Member State which has applied Article 7(4) of 
Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA from transposing the former provision in 
such a way that, 
after the executing judicial authority has authorised surrender for the purpose of 
prosecution to the issuing Member State subject to a guarantee of return in respect 
of an act referred to in Article 2(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA that 
does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, but in 
respect of which the executing judicial authority has expressly refrained from non-
execution of surrender on that ground, 
other authorities in the executing Member State (as the Member State in which 
enforcement is sought) must or may subsequently refuse to recognise and enforce 
the custodial sentence imposed in the issuing Member State for that act because it 
does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State (as the 
Member State in which enforcement is sought) and must or may therefore refuse 
to implement the guarantee of return? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
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 Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA (OJ 2009 L 81, 
p. 24); corrigendum: OJ 2020 L 118, p. 39: Articles 2, 4, 5 and 17  
DUBERS 
 
3 
Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the 
application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters 
imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the 
purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27), as 
amended by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA: Articles 7, 9 and 25 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Wet van 29 april 2004 tot implementatie van het kaderbesluit van de Raad van de 
Europese Unie betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel en de procedures van 
overlevering tussen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie (Overleveringswet) (Law 
of 29 April 2004 implementing the Framework Decision of the Council of the 
European Union on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 
between Member States of the European Union (Law on the surrender of persons); 
‘the OLW’) (Stb. 2004, 195), as subsequently amended: Articles 6, 7, 22 and 29 
Wet wederzijdse erkenning en tenuitvoerlegging vrijheidsbenemende en 
voorwaardelijke sancties (Law on the mutual recognition and enforcement of 
custodial and suspended sentences; ‘the WETS’) (Stb. 2012, 333), as subsequently 
amended: Articles 1.1, 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 
Wetboek van strafrecht (Criminal Code; ‘the Sr’): Articles 7 and 86b 
Wetboek van strafvordering (Code of Criminal Procedure): Article 456 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The dispute in the main proceedings concerns a European arrest warrant (EAW) 
issued on 9 May 2023 by the Sąd Okręgowy w Jeleniej Górze, Wydział III Karny 
(the Regional Court in Jelenia Góra, 3rd Criminal Division, Poland) against YM. 
The rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam), as the executing judicial 
authority, must take a decision on the execution of that EAW. No ordinary appeal 
is available against its decision. 
2 The EAW in question seeks to prosecute YM for a single act, namely failure to 
comply with the obligation to pay child maintenance in accordance with orders 
made by the Polish courts. The issuing judicial authority did not classify that act 
as an offence, within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA, which can give rise to surrender ‘without verification of the 
double criminality of the act’. The District Court found that the act does not 
constitute an offence under Netherlands law, but saw reason to refrain from 
applying the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(1) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. 
3 YM, a Polish national, has resided legally in the Netherlands for a continuous 
period of at least five years and has therefore acquired a right of permanent 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-641/23 
 
4  
residence in the Netherlands. According to the District Court, he is a resident of 
the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA. Furthermore, YM has such ties to the Netherlands that the 
enforcement in the Netherlands of any custodial sentence imposed after surrender 
to Poland will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation.  
4 YM was arrested in the Netherlands on 2 July 2023 pursuant to the EAW. The 
time limit of 60 days for taking a decision began to run on that date. The first 
hearing in the present case was held on 24 August 2023. At that hearing, the 
District Court extended the 60-day time limit for taking a decision by 30 days. By 
interim decision of 7 September 2023, the District Court reopened the 
investigation in order to enable the parties to express their views, at the hearing on 
28 September 2023, on the intention to refer questions for a preliminary ruling. 
The time limit of 90 days for taking a decision expired on 30 September 2023, that 
is to say, before the present order for reference. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Introduction 
5 The fact that the act in respect of which surrender for the purpose of prosecution is 
sought does not constitute an offence under Netherlands law and that the 
requested person is a resident of the Netherlands gives rise to two questions for a 
preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA and Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA in the context of the 
decision as to whether the surrender of a resident for the purpose of prosecution 
may be made subject to a guarantee of return. 
6 However, before it can refer the questions for a preliminary ruling, the District 
Court must consider whether, having regard to national legislation, it is still 
permitted to refer those questions to the Court of Justice at this stage of the 
proceedings. 
Question I 
7 In view of the high number of EAWs it receives (approximately 1 000 per year), 
the District Court is often able to review an EAW only shortly before the sixty-
day time limit expires (as in the present case), or even later. The fact that a certain 
case raises a question on the interpretation of EU law often does not become 
apparent until after that hearing, during the judicial deliberations on the decision 
to be taken. This is also so in the present case. At the first hearing, none of the 
parties considered that the way in which the Netherlands transposed Framework 
Decision 2002/584/JHA and Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA required an 
interpretation of those framework decisions; instead, the District Court raised that 
question of its own motion in its interim decision. In such a case, the requested 
person and the Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service) are given the 
DUBERS 
 
5 
opportunity to express their views on the questions referred for a preliminary 
ruling. To that end, the District Court held a further hearing in the present case. 
Finally, formulating the questions referred for a preliminary ruling and drafting 
the order for reference also require time. In short, it is not uncommon for 
questions to be referred for a preliminary ruling only after the expiry of the 90-day 
time limit for taking a decision, even if there was already the intention to do so 
before the expiry of that time limit. 
8 Article 22(4) of the OLW is the only national legal basis for extending the time 
limit of 90 days for taking a decision in connection with questions referred to the 
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. That provision provides for the 
possibility of an extension ‘if, in exceptional circumstances, the court has not yet 
been able to give a judgment within the time limit referred to in the third 
paragraph [the time limit of 90 days for taking a decision] because it is awaiting a 
decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union on questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling relevant to its decision’. Having regard also to the explanation 
of that provision in the travaux préparatoires, the District Court interprets that 
provision as meaning that it is possible to extend the time limit of 90 days for 
taking a decision in connection with questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
only if the District Court has in fact referred those questions before the expiry of 
that time limit. 
9 It seems to the District Court that Article 22(4) of the OLW does not comply with 
EU law, since it prevents the District Court from referring questions for a 
preliminary ruling if the time limit of 90 days for taking a decision has already 
expired. 
10 In its judgment in F., the Court of Justice held that Member States are required to 
comply with the time limits laid down in Article 17 of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA for taking a final decision ‘unless the competent court decides to 
make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling’. 1 Such a case involves 
‘exceptional circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 17(7) of Framework 
Decision 2002/584/JHA, which may result in the surrender procedure lasting more 
than 90 days. 2 
11 Since the decision of the District Court on the execution of the EAW is not open 
to ordinary appeal, the third paragraph of Article 267 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the District Court to refer 
questions for a preliminary ruling. In a case such as the present, however, the 
wording of Article 22(4) of the OLW precludes the District Court from complying 
with the obligation to make a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the 
interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and Framework Decision 
2008/909/JHA. Nevertheless, national procedural rules such as Article 22(4) of 
 
1 Judgment of 30 May 2013, F., C-168/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:358, paragraphs 64 to 65. 
2 Judgment of 12 February 2019, TC, C-492/18 PPU, EU:C:2019:108, paragraph 43. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-641/23 
 
6  
the OLW cannot release the District Court from its obligations under Article 267 
TFEU. 3 
12 Therefore, in order to determine whether the District Court is entitled to refer the 
substantive questions for a preliminary ruling, it must first refer the formal 
question of whether EU law precludes legislation of a Member State which limits 
the executing judicial authority’s obligation to refer questions for a preliminary 
ruling in such a way. If the answer to the formal question is in the affirmative, the 
District Court may refer the substantive questions for a preliminary ruling.  
Question II 
13 If Question I is answered in the affirmative, the District Court wishes to know 
whether the manner in which the Netherlands has transposed Article 5(3) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA is consistent with EU law. 
14 In the present case, failure to comply with the obligation to pay maintenance for a 
minor child in accordance with an order made by the court is not an offence under 
Netherlands law (paragraph 2). The District Court interprets the Netherlands 
provision transposing Article 4(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA as 
constituting a ground for optional non-execution. It may therefore refrain from 
non-execution of surrender on the ground that the act does not constitute an 
offence in the Netherlands and considers that this should be done in the present 
case because the acts were committed in Poland by a Polish national.  
15 YM requested that he be treated in the same way as a Netherlands national and 
that the Netherlands provision transposing Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA (Article 6 of the OLW) be applied to him. Two of the three 
conditions laid down for this in Article 6(3) of the OLW are fulfilled. YM has 
shown that he has resided legally in the Netherlands for at least five years without 
interruption (first condition). An opinion of the Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst 
(Immigration and Naturalisation Service) drawn up in respect of YM shows that 
he is not expected to lose his right of residence in the Netherlands as a result of a 
penalty or measure imposed on him after surrender (third condition). In addition, 
the District Court found that he has such economic, social and linguistic ties with 
the Netherlands as to give him better chances of social rehabilitation in the 
Netherlands than in the issuing Member State. There is therefore sufficient reason 
to make YM’s surrender subject to a guarantee of return. 
16 However, the second condition for treatment as a Netherlands national is not 
fulfilled in the present case. That condition requires that the person concerned 
‘can be prosecuted in the Netherlands for the acts on which the [EAW] is based’, 
that is to say, the Netherlands can exercise jurisdiction over those acts. The act in 
respect of which surrender is sought in the present case is alleged to have been 
committed outside the Netherlands. For extraterritorial jurisdiction to apply, 
 
3 Judgment of 15 March 2017, Aquino, C-3/16, EU:C:2017:209, paragraph 47. 
DUBERS 
 
7 
Article 7(1) and (3) of the Sr requires that the act constitutes an offence under 
Netherlands law, specifically a criminal offence. Since this act does not in any 
way constitute an offence under Netherlands law, the Netherlands cannot exercise 
any jurisdiction over it. In accordance with the wording of Article 6(3) of the 
OLW, the District Court cannot therefore make the surrender of YM to Poland for 
the purpose of prosecution subject to a guarantee of return to the Netherlands. 
17 The question arises, however, as to whether the condition that a requested person 
‘can be prosecuted in the Netherlands for the acts on which the [EAW] is based’ is 
consistent with EU law, in particular Article 18 TFEU and Articles 20 and 21(2) 
of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to the 
District Court, with that condition for foreign nationals (nationals of Member 
States other than the Netherlands), Article 6(3) of the OLW introduces 
discrimination on grounds of nationality. Article 6(1) of the OLW does not lay 
down such a condition for Netherlands nationals. The District Court may therefore 
make the surrender of a Netherlands national for the purpose of prosecution 
subject to a guarantee of return, even if the Netherlands does not have jurisdiction 
over the act in respect of which surrender for the purpose of prosecution is sought, 
but the surrender of a foreign national who is a resident of the Netherlands for the 
purpose of prosecution can be made subject to that guarantee only if the 
Netherlands has jurisdiction over the act in respect of which surrender for the 
purpose of prosecution is sought. 
18 That discrimination is not attributable to the rules governing extraterritorial 
jurisdiction. Under Article 7(1) and (3) of the Sr, the Netherlands may exercise 
jurisdiction over offences committed abroad by Netherlands nationals and foreign 
nationals who have their fixed place of abode or residence in the Netherlands 
(such as YM). If the act committed abroad does not constitute an offence under 
Netherlands law, the Netherlands may not exercise its jurisdiction either in the 
case of a Netherlands national or in the case of a foreign national who has their 
fixed place of abode or residence in the Netherlands. 
19 The condition that a foreign national ‘can be prosecuted in the Netherlands for the 
acts on which the [EAW] is based’ is taken from the Netherlands declaration 
annexed to the European Convention on Extradition (Paris, 13 December 1957) 
and the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on 
European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the 
European Union. 4 The condition is intended to avoid impunity of the requested 
person in cases where the executing judicial authority makes surrender subject to a 
guarantee of return, but where the issuing Member State does not provide a 
guarantee of return, or does not offer sufficient assurances of return. 
20 According to the District Court, those efforts to avoid impunity do not provide an 
objective justification for the discrimination.  
 
4 Dublin, 27 September 1996 (OJ 1996 C 313, p. 12). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-641/23 
 
8  
21 The Court of Justice has defined the guarantees provided for in Article 5 of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA as ‘guarantees to be given by the [issuing 
Member State] in particular cases’. 5 The issuing Member State is therefore 
required to provide such a guarantee when its issuing judicial authority requests 
the surrender for the purpose of prosecution of a national or resident of the 
executing Member State. That conclusion is supported by the fact that failure to 
provide that guarantee does not constitute one of the grounds for non-execution 
laid down in Articles 3 to 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. Article 27(4) 
and the introductory sentence and subparagraph (d) of Article 28(3) of Framework 
Decision 2002/584/JHA also support that conclusion. Under those provisions, in 
the event of a request for additional consent for the situations referred to in 
Article 5 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the issuing Member State must 
give the guarantees provided for therein.  
22 While the issuing Member State is indeed obliged to provide a guarantee of return 
in respect of a national or resident of the executing Member State, the requirement 
that a foreign national ‘can be prosecuted in the Netherlands for the acts on which 
the [EAW] is based’ takes into account the possibility that the issuing Member 
State may not comply with EU law. However, since EU law is based on mutual 
trust that the other Member States respect EU law, the executing Member State 
may not, save in exceptional cases, check whether the issuing Member State has, 
in a specific case, complied with EU law. 6 The condition thus anticipates such 
exceptional cases. 
23 The present case illustrates the disadvantages of such an approach. Indeed, even 
before the decision of the District Court on whether YM could be treated in the 
same way as a Netherlands national, the Public Prosecution Service requested and 
obtained a guarantee of return from the issuing judicial authority. Therefore, the 
risk of impunity that the condition aims to prevent cannot materialise in this case. 
Nevertheless, in the present case, the OLW precludes making the surrender 
subject to a guarantee of return. 
Question III 
24 If the answer to Question II is in the affirmative, the District Court will have to 
determine whether it is in a position to interpret Article 6(3) of the OLW in 
conformity with the framework decision and, if that is not the case, it will have to 
disapply the condition at issue on the ground that it is contrary to directly 
applicable EU law. The District Court does not rule out an interpretation of 
 
5 Judgments of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of 
justice), C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraph 42; of 15 October 2019, Dorobantu, 
C-128/18, EU:C:2019:857, paragraph 48; and of 11 March 2020, SF (European arrest 
warrant – Guarantee of return to the executing State), C-314/18, EU:C:2020:191, paragraph 40. 
6 See, for example, judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in 
the system of justice), C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, paragraphs 35 to 37. 
DUBERS 
 
9 
Article 6(3) of the OLW in conformity with the framework decision. If the answer 
is in the affirmative, that condition does not therefore preclude a surrender for the 
purpose of prosecution with a guarantee of return. 
25 In a situation such as that in the present case, where the lack of jurisdiction results 
from the fact that the act on which the EAW is based does not constitute an 
offence under Netherlands law, the question arises, following the decision to make 
the surrender of a resident for the purpose of prosecution for such an act subject to 
a guarantee of return, as to whether the manner in which the Netherlands has 
implemented Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA complies with EU 
law. 
26 The Minister van Justitie en Veiligheid (Minister for Justice and Security; ‘the 
Minister’) decides on the recognition and enforcement in the Netherlands of a 
custodial sentence imposed in the issuing Member State following surrender for 
the purpose of prosecution subject to a guarantee of return (Article 2:10(1) of the 
WETS) ‘taking into account the opinion of the specialised chamber of the 
Gerechtshof [Arnhem-Leeuwarden] (Court of Appeal, Arnhem-Leeuwarden)’ 
(Article 2:12(1) of the WETS). Unless the Minister directly refuses recognition 
and enforcement, the Court of Appeal, Arnhem-Leeuwarden assesses, inter alia, 
whether there are any grounds for mandatory non-execution that preclude 
recognition, including the mandatory ground that ‘the act in respect of which the 
penalty involving deprivation of liberty was imposed, if committed in the 
Netherlands, would not constitute an offence under Netherlands law’ (the 
introductory sentence and subparagraph (b) of Article 2:11(3) of the WETS, read 
in conjunction with the introductory sentence and subparagraph (f) of 
Article 2:13(1) thereof). The fact that the act in respect of which the custodial 
sentence was imposed does not constitute an offence under Netherlands law 
therefore entails, according to the letter of the law, an outright refusal to recognise 
the custodial sentence imposed in the issuing Member State in respect of that act, 
with the result that, despite the guarantee of return, the person concerned will not 
serve his or her custodial sentence in the Netherlands. 
27 The District Court considers that this is contrary to EU law. First, the ground for 
non-recognition and non-enforcement provided for in the introductory sentence 
and subparagraph (d) of Article 9(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 
constitutes a ground for optional non-recognition and non-enforcement, as is 
apparent from the use of the verb ‘may’. Second, Framework Decision 
2008/909/JHA is based on the principle of mutual recognition. In accordance with 
that principle, non-recognition or non-enforcement is the exception to the general 
rule of recognition and enforcement of custodial sentences imposed in the issuing 
State, and this must be interpreted strictly. 7 That is why a Member State should, 
when transposing the introductory sentence and subparagraph (d) of Article 9(1) 
of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, leave its competent authorities a certain 
 
7 Judgment of 11 January 2017, Grundza, C-289/15, EU:C:2017:4, paragraph 46. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-641/23 
 
10  
margin of discretion to apply that ground for non-recognition and non-
enforcement. 8 
28 However, in the context of a guarantee of return in respect of an act that does not 
constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, the question 
arises as to whether such discretion is compatible with EU law.  
29 Under Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, no provision of that 
framework decision can affect the scope of Article 4(1) and Article 5(3) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, or the way in which they are applied. 9 
Those provisions therefore ‘take precedence’ over the provisions of Framework 
Decision 2008/909/JHA. First, the guarantee provided for in Article 5(3) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA entails that the person concerned, ‘after being 
heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the 
[custodial sentence] passed against him in the issuing Member State’. Second, the 
Court of Justice has repeatedly held that Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA is one of the provisions of that framework decision that allows, in 
specific situations, the executing judicial authority ‘to decide that a sentence 
imposed in the issuing Member State must be enforced in the territory of the 
executing Member State’. 10 Where the executing judicial authority has authorised 
surrender subject to a guarantee of return (after refraining to apply the ground for 
optional non-execution that the act does not constitute an offence under the law of 
its Member State) and has ruled that the person concerned must serve any 
custodial sentence in the executing Member State, the District Court considers that 
EU law precludes the competent authorities of that Member State from still being 
able or obliged to consider that the fact that the act is not a criminal offence 
constitutes an obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of that sentence. 
30 While it is true that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA, unlike Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, there 
is no risk of impunity where the executing Member State (as the Member State in 
which enforcement is sought) does not enforce the custodial sentence imposed in 
the issuing Member State, non-enforcement in the executing Member State 
thwarts the objective, pursued by the guarantee of return, of improving the 
chances of social rehabilitation. Mandatory or optional non-recognition and non-
enforcement on the ground that the act does not constitute a criminal offence 
under the law of the executing Member State therefore renders Article 5(3) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA entirely ineffective. 
 
8 See judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C-665/20 PPU, 
EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 44. 
9 Judgment of 13 December 2018, Sut, C-514/17, EU:C:2018:1016, paragraph 48. 
10 Judgment of 11 March 2020, SF (European arrest warrant – Guarantee of return to the 
executing State), C-314/18, EU:C:2020:191, paragraph 41. 
DUBERS 
 
11 
31 The answer to question III is relevant to the decision of the District Court. If the 
answer is in the affirmative, the District Court could reconsider its intention to 
refrain from non-execution of surrender on the ground that the act does not 
constitute an offence under Netherlands law, in the light of the fact that there is no 
guarantee that the person concerned will be allowed to serve any custodial 
sentence in the Netherlands. If the answer is in the negative, the District Court 
could assume that recognition and enforcement of any sentence imposed will not 
conflict with the fact that the act does not constitute an offence under Netherlands 
law, since the Court of Appeal and the Minister are required to interpret the 
WETS, to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with the framework 
decision, 11 and Article 4(1) and Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA ‘take precedence’ over the provisions of Framework Decision 
2008/909/JHA. 
 
11 See judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C-573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraph 94.