Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2016:784
Date: 2016-10-19
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Preliminary reference - urgent procedure;Preliminary reference - urgent procedure - decision unnecessary
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 10 November 2016 1. Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Council Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision — Ministry of Justice of a Member State — Precluded — Concept of ‘judicial decision’ within the meaning of the Framework Decision — European arrest warrant issued by that ministry — Precluded (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1(1) and 6(1)) 2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation — Temporal effects of judgments by way of interpretation — Retroactive effect — Limits — Financial consequences of the judgment — Consequences not justifying the limitation in time of the effects of the judgment (Art. 267 TFEU) 1. The term ‘judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, is an autonomous concept of EU law and that provision must be interpreted as precluding an organ of the executive, such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, from being designated as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of the same Article 6(1), meaning that the European arrest warrant issued by it with a view to executing a judgment imposing a custodial sentence cannot be regarded as a ‘judicial decision’, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299. The Framework Decision aims to introduce a simplified system of surrender directly between judicial authoritiesthat seeks to replace a traditional system of cooperation between sovereign States — which involves action and assessment by a sovereign — in order to ensure the free circulation of court decisions in criminal matters, within an area of freedom, security and justice. Designating an organ of the executive, such as the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, as a competent authority for the issue of the European arrest warrant would amount to according the executive a decision-making power in the procedure for surrendering wanted persons, which the Framework Decision specifically aims to prevent. Moreover, the principle of mutual recognition, enshrined in Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision, pursuant to which the executing judicial authority is required to execute the arrest warrant issued by the issuing judicial authority, is founded on the premiss that a judicial authority has intervened in advance of the execution of the European arrest warrant, for the purposes of exercising its review. The issue of an arrest warrant by an entity coming under the executive, such as the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice, does not provide the executing judicial authority with an assurance that the issue of that European arrest warrant has undergone such judicial approval and cannot, therefore, suffice to found the high level of confidence between the Member States which forms the very basis of the Framework Decision. (see paras 41-45, 48, operative part) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 51-54)