Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1028
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary C-293/25 – 1 
Case C-293/25 [Moguchev] 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: 
22 April 2025 
Referring court: 
Apelativen sad Sofia (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
22 April 2025 
Appellant:  
RT 
Respondent: 
Sofiyska apelativna prokuratura 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
At issue is the matter of which procedure the court of first instance should follow 
when examining and ruling on a criminal matter in a case where execution of a 
European arrest warrant has been refused and an undertaking to enforce the 
sentence has been made in accordance with point 6 of Article 4 of Framework 
Decision 2002/584/JHA and the state issuing the European arrest warrant has 
issued and forwarded a certificate in accordance with Article 5(1) of Framework 
Decision 2008/909/JHA – the procedure under Article 453 et seq. of the 
Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) on the transfer of 
sentenced persons, or the procedure under the Zakon za priznavane, izpalnenie i 
izprashtane na sadebni aktove za nalagane na nakazanie lishavane ot svoboda ili 
na merki, vklyuchvashti lishavane ot svoboda (Law on the Recognition, 
Enforcement and Forwarding of Judgments in Criminal Matters Imposing 
Custodial Sentences or Measures, Including Measures Involving Deprivation of 
Liberty), which is the law transposing Council Framework Decision 
 
i The present case is designated by a fictitious name which does not correspond to the actual name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-293/25 
 
2  
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. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request is based on point (b) of the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU and 
includes a request for the urgent procedure under Article 107 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of Justice. 
Question referred 
1. Must Article 8(1) and Article 25 of 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 be interpreted as permitting 
national legislation and case-law under which a national court seised of the 
enforcement of a ‘custodial sentence’ and a certificate as referred to in 
Article 5(1) of that framework decision to follow a procedure, provided for 
by national law, for the recognition and enforcement of that judgment, other 
than the procedure provided for by the national law transposing that 
framework decision, if the certificate and the judgment have been forwarded 
after a court of the same State has refused to execute the European arrest 
warrant and has undertaken to enforce the sentence in accordance with 
point 6 of Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 
13 July 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 
between Member States? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Article 5(1), Article 8(1) and Article 25 of 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. Point 6 of Article 4 of Council Framework Decision 
2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Article 1, Article 12(1) and (3), Article 29 of the Zakon za priznavane, izpalnenie 
i izprashtane na sadebni aktove za nalagane na nakazanie lishavane ot svoboda ili 
MOGUCHEV 
 
3 
na merki, vklyuchvashti lishavane ot svoboda (Law on the Recognition, 
Enforcement and Forwarding of Judgments in Criminal Matters Imposing 
Custodial Sentences or Measures, Including Measures Involving Deprivation of 
Liberty, ‘the Law on Recognition’) and Section 2 of the Dopalnitelni razporedbi 
(Supplementary Provisions) und Section 6 of the Prehodni i dopalnitelni 
razporedbi (Transitional and Supplementary Provisions) to the Law on 
Recognition; Article 40(1) and (4), Article 44(8) to (11) of the Zakon za 
ekstraditsiyata i Evropeyskata zapoved za arest (Law on Extradition and the 
European Arrest Warrant, ‘the ZEEZA’); Articles 453 to 462 of the Nakazatelno-
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure, ‘the NPK’) 
Law on the Recognition, Enforcement and Forwarding of Judgments in 
Criminal Matters Imposing Custodial Sentences or Measures, Including 
Measures Involving Deprivation of Liberty 
Recognition and appeal procedures 
Article 12 
(1) Upon receipt of the judicial decision and the certificate referred to in 
Article 3, the court shall without delay open the recognition proceedings and 
organise a public hearing to examine the case within 14 days. 
… 
(3) The single judge shall rule on the case with the mandatory 
participation of the public prosecutor’s office and with the sentenced person 
duly summoned. 
Surrender on the basis of a European arrest warrant and surrender procedures 
between Member States 
Article 29 
(1) Where a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of 
enforcing a custodial sentence or a measure, including a measure involving 
deprivation of liberty, and the requested person is resident in or is staying in 
the Republic of Bulgaria or is a Bulgarian national, the competent court may 
decide to enforce that sentence or measure in accordance with Bulgarian 
law. 
(2) A Bulgarian national or a person resident in the territory of the Republic of 
Bulgaria who has been surrendered to another Member State for the 
purposes of criminal prosecution on the basis of a European arrest warrant 
where guarantees of return are in place shall be returned in accordance with 
the provisions of this Law. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-293/25 
 
4  
(3) The decision referred to in paragraph (1) must be issued no later than 
30 days after receipt of the request referred to in Article 44(8) to (13) of the 
Law on Extradition and the European Arrest Warrant. 
Transitional and Supplementary Provisions 
Section 6 In relations between the Republic of Bulgaria and Member 
States that have transposed the requirements of 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, as amended by Council 
Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending 
Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 
2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights 
of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual 
recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at 
the trial, this Law shall apply in place of the following conventions: 
… 
Law on Extradition and the European Arrest Warrant 
Grounds for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant 
Article 40 
(1) The Okrazhen sad (Regional Court) may refuse to execute a European arrest 
warrant where: 
… 
4. a requested person who has been convicted of an offence that is 
punishable under Bulgarian law is resident or permanently staying in the 
Republic of Bulgaria or is a Bulgarian national, and the Bulgarian court 
accepts the custodial sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty 
imposed by a court of the issuing State for enforcement by the public 
prosecutor’s office; in those cases, Article 29(2) of the Law on the 
Recognition, Enforcement and Forwarding of Judgments in Criminal 
Matters Imposing Custodial Sentences or Measures, Including Measures 
Involving Deprivation of Liberty shall apply. 
Judicial proceedings 
Article 44 
… 
MOGUCHEV 
 
5 
(8) In the cases referred to in point 4 of Article 40(1), the court shall 
accept for enforcement the custodial sentence or the measure requiring 
detention. 
(9) Once the decision has been made, the court shall determine ex officio 
the legal measure of constraint to be maintained until the conclusion of the 
proceedings on the enforcement of the custodial sentence or the measure 
requiring detention. 
(10) As soon as the decision referred to in paragraph (8) has become final, 
the court shall forward a copy thereof to the Okrazhna prokuratura (regional 
public prosecutor’s office) at the place of residence of the person concerned. 
(11) The Okrazhen prokurator (regional public prosecutor) shall refer the 
application to the competent regional court at the place of residence of the 
person concerned, which shall examine the application in accordance with 
Article 457(2) to (5) of the Nakazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of 
Criminal Procedure). 
Nazatelno-protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) 
Chapter thirty-six 
PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH INTERNATIONAL 
COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS 
Section I. 
Transfer of sentenced persons 
Court decisions on issues relating to sentence enforcement 
Article 457(1) As soon as the sentenced person arrives in the Republic of 
Bulgaria or it is established that he is in its territory, the Public Prosecutor 
General shall forward the judgment accepted for enforcement and the 
materials attached thereto to the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) 
together with a proposal as to how the matters relating to the enforcement of 
that judgment shall be decided. 
(2) The court shall make a decision on the proposal at a hearing, with the 
participation of the public prosecutor and with the sentenced person duly 
summoned, by means of an order. 
(3) The order shall specify the case number and the date of the judgment 
accepted for enforcement, the criminal matter in which it was issued, the text 
of the Bulgarian law laying down criminal liability for the offence 
committed, the length of the custodial sentence imposed by the foreign court 
and the initial method of enforcing the sentence to be served. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-293/25 
 
6  
(4) Where, under the law of the Republic of Bulgaria, the maximum term of the 
custodial sentence provided for the offence committed is shorter than that 
specified in the judgment, the court shall reduce the sentence imposed to that 
term. Where the law of the Republic of Bulgaria does not provide for any 
custodial sentence for the offence committed, the court shall determine a 
penalty which most closely corresponds to that imposed in the judgment. 
(5) The period of pre-trial detention and any part of the sentence already served 
in the issuing State shall be deducted and, in the event that the penalties are 
different, shall be taken into account for the purposes of determining the 
term of imprisonment. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 RT, a Bulgarian national, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by the 
Hovrätt för Övre Norrland (Court of Appeal, Upper Norrland) in the Kingdom of 
Sweden by judgment of 4 April 2023, which became final on 22 June 2023, in 
Case No B 806-22, for the offence of ‘rape’ under Chapter 6, Article 1(1) of the 
Swedish Criminal Code. 
2 On 21 December 2023, sentence enforcement proceedings No 7374/23 were 
opened before the Sofia City Court on the basis of a European arrest warrant 
presented by the Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (Public Prosecutor’s Office, Sofia) 
and issued by the Stockholm Public Prosecutor’s Office, Kingdom of Sweden, for 
the surrender of the Bulgarian national RT for the purposes of enforcing the 
‘custodial sentence’ imposed on him by the Swedish court. 
3 The proceedings on the above matter were concluded by decision of 3 January 
2024, refusing execution of the European arrest warrant on the basis of point 4 of 
Article 40(1) of the ZEEZA, which corresponds, in Bulgarian law, to point 6 of 
Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, and at the same time ruling that 
the ‘custodial sentence’ imposed by the Kingdom of Sweden shall be accepted for 
enforcement in the Republic of Bulgaria. 
4 That ruling confirmed the pre-trial detention in the form of ‘house arrest’, which 
had been ordered against the requested person from 21 December 2023 until the 
conclusion of the proceedings for enforcing the ‘custodial sentence’ imposed by 
the Swedish court, and remote monitoring of this measure was ordered. 
5 After the decision by the Sofia City Court refusing to execute the European arrest 
warrant and accepting enforcement of the ‘custodial sentence’ in the Republic of 
Bulgaria had become final, a copy of it was sent to the Sofia Public Prosecutor’s 
Office. 
6 On 7 February 2024, sentence enforcement proceedings No 806/2024 were 
opened before the Sofia City Court on the basis of a proposal from the Sofia 
Public Prosecutor’s Office to recognise and accept for enforcement the judgment 
MOGUCHEV 
 
7 
issued in Sweden against the Bulgarian national RT, in accordance with Article 12 
of the Law on Recognition. Attached to the proposal of the Sofia Public 
Prosecutor’s Office were a certificate issued by the Court of Appeal, Upper 
Norrland, within the meaning of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, 
translated into Bulgarian, and the judgment of the Swedish court imposing a 
‘custodial sentence’ on the Bulgarian national RT. 
7 The judicial proceedings thus opened were examined by a single judge, in 
accordance with Article 12(3) of the Law on Recognition. That judge issued a 
ruling on 8 April 2024 acknowledging and accepting for enforcement, on the basis 
of Article 7 of the Law on Recognition, the judgment in Case No B 806-22 issued 
by the Court of Appeal, Upper Norrland on 4 April 2023 which had become final 
on 22 June 2023 and had sentenced the Bulgarian national RT to two years’ 
imprisonment for the offence of ‘rape’ under Chapter 6 Article 1(1) of the 
Swedish Criminal Code (which is equivalent to an offence under Article 150(1) of 
the Criminal Code of the Republic of Bulgaria). In addition, a ‘general’ type of 
enforcement was ordered and, on the basis of Article 12(9) of the Law on 
Recognition, the periods spent in pre-trial detention in the territory of the 
Kingdom of Sweden and in the Republic of Bulgaria and the period spent in pre-
trial detention in the form of ‘house arrest’ from 21 December 2023 until the 
ruling became final in law and the enforcement proceedings were concluded were 
deducted. 
8 The lawyer for the sentenced Bulgarian national RT brought an appeal against that 
decision of the Sofia City Court before the Apelativen sad Sofia (Court of Appeal, 
Sofia), claiming that the certificate issued by the Swedish authorities failed to 
meet the requirements of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA and that it had not 
been established that the person sentenced in Sweden was identical to the 
Bulgarian national who was party to the proceedings. 
9 As a result, appeal proceedings in sentence enforcement case No 858/2024 were 
opened before the Court of Appeal, Sofia, and were concluded by decision of 
26 July 2024, setting aside the contested decision made by the Sofia City Court 
and referring the case back to another chamber to be reheard. The Court of 
Appeal, Sofia, held that the Sofia City Court’s decision by a single judge was 
unlawful on the grounds that the proposal from the Sofia Public Prosecutor’s 
Office to recognise and accept for enforcement the Swedish judgment should have 
been examined by a chamber composed of three judges, in accordance with the 
procedure laid down in Chapter Thirty-Six ‘PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION 
WITH INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS’, 
Section I ‘Transfer of sentenced persons’, Articles 453 to 462 of the NPK. 
According to that decision on appeal, Article 44(11) of the ZEEZA relates to those 
proceedings, and therefore the court of first instance should not have followed the 
procedure provided for by the Law on Recognition. 
10 After the case was referred back to be reheard, sentence enforcement proceedings 
No 4653/2024 were opened. The proceedings were opened before the Court of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-293/25 
 
8  
Appeal, Sofia, (the referring court) on the basis of an appeal by the lawyer for the 
sentenced person RT against the order of the Sofia City Court of 5 December 
2024 in sentence enforcement proceedings No 4653/2024; that order accepted for 
enforcement the judgment in Case No B 806-22 issued by the Court of Appeal, 
Upper Norrland, Sweden, sentencing the Bulgarian national RT to two years’ 
imprisonment. By that order, the offence committed by RT was classified as an 
offence within the meaning of Article 150(1) of the Criminal Code of the 
Republic of Bulgaria. The order of the Sofia City Court specified an initial 
‘general’ type of enforcement and deducted the [periods of] pre-trial detention 
spent by the sentenced person RT in the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of 
Bulgaria and the period of pre-trial detention in the form of the ‘house arrest’ from 
21 December 2023 until the order became final. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
11 The lawyer for the convicted person argues that the proceedings before the court 
of first instance did not have to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 
Chapter Thirty-Six, Section I, Articles 453 to 462 of the NPK and by a chamber 
composed of three judges, but by a single judge in accordance with the Law on 
Recognition, because that Law governs the procedure for the recognition and 
acceptance for enforcement of judgements in criminal matters between the 
Member States of the European Union, while the procedure under Articles 453 to 
462 of the NPK only applies to the recognition and forwarding of judgments in 
criminal matters between states outside the European Union. 
12 The Sofiyska apelativna prokuratura (Appeal Prosecutor’s Office, Sofia) did not 
submit any observations within the prescribed period. However, it should be noted 
that the proceedings at first instance were opened on the basis of a proposal from 
the Sofia Public Prosecutor’s Office to recognise and accept for enforcement the 
judgment issued in Sweden against the Bulgarian national RT pursuant to 
Article 12 of the Law on Recognition. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
13 The outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings depends on whether the 
Bulgarian court may follow, for the purposes of recognising and [accepting for] 
enforcement the judgment of an issuing State, a procedure other than that 
provided for by the national law transposing the Framework Decision, where 
execution of a European arrest warrant has been refused and an undertaking to 
enforce the sentence has been made in accordance with point 6 of Article 4 of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the State issuing the European arrest 
warrant has issued and forwarded a certificate in accordance with Article 5(1) of 
Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA. 
14 The requirements of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA were transposed into 
Bulgarian law by the Law on Recognition which entered into force on 1 January 
MOGUCHEV 
 
9 
2020. Prior to the entry into force of that Law, there was no ambiguity or 
contradictory case-law as to the procedure for accepting [for enforcement] and 
recognising a judgment issued in another Member State imposing a ‘custodial 
sentence’ on a Bulgarian national, where a European arrest warrant for the 
surrender of the sentenced person was issued with a view to the enforcement of 
the sentence in the State in which he was sentenced and the Bulgarian court 
refused to execute that European arrest warrant, but accepted the sentence for 
enforcement in Bulgaria. Pursuant to Article 44(11) of the ZEEZA, the regional 
public prosecutor shall submit an application to the regional court at the place of 
residence of the person concerned, which the court examines in accordance with 
Article 457(2) to (5) of the NPK – the provisions governing the procedure for the 
transfer of persons sentenced abroad. 
15 However, since the entry into force of the Law on Recognition, contradictory 
case-law has developed. Article 29 of that Law (‘Surrender on the basis of a 
European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States’) 
contains three paragraphs, the first of which corresponds to the wording of 
Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, without, however, specifying 
exactly which provisions of Bulgarian law must be followed for the purposes of 
enforcing a custodial sentence imposed in another Member State. The second 
paragraph expressly provides that a Bulgarian national or a person staying in the 
territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, who has been transferred to another Member 
State on the basis of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting 
criminal proceedings, is to be returned in accordance with guarantees of return 
provided for by this law, and the third paragraph lays down a period of 30 days 
from receipt of the request referred to in Article 44(8) to (13) of the ZEEZA for 
the decision referred to in paragraph (1), which remains unchanged. Article 44(11) 
of the ZEEZA provides that the public prosecutor’s office shall submit a proposal 
for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment in accordance with 
Article 457(2) to (5) of the NPK. 
16 However, point 4 of Article 40(1) of the ZEEZA was amended by a transitional 
and final provision to the Law on Recognition, and the new wording provides that 
Article 29(2) of the Law on Recognition applies where a Bulgarian court refuses 
to execute a European arrest warrant issued against a requested person who is 
resident or permanently staying in Bulgaria or is a Bulgarian national, and accepts 
the custodial sentence or measure imposed by the court of the issuing State for 
enforcement by the public prosecutor’s office. 
17 The provision in point 4 of Article 40(1) of the ZEEZA amended by the new Law 
on Recognition that entered into force on 1 January 2020 and Section 6 [of the 
Supplementary Provisions] of the Law on Recognition, under which in relations 
between the Republic of Bulgaria and Member States that have transposed the 
requirements of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA, that Law shall apply in 
place of the multilateral conventions under international law in force until its entry 
into force – such as the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of 
Sentenced Persons and the Convention between the Member States of the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-293/25 
 
10  
European Communities on the Enforcement of Foreign Criminal Sentences of 
13 November 1991 – prompt the public prosecutor’s office to inform the issuing 
States of the need to forward certificates in accordance with Article 5(1) of 
Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA when decisions that are final in law on the 
non-execution of a European arrest warrant exist, refusing the surrender of 
Bulgarian nationals for sentence enforcement and instead accepting enforcement 
of these sentences in Bulgaria; after such certificates are issued and received, they 
are presented to the Bulgarian courts for the purposes of recognising and 
enforcing the judgments concerned. This is also what happened in this case. 
18 At the same time, the absence of an express amendment to Article 44(11) of the 
ZEEZA after the entry into force of the Law on Recognition gives rise to the 
possibility of also following an alternative procedure under which, after decisions 
of the Bulgarian courts have been issued refusing to execute European arrest 
warrants for the surrender of Bulgarian nationals for the purposes of enforcing 
‘custodial sentences’ imposed in the issuing States and accepting the sentences for 
enforcement in Bulgaria, these are submitted to the courts, together with copies 
and translations of those judgments, with applications for recognition and 
enforcement of the corresponding judgments in accordance with the ‘traditional’ 
procedure for the transfer of sentenced persons, pursuant to Article 457 et seq. of 
the NPK. 
19 The essential difference between the procedure provided for in Article 457 et seq. 
of the NPK and the procedure under the Law on Recognition is the composition of 
the panel of judges at first instance: While the procedure for the transfer of 
sentenced persons under the NPK requires a three-judge chamber, the proceedings 
under the national law transposing Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA are 
presided over by a single judge. 
20 According to the case-law of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of 
Cassation), even court judgments that have become final must be set aside if they 
were issued by a panel that made its ruling with a composition different than that 
prescribed by law; this also includes cases where the panel is composed of more 
judges than prescribed by law, e.g. if a case was heard and ruled on by three 
judges instead of a single judge. 
21 In light of this recent case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation, it is possible 
that, if the referring court upholds the contested decision at first instance made by 
the Sofia City Court, which was issued by a three-judge chamber under 
Article 457 et seq. of the NPK, the sentenced person will request that the 
proceedings be re-opened and the decision will be set aside, and then the case 
would be referred back to the court of first instance to be reheard, with the proviso 
that the proceedings be conducted by a single judge at first instance in accordance 
with the Law on Recognition. 
22 Even if the judicial decision is final, both in proceedings provided for under 
Article 457 et seq. of the NPK and in proceedings provided for by the Law on 
MOGUCHEV 
 
11 
Recognition, the decision of the referring court could be set aside by the reopening 
of the final judgments. 
23 The contradictory national case-law, including that of the Supreme Court of 
Cassation, is not only an issue of national law, but also an issue of application of 
EU law, since it directly concerns Bulgaria’s fulfilment of its obligations under 
Article 8(1) and Article 12(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA. The 
referring court considers that the correct and effective application of the 
requirements of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA does not permit either a 
national procedure other than that provided for by the law transposing that 
framework decision or contradictory national case-law which creates uncertainty 
as to the composition of the panel of judges that is required when the national 
court rules on the recognition and enforcement of a court judgment of another 
Member State imposing a ‘custodial sentence’ and a certificate under Article 5(1) 
of that Framework Decision has been issued, where the certificate and the 
judgment were forwarded after execution of a European arrest warrant by a 
Bulgarian court was refused and an undertaking to enforce the sentence in 
accordance with point 6 of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA was 
made.