Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:668
Date: 2023-09-14
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Right of entry and residence;External relations;Judicial cooperation in criminal matters;Area of freedom, security and justice;International agreements;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

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:  
4 February 2021 
Referring court:  
Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
4 February 2021 
Requested person:  
KT 
Public prosecution service:  
Sofiyska gradska prokuratura 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
The main proceedings were initiated by a request for the execution of an arrest 
warrant issued on the basis of the Agreement between the European Union and the 
Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure 
between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
The request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(2) and 
(3) of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland 
and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member 
States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway, of Articles 21(1) and 67(1) 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and of Articles 6 and 
45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The request 
concerns a case in which, following a request for the execution of an arrest 
warrant issued on the basis of the abovementioned agreement, a Member State 
refused to surrender the requested person, who subsequently moved to another 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-71/21  
 
2  
Member State, to which a new arrest warrant for that person, issued for the 
purposes of criminal prosecution in the same case, has subsequently been 
addressed. The referring court asks that this request for a preliminary ruling be 
dealt with under the urgent procedure provided for in Article 107 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of Justice. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Do the provisions of Article 1(2) and (3) of the Agreement between the 
European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the 
surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and 
Iceland and Norway allow the issue of a new arrest warrant for the purposes of 
criminal prosecution in the same case against a person whose surrender has been 
refused by a Member State of the European Union on the basis of Article 1(3) of 
that agreement, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Treaty on European 
Union and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms? 
2. Do the provisions of Article 1(3) of the Agreement between the European 
Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender 
procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and 
Norway, as well as those of Articles 21(1) and 67(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union and those of Articles 6 and 45(1) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, allow a Member State, to 
which an arrest warrant is addressed, to rule again in the case in which another 
Member State refused to surrender the same person for the purposes of criminal 
prosecution in the same case, after the requested person has exercised his or her 
right of free movement and moved from the State in which surrender had been 
refused to the State to which the new arrest warrant is addressed? 
Provisions of EU law and EU case-law cited 
Article 1(2) and (3) of the Agreement between the European Union and the 
Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure 
between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway 
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union 
Article 21(1) and Article 67(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union 
Article 6 and Article 45(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, 
С-897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262 
SOFIYSKA GRADSKA PROKURATURA 
 
3 
Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, AY (Arrest warrant – Witness), 
С-268/17, EU:C:2018:602 
Provisions of national law cited 
Article 4(1) of the Zakon za ekstraditsiata i evropeyiskata zapoved za arest (Law 
on extradition and the European arrest warrant) 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 The proceedings before the referring court were brought at the request of the 
Sofiyska gradska prokuratura (Public Prosecutor’s Office for the City of Sofia, 
Bulgaria) for the execution of an arrest warrant against KT, whole holds both 
Bulgarian and US nationality. That arrest warrant was issued by the Regional 
Public Prosecutor’s Office in Hordland (Norway) on 12 March 2020 (‘the arrest 
warrant of 12 March 2020’). That arrest warrant requested the surrender of KT for 
the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution against him on the charge of 
committing fraud detrimental to the Norwegian social security system on several 
occasions. His former partner, a Norwegian national, was a defendant in those 
proceedings, in addition to KT and other persons. KT and his partner lived 
together as a cohabiting couple and have two children who were born while they 
were living together. 
2 In those criminal proceedings conducted in Norway, an arrest warrant was issued 
for KT. On 26 July 2018, a wanted persons alert was issued for him in the 
Schengen Information System. In July 2019, the bill of indictment was filed with 
the first-instance court in Bergen (Norway). In the absence of KT, that court 
convicted a number of the other accused persons, including his former partner. 
3 On 25 November 2019, KT was arrested in Poland on foot of the alert issued in 
the Schengen Information System by the Norwegian authorities. After being 
notified of his apprehension, the Norwegian public prosecutor’s office issued an 
arrest warrant on 27 November 2019 (‘the arrest warrant of 27 November 2019’) 
on the basis of the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of 
Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the 
Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway (‘the Agreement 
on the surrender procedure’). By a judgment of 15 January 2020 delivered in the 
proceedings on the execution of the arrest warrant, the District Court, Warsaw 
(Poland), refused to surrender KT. 
4 As justification for its refusal, the District Court, Warsaw, relied on Article 1(3) of 
the Agreement on the surrender procedure, which refers to Article 6 of the Treaty 
on European Union (TEU). That court found that it had been established that there 
was a protracted conflict between KT and his former partner over the custody of 
their two children, and that, in judicial proceedings conducted between the two 
former partners, KT had been awarded custody in Bulgaria by decisions of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-71/21  
 
4  
Bulgarian courts. The District Court, Warsaw, took the view that a possible 
surrender of KT to the Norwegian authorities would lead to a breach of Article 8 
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms (ECHR), since, on the one hand, KT’s former partner is serving a 
custodial sentence handed down in criminal proceedings in Norway and, on the 
other hand, following his surrender, KT would have to be remanded in custody 
pending trial, as a result of which the children would have to be taken into the care 
of a foster family, which would lead to a permanent severance of his relationship 
with them. That court held that, even if KT were not surrendered to the Norwegian 
authorities, the latter could use other forms of cooperation with Bulgaria under 
international law for the purposes of the prosecution that they were conducting. 
5 The decision of the District Court, Warsaw, refusing to surrender KT was 
challenged by the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Court of Appeal, Warsaw, 
which, by judgment of 24 February 2020, dismissed the appeal. By order of 
6 March 2020, the District Court, Warsaw, lifted the restrictive measures imposed 
in the course of the proceedings concluded in Poland. 
6 On 10 March 2020, KT was arrested again upon his return to Bulgaria on the basis 
of the wanted person alert registered in the Schengen Information System. After 
the Bulgarian authorities had notified the Norwegian authorities of the arrest, the 
Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office in Hordland (Norway) issued the arrest 
warrant of 12 March 2020. That arrest warrant requested the surrender of KT in 
order to make it possible to conduct the same criminal proceedings in Norway for 
the purpose of which the arrest warrant of 27 November 2019 transmitted to 
Poland had already been issued, the execution of which had been refused by the 
District Court, Warsaw. 
7 On 19 March 2020, the ‘signing-on’ measure was imposed on KТ, obliging him 
not to leave his residence without the authorisation of the relevant authority. In 
addition, he was prohibited from leaving the Republic of Bulgaria. The 
Norwegian authorities informed the referring court that, due to the health crisis 
caused by COVID-19, the case against KT would be heard by the first-instance 
court in Bergen only in October 2020 at the earliest, with the result that it was not 
necessary to surrender him to Norway before September 2020. At the same time, 
the proceedings before the referring court were delayed because KT was admitted 
to health facilities for treatment on several occasions between April and July 
2020. A forensic medical report introduced into the proceedings in October 2020 
stated that his state of health was seriously impaired and at risk of a recurrence of 
thromboembolic emergency (thrombosis formation causing the blockage of a 
blood vessel), putting him in the group of persons most at risk in the event of 
infection with COVID-19. As his state of health did not allow him to travel from 
Shumen, where he was residing, to Sofia, KT attended the two court hearings 
before the referring court – which took place in December 2020 and February 
2021 – by means of video link. 
SOFIYSKA GRADSKA PROKURATURA 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
8 The referring court takes the view that an interpretation of the provisions of EU 
law mentioned in the questions referred is required in order to resolve the dispute 
in the main proceedings. It seeks clarification as to whether, under those 
provisions, there are any obstacles to the execution of the arrest warrant of 
12 March 2020 that arise from the refusal to execute the arrest warrant of 
27 November 2019 issued by the same authority against the same person for the 
purpose of securing his surrender in order to conduct the same criminal 
proceedings. 
9 Under Article 1(3) of the Agreement on the surrender procedure, the fundamental 
rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in the ECHR, or, in case of 
execution by the judicial authority of a Member State, the principles referred to in 
Article 6 TEU, must be respected. On that basis, the District Court, Warsaw, 
refused to execute the arrest warrant of 27 November 2019 owing to a possible 
infringement of the right to family life under Article 8 ECHR. The referring court 
points out that the factual circumstances that led to the application of Article 8 
[ECHR] continue to exist at the time of the order for reference, as KT is raising in 
Bulgaria his two children, who were born while he was living together with his 
former partner. 
10 The referring court takes the view that the case-law of the Court of Justice on the 
interpretation of 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; ‘Framework Decision 2002/584’) is applicable mutatis 
mutandis to the interpretation of the Agreement on the surrender procedure, since 
the latter is an integral part of EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 April 
2020, Ruska Federacija, С-897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262, paragraph 49) and, in 
addition, the provisions of the Agreement on the surrender procedure are very 
similar to the corresponding provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584 
(judgment of 2 April 2020, Ruska Federacija, С-897/19 PPU, EU:C:2020:262, 
paragraph 74). 
11 Thus, in the judgment of 25 July 2018, AY (С-268/2017, EU:C:2018:602), the 
Court held that there is no obstacle to the issue of several European arrest warrants 
against the same person in the same criminal proceedings. However, the referring 
court takes the view that the factual circumstances and legal considerations in the 
proceedings in which that judgment was delivered differ from those in the main 
proceedings in the present case. In the case underlying Case С-268/2017, the first 
European arrest warrant was issued in the course of the investigation and the 
second for the purpose of conducting the judicial proceedings against the 
requested person. By contrast, in the main proceedings in the present case, both 
arrest warrants (of 27 November 2019 and of 12 March 2020) were issued at the 
same stage of the criminal proceedings, namely the trial stage, after the indictment 
had been submitted to the first-instance court in Bergen in July 2019. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-71/21  
 
6  
12 Moreover, in the judgment of 25 July 2018, AY (С-268/2017, EU:C:2018:602), 
the Court of Justice referred to Article 1(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, 
which obliges Member States to execute any European arrest warrant addressed to 
them. The referring court notes, however, that the Agreement on the surrender 
procedure contains no such provision for Contracting States. Under those 
circumstances, the question arises as to whether such an obligation on the part of 
the Contracting States can be assumed. 
13 The referring court seeks to ascertain whether, pursuant to Article 1(2) of the 
Agreement on the surrender procedure, a refusal by a court of a Member State to 
execute an arrest warrant on the basis of paragraph 3 of the aforementioned 
Article 1 [of the Agreement on the surrender procedure], read in conjunction with 
Article 6 TEU and Article 8 ECHR, is binding on the other Member States and on 
Norway and Iceland by virtue of their reciprocal obligations under that agreement. 
The referring court states that the refusal of the District Court, Warsaw, to execute 
the arrest warrant of 27 November 2019 was justified by reference to principles 
enshrined in Article 6 TEU and the ECHR and common to all Member States. 
14 From those considerations, the referring court derives, in particular, the question 
of whether it is permissible for a court of a Member State to rule again on the 
substance of a previous refusal by the court of another Member State to surrender 
a requested person in response to a subsequent arrest warrant issued on the basis 
of the Agreement on the surrender procedure at the same stage of the criminal 
proceedings, in the case where that refusal is based on principles binding on all 
Member States of the European Union, which constitutes an area of freedom, 
security and justice in accordance with Article 67(1) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 
15 The referring court takes the view that the answer to that question is essential in 
order to clarify whether a person sought under an arrest warrant issued on the 
basis of the Agreement on the surrender procedure may exercise his or her right of 
free movement under Article 21(1) TFEU, his or her right to liberty and security 
under Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 
his or her right to freedom of movement under Article 45 of the Charter after a 
court of a Member State has refused to execute the arrest warrant in question. This 
is the position in the main proceedings, since, following the refusal of the District 
Court, Warsaw, to execute the arrest warrant of 27 November 2019, KT exercised 
his right of free movement and returned to Bulgaria, where he was re-arrested, and 
that re-arrest led to the issue of the arrest warrant of 12 March 2020. 
16 As regards the request for the urgent procedure under Article 107 of the Rules of 
Procedure of the Court of Justice, the referring court points out that the request for 
a preliminary ruling raises questions concerning the areas covered by Part Three, 
Title V, of the FEU Treaty. It states that the time limits provided for in Article 20 
of the Agreement on the surrender procedure have not been observed. This is 
attributable both to the Norwegian authorities’ express declaration that it would be 
impossible to hear the case against KT before October 2020 and to the 
SOFIYSKA GRADSKA PROKURATURA 
 
7 
deterioration of KT’s state of health. At the time of submission of this request for 
a preliminary ruling, those obstacles no longer exist. 
17 The referring court points out that, although KT is not being detained, his rights of 
free movement are nevertheless restricted due to the ‘signing-on’ measure 
imposed on him. In addition, he was prohibited from leaving the Republic of 
Bulgaria. The referring court takes the view that the above circumstances, 
including KT’s deteriorated state of health, justify the urgency of the proceedings.