Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:259
Date: 2025-04-10
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Police cooperation;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Spain

Translation C-481/23 – 1 
Case C-481/23 [Sangas] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
26 July 2023 
Referring court: 
Audiencia Nacional (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 July 2023 
Respondent: 
JMTB 
 
AUDIENCIA NACIONAL (National High Court, Spain) 
CRIMINAL DIVISION 
[…] 
[internal procedural matters] 
QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE 
EUROPEAN UNION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
1. Body which refers the question for a preliminary ruling: 
[…] Criminal Division of the National High Court. 
2. […] [identification of the interveners] 
3. Subject matter of the proceedings and facts: 
By judgment of 21 February 2022 (ROJ: SAN 677/2022 – 
ECLI:ES:AN:2022:677), clarified by order of 3 March 2022, the accused JMTB, 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 7. 2023 – CASE C-481/23 
 
2  
among others, was convicted of THREE offences AGAINST THE TAXATION 
AUTHORITIES and one offence of MONEY LAUNDERING and sentenced as 
follows: 
a) For each of the three offences AGAINST THE TAXATION 
AUTHORITIES: Two years of imprisonment and a fine of EUR 23 million for the 
financial year 2011, EUR 135 million for the financial year 2012 and EUR 140 
million for the financial year 2013, with the loss of the opportunity to receive 
public subsidies or grants and the right to benefit from tax or social security 
benefits or incentives during the three-year period. 
b) For the offence of MONEY LAUNDERING: Six years of imprisonment and 
a FINE of EUR 54 million. 
The offences for which the accused was convicted consisted, in essence, in the 
creation of several companies in Spain, to which the accused appointed fictitious 
agents to act as apparent directors, with a view to evading the payment of value 
added tax (VAT) in Spain for financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013, relating to the 
sale of hydrocarbons in Spain. Likewise, in order to conceal the origin of the 
fraudulent sums, the accused arranged withdrawals of funds in Spain from the 
companies used to commit the tax fraud and ordered transfers to other companies 
in the scheme and to accounts located abroad. 
Following the announcement that the accused had lodged an appeal against that 
judgment, he was refused permission to travel to Romania, but when he was found 
at the Croatian border heading towards Romania, a European and International 
Arrest Warrant was issued for his search, capture and detention at national and 
international level. 
In a communication dated 4 April 2023, the Court of Appeal of Alba Iulia 
(Romania) sent a copy of judgment in criminal matters No 21/13.03.2023, 
refusing the execution of the European arrest warrant against the accused. 
The legal basis of the judgment of the Romanian court refusing to surrender the 
accused person states, first, that none of the mandatory grounds for refusal to 
execute the European arrest warrant exist. 
Next, when analysing that judgment to determine whether any of the optional 
grounds for refusal to execute the European arrest warrant exist, it states that the 
requested person has produced documents proving continuous and lawful 
residence in the territory of Romania for a period of at least five years, and that 
the requested person has stated that he does not wish to be surrendered to the 
Spanish judicial authorities, which amounts to a refusal to execute the conviction 
of the issuing Member State, with the result that a ground for refusing the 
surrender exists. 
Furthermore, the Romanian court notes that the offences for which the requested 
person was convicted at first instance, by the issuing judicial authority of the 
SANGAS 
 
3 
European arrest warrant, are established under Romanian legislation as offences 
of tax fraud and money laundering, that the penalty provided for in respect of 
those two offences is a term of imprisonment of between 3 and 10 years and, 
therefore, if the acts had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Romanian 
judicial authorities, the limitation period for criminal liability would have been 
10 years from the date of the last action/inaction. The Romanian court notes that 
the three offences of tax evasion in respect of which the requested person was 
convicted were committed during the financial years 2011, 2012 and 2013, with 
the result that the limitation period may be regarded as running from 31 December 
2013 at the latest. 
However, despite indicating the foregoing, that the limitation period begins on 
31 December 2013 and that the limitation period is 10 years, the Romanian court 
states as follows: Unless interrupted or suspended, the limitation period for 
criminal liability would have expired on 30 December 2021 and, since the 
commission of the offence, there has been no cause that would allow the 
interruption of the limitation period for criminal liability, although that division of 
the National High Court expressly informed the Romanian authorities that there 
had been no stoppage in the proceedings, to the extent that a trial had been held 
and the conviction was being appealed. 
The Romanian court therefore finds that there are two optional grounds for refusal 
to execute a European arrest warrant and, therefore, it refuses to execute the 
European arrest warrant issued in the name of the requested person JMTB: 
– The person requested is a resident of Romania. 
– The offences would be statute-barred had they fallen within the jurisdiction 
of the Romanian judicial authorities. 
4 Relevant provisions: 
Article 4 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European 
arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 
(2002/584/JHA) includes the following in the Grounds for optional non-execution 
of the European arrest warrant: 
– In paragraph (4): where the criminal prosecution or punishment of the 
requested person is statute-barred according to the law of the executing Member 
State and the acts fall within the jurisdiction of that Member State under its own 
criminal law; 
– In paragraph (6): if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the 
purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the 
requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing 
Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order 
in accordance with its domestic law. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 7. 2023 – CASE C-481/23 
 
4  
a) In accordance with Article 4(4), execution of the surrender may be refused 
only if the State executing the European arrest warrant has jurisdiction under 
its domestic law to prosecute the acts for which the European arrest warrant 
has been issued and can therefore apply its domestic law for the purpose of 
determining whether the limitation period for the statute-barring of the 
offence or penalty laid down in its law has expired. 
In contrast, where the courts of the executing State do not have jurisdiction over 
the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued, they cannot rule 
on the statute-barring of the penalty or offence by applying their own law, but 
must comply with the law of the State in which the criminal procedure is taking 
place. 
b) In addition, Article 4(6) allows refusal to surrender, subject to three 
conditions: 
– the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of 
execution of a custodial sentence or detention order; 
– the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the 
executing Member State; and 
–  the executing State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention 
order in accordance with its domestic law. 
5 Reasons for that court’s uncertainty as to the interpretation or validity 
of EU law: 
In the light of the decision of the Romanian court, the principles of that Council 
Framework Decision, with which all Member States of the European Union must 
comply, do not appear to have been respected. 
a) First, the decision of the Romanian court refuses the surrender of the 
accused JMTB, on the ground that the offences are statute-barred under 
Romanian law. 
However, that decision is based on the application of the rules on the limitation 
periods for the statute-barring of offences under Romanian law, despite all the acts 
in question having been committed in Spain, and constitute tax fraud affecting 
Spain’s economic interests, with the result that the Romanian courts have no 
jurisdiction to prosecute them. 
b) Furthermore, the refusal to surrender, on the ground that the person 
concerned was a Romanian resident, does not appear to meet the conditions 
laid down by the Framework Decision for the application of that optional 
clause for refusing the surrender. 
SANGAS 
 
5 
The first of those conditions is not met in the present case, since the examination 
of the facts is still ongoing, even though a judgment was handed down at first 
instance in respect of the requested person. 
In addition, even if the requested person is considered to be resident in Romania, 
even though during the proceedings he has only been authorised to travel to 
Romania for short periods of time, the refusal to surrender is not accompanied by 
an undertaking by the Romanian authorities to enforce any sentence that may be 
finally imposed on the requested person in Romania, which, if that situation were 
to persist, would create an area of impunity for those acts. 
As demonstrated by the CJEU judgment of 31 January 2023 (ROJ: PTJUE 
21/2023 – EU:C:2023:57), in paragraphs 75 and 76, to accept that it is permissible 
for each Member State to add other grounds to those grounds enabling the 
executing judicial authority not to give effect to a European arrest warrant would 
likely, first, undermine the uniform application of Framework Decision 2002/584, 
by making its application subject to rules of national law, and, second, render 
ineffective the obligation to execute European arrest warrants laid down in 
Article 1(2) of that framework decision, by permitting, in practice, each Member 
State freely to determine the scope of that obligation on its executing judicial 
authorities. Such an interpretation would impede the proper operation of the 
simplified and effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected 
of having infringed criminal law established by that framework decision and, 
therefore, would run counter to the objective it pursues, referred to in 
paragraph 67 above. 
The need to refer the question for a preliminary ruling: 
This question referred for a preliminary ruling is necessary given that the 
European arrest warrant issued by this Court has become ineffective in relation to 
Romania, where the fugitive has taken refuge, and certainly in relation to the other 
members of the European Union. In that regard, the abovementioned decision of 
the Romanian court states: ‘the Romanian judicial authority executing the 
European arrest warrant shall request that the National SIRENE Bureau take the 
steps necessary to add a validity indicator to the SIS alert entered by another 
Member State on the basis of a European arrest warrant the execution of which is 
refused by the judicial authority concerned.’ 
Paragraph 140 of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union 
(Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2023 (EU:C:2023:57) states that no provision of 
Framework Decision 2002/584 excludes the issuing of several successive 
European arrest warrants against a person, including where the execution of a 
first European arrest warrant concerning that person has been refused. 
However, the same judgment also states, in paragraph 141, that the issuing of a 
new arrest warrant may prove necessary after the factors which prevented the 
execution of a previous European arrest warrant have been ruled out or, where 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 7. 2023 – CASE C-481/23 
 
6  
the decision refusing to execute that European arrest warrant was not consistent 
with EU law. 
It is therefore necessary for the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on 
whether or not the decision of the Romanian court complies with EU law, at least 
in order to enable a new European arrest warrant to be issued against the requested 
accused person, with effect in the territory where he has taken refuge in order to 
seek impunity. 
6. Procedure carried out: 
[…] 
[procedural measures; observations of the parties on the referral for a preliminary 
ruling; the State lawyer and the Public Prosecutor’s Office support the referral; the 
accused, JMTB, opposes it] 
7. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling: 
The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 19(3)(b) TEU and Article 267 TFEU: 
1. Since Article 4(6) of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on 
the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 
(2002/584/JHA) provides that the grounds for optional non-execution of the 
European arrest warrant include cases in which the European arrest warrant has 
been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention 
order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the 
executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or 
detention order in accordance with its domestic law: 
a) Is it permissible to extend the application of that optional ground for 
refusal to surrender to cases in which a final decision has not yet been 
reached regarding the requested person? 
b) If that possibility were allowed, is it possible to refuse to surrender on 
the ground that the requested person is resident in the State in which 
enforcement is sought, without that State undertaking to execute the sentence 
or detention order in accordance with its domestic law? 
2. Since Article 4(4) of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 
(2002/584/JHA) provides that the grounds for optional non-execution of the 
European arrest warrant include cases where the criminal prosecution or 
punishment of the requested person is statute-barred according to the law of the 
executing Member State and the acts fall within the jurisdiction of that Member 
SANGAS 
 
7 
State under its own criminal law, is it permissible to extend that ground for 
optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant to cases in which the 
offence or penalty is regarded as statute-barred under the law of the 
executing Member State, even if the courts of that State do not have 
jurisdiction to determine the facts? 
[…] 
[signatures of the judges]