Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:1006
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Anonymised version 
Translation C-580/24 – 1 
Case C-580/24 [Tsachkov] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
5 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski gradski sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
5 September 2024 
Person sought in proceedings for the execution of a European arrest warrant: 
LY 
  
ORDER 
5 September 2024     Sofia 
The Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) […] [Three-member chamber of the 
court] 
after examining […] criminal case No 4417 from the cause list for 2024, has 
established the following: 
The proceedings are governed by Article 485 et seq. of the Nakazatelno-
protsesualen kodeks (Code of Criminal Procedure) and the second paragraph of 
Article 267 TFEU. 
1 The referring court is having difficulty assessing whether, when deciding to 
surrender a person sought on the basis of a European arrest warrant, it must apply 
the national law and simultaneously issue a decision to take that person into 
 
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 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
custody. As a result, the person sought would remain in detention for a few days, a 
week or longer, until that surrender takes place. 
2 The referring court is of the view that, account being taken of the personality of 
the person sought and the particularities of the main proceedings, there is no risk 
of absconding and no risk of surrender being prevented. The detention itself is 
taking place in a prison. That detention thus seems both unnecessary and 
disproportionately harsh. 
3 There are therefore grounds for assuming that a national law which provides for 
the mandatory detention in prison of the person sought as an automatic 
consequence of the issue of a judicial decision to surrender him or her, with the 
result that that detention may be for a few days, a week or longer before the actual 
surrender, is contrary to EU law. However, there are also grounds which militate 
against that assumption. 
This makes it necessary to refer the question for a preliminary ruling. 
Facts of the main proceedings: 
4 The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eisenstadt, Republic of Austria, filed with the 
referring court a European arrest warrant dated 4 July 2024 by which it requested 
the surrender of a certain person (‘the person sought’), a Bulgarian national 
permanently resident in the Republic of Bulgaria, for the purposes of a criminal 
prosecution for the burglary of 61 tyre-and-wheel assemblies worth EUR 150 990. 
5 In the proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant, the executing 
judicial authority, on 26 July 2024, issued a warrant for the arrest of the person 
sought on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria. He was arrested on 4 August 
2024. On 7 August 2024, the referring court, having determined that there was no 
risk of absconding, set bail in the amount of 1 000 leva (BGN) (approximately 
EUR 511), as a temporary coercive measure. The person sought was released. 
6 At the two court hearings that followed (on 9 August 2024 and 30 August 2024), 
the person sought appeared in person with his lawyer. Through the lawyer, he 
explained that he would be willing to agree to immediate surrender to the Austrian 
judicial authorities, the only reason for not making a statement to that effect being 
the requirement for him to be kept in detention until surrendered, which detention 
might last for a considerable period of time. He asked to be allowed to travel to 
the Republic of Austria on his own and to present himself to the Austrian judicial 
authorities with the assistance of an Austrian lawyer already authorised to act 
there. 
7 The referring court notes that the request of the person sought is at odds with the 
nature of the judicial cooperation mechanism established in Framework Decision 
2002/584. The mandatory conditions laid down are, first, that the court must issue 
a decision on the surrender of the person sought and, next, that the competent 
TSACHKOV 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
authorities of the executing State must surrender the person sought to the 
competent authorities of the issuing State. 
8 The referring court nonetheless concurs with the defence of the person sought that 
his detention immediately after the issue of the surrender decision does not appear 
to be necessary for the surrender itself. Such detention could in fact last for a few 
days, a week or even longer. Detention takes place in a prison. The restriction of 
the freedom of the person sought therefore appears to be disproportionate. 
9 The referring court notes that the surrender of the person sought to the judicial 
authorities of the issuing State can be organised without the need for prior 
detention in a prison. This can be done as follows. First, the referring court issues 
a decision to execute the European arrest warrant and to surrender the person 
sought (without placing him in detention). After that decision has become final, a 
surrender date is agreed. On that date, the competent authorities of the executing 
State meet the person sought (for example, at his home or at a police station) and 
accompany him to the agreed place of surrender (for example, an airport in the 
issuing or executing State), where they surrender him to the competent authorities 
of the issuing State. 
10 In that manner, the European arrest warrant would be recognised and executed 
without recourse to any actual detention, apart from the removal of the person 
sought to the place of surrender, which, in so far as it is carried out by the law 
enforcement authorities and without regard to the wishes of the person sought, 
should be regarded as detention. 
11 Surrender carried out in that manner is, in the first place, contrary to the national 
law, which obliges the referring court, at the time of issuing the decision 
recognising and executing the European arrest warrant, to take the person sought 
into custody and send him or her to prison. In the second place, the question arises 
as to whether this form of execution is in accordance with Framework Decision 
2002/584, in so far as Article 1(1) provides for arrest and surrender, not surrender 
alone. 
National law 
12 National legislation 
Zakon za ekstraditsiata i evropeyskata zapoved za arest (Law on extradition and 
the European arrest warrant), published in DV No 46/05, last amended in 
No 18/24 (‘the ZEEZA’). This law transposed Framework Decision 2002/584, as 
Paragraph 8(2) of the Supplementary Provisions of the ZEEZA states. 
Zakon za izpalnenie na nakazaniata i zadarzhaneto pod strazha (Law on the 
execution of sentences and pre-trial detention), published in DV No 25/09, last 
amended in No 84/23 (‘the ZINZS’) 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
Arrest of the person sought 
13 Article 42(1) and (2) of the ZEEZA provides that, on actual receipt of a European 
arrest warrant, provided that it is formally in order, an order must be made for the 
person sought to be arrested for a period of up to 72 hours. 
14 Article 43(1) and (2) of the ZEEZA provides that the court must decide at the very 
beginning of the proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant 
whether the person sought is to remain in detention. There is no need for the 
person sought to be mandatorily kept in detention during those proceedings. 
15 Article 43(3) of the ZEEZA provides that the court is to decide whether the person 
sought is to be taken into custody in accordance with the general provisions of 
national law, which also do not provide for mandatory detention in any cases of 
pending criminal proceedings. 
16 Article 43(7) of the ZEEZA provides that if a person sought has been taken into 
custody, he or she may apply for release, so long as the proceedings for 
recognition of the European arrest warrant are still pending. That application must 
be granted if it transpires that his or her detention is not necessary. 
17 The second sentence of Article 44(7) of the ZEEZA provides that, when issuing a 
decision recognising the European arrest warrant and authorising its execution, the 
court has an obligation to order that the person sought be taken into custody. That 
provision reads: 
‘In all cases in which the court authorises the execution of the European arrest 
warrant, it shall order as a coercive measure that the person sought be remanded in 
custody until such time as he or she is actually surrendered to the issuing State’. 
18 It would therefore be unlawful under national law for the court to recognise the 
European arrest warrant and order that the person sought be surrendered to the 
issuing judicial authorities without at the same time taking the person sought into 
custody. 
19 A person sought who has been the subject of a surrender decision in execution of 
the European arrest warrant must remain in detention until he or she is actually 
surrendered. In accordance with Article 54(1) of the ZEEZA, surrender must take 
place within 10 days of the date on which the surrender decision becomes final. In 
accordance with Article 54(2) of the ZEEZA, that time limit may be extended if 
there is an objective obstacle to surrender. The person sought may be released 
from detention only if he or she cannot be surrendered. 
Consequently, it is not possible for the person sought to be released from 
detention during the surrender proceedings. Release from detention is permissible 
only if surrender becomes impossible. 
TSACHKOV 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
20 In accordance with Article 260 of the ZINZS, detention itself must take place in a 
prison, wherein the person sought is to be treated as if he or she had been detained 
for the purposes of national criminal proceedings. 
That provision reads: 
‘Prisons shall also house persons detained at the request of a foreign State with a 
view to being surrendered […] 
Until such time as the decision to surrender to the foreign State is executed, […] 
the persons referred to in the first paragraph shall have the rights enjoyed by 
accused persons and defendants pursuant to the present law’. 
European Union law 
21 Legislative measures 
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, page 1 (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’) 
Arrest of the person sought 
22 In accordance with Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the purpose of 
the European arrest warrant is the arrest and surrender of the person sought. The 
title page of the European arrest warrant also states that it requests that the person 
sought be arrested and surrendered. 
23 There are nonetheless no details on what is meant by ‘arrest’. It must be assumed 
that arrest differs from surrender, in so far as both features of the European arrest 
warrant are referred to cumulatively. 
24 Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 leaves it to the discretion of the 
executing judicial authority to decide whether the person sought should remain in 
detention during the examination whether the European arrest warrant is well-
founded. It is expressly stated that that person may be released from detention at 
any time if other measures are in place to prevent him or her from absconding. 
The release from detention must be in conformity with the domestic law. 
Article 12 reads: 
‘Article 12 
Keeping the person in detention 
When a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing 
judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the person sought should 
remain in detention, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State. 
The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent 
authority of the said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to 
prevent the person absconding’. 
25 It is apparent from Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584 that detention 
during the period between the date when the surrender decision becomes final and 
the actual physical surrender of the person sought is not mandatory. That 
provision reads: ‘if the person is still being held in custody’. That means that there 
is a possibility that the person sought may not be in custody during that period. 
Article 23(5) reads: 
‘Upon expiry of the time limits referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4, if the person is 
still being held in custody he shall be released’. 
Reasons for the question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
26 The question consists of two parts. Must an order be made for the person sought to 
be held in detention during the period from the issue of the surrender decision 
until the actual surrender? And must that detention mandatorily take place in a 
prison? 
As regards the mandatory arrest 
27 The very nature of the European arrest warrant necessarily presupposes the arrest 
of the person sought (see paragraph 22 above), which differs from surrender. 
Consequently, the person sought must necessarily be held in detention, at least at 
the time of surrender. 
28 Nonetheless, Framework Decision 2002/584 contains no provision requiring that 
the person sought must mandatorily be detained at an earlier point in the 
proceedings, before actually being physically surrendered. Neither does such a 
requirement exist in regard to the period of time from the issue of a judicial 
decision on surrender until the actual surrender. 
29 In the first place, Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 establishes as a 
general rule the possibility of detention or of release from detention. In that 
regard, the choice of the appropriate coercive measure depends on the 
particularities of the individual case. Consequently, detention is possible but not 
mandatory. 
30 In the second place, in the view of the referring court, the expression ‘the person 
may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of 
the executing Member State’ means that the national transposing law must 
provide for the possibility of release from detention ‘at any time’. That expression 
cannot be interpreted as meaning that ‘the domestic law of the executing Member 
State’ may provide for mandatory detention with no possibility of release. 
TSACHKOV 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
31 In the third place, the provision contained in Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 
2002/584, which concerns the period from the issue of a final surrender decision 
to actual surrender, is significant. That provision states ‘if the person is still being 
held in custody’. That means that that detention is not in any way a mandatory and 
self-evident precondition and that it is entirely possible even during that period 
that the person sought is not being held in custody. 
32 For those reasons, the referring court considers that the national provision 
contained in the second sentence of Article 44(7) of the ZEEZA is contrary to 
Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584. 
Case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the detention of the person sought 
33 Paragraph 52 of the judgment of 16 July 2015 (C-237/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:474) 
states that the person sought may be held in custody even after the time limits 
stipulated in Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584 have expired, in the 
light of the risk that his or her release might prevent surrender (paragraph 50). In 
the main proceedings, there is no risk of surrender being prevented and, therefore, 
no need for the person sought to be taken into custody as soon as the surrender 
decision is issued. 
34 Paragraph 42 of the judgment of 25 January 2017 (С-640/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:39) states that the possibility provided for in Article 12 of 
Framework Decision 2002/584 for the person sought to be released from detention 
is available even during the surrender procedure where that procedure is delayed. 
Although there has been no delay in the main proceedings, it seems permissible to 
assume that Article 12 allows a decision not to take the person sought into custody 
even immediately after the surrender decision. 
35 Paragraph 44 of the judgment of 12 February 2019 (С-492/18 PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:108) also states that the person sought may be released from 
detention at any time, provided that measures are taken to prevent absconding. 
Paragraph 49 makes it clear that it is the very risk of absconding, which might 
prevent surrender, that justifies detention. It follows that detention is unnecessary 
and disproportionately harsh where no risk of absconding is present, since there is 
no need to restrict the right enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter (paragraphs 55 
and 56). Such detention, being absolutely unnecessary, is an expression of 
arbitrariness (paragraph 59). 
36 Paragraph 75, read in conjunction with paragraph 71, of the judgment of 28 
[April] 2022 (C-804/21 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2022:307) states that even where the 
person sought must mandatorily be released from detention surrender must take 
place. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that detention is a mandatory condition 
for the surrender of the person sought. On the contrary, detention must follow 
from an objective need. 
37 Paragraph 68, read in conjunction with paragraph 75, of the judgment of 
8 December 2022 (С-492/22 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2022:964), also states that the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
person sought may be released provisionally at any time, if that detention is not in 
fact necessary in order to prevent the risk of absconding. Any detention not 
pursuing that objective would be contrary to Article 6 of the Charter 
(paragraphs 76 to 78). 
38 The Court of Justice of the European Union has also held that even if the person 
sought has been released, that does not constitute an obstacle to his or her 
surrender: paragraph 61 [of the judgment] in Case С-237/15; paragraph 72 [of the 
judgment] in Case С-640/15; paragraph 48 [of the judgment] in Case С-492/18; 
paragraphs 72 to 75 [of the judgment] in Case С-804/21. Consequently, effective 
surrender may take place even without the prior detention of the person sought for 
a period preceding his or her actual surrender which may last a few days, a week 
or longer. That is true not only in cases where the release of the person sought is 
mandatory but also where there was no initial detention. 
39 The situation in the main proceedings in the present case is the opposite of that in 
the proceedings in Case С-492/18. The latter case concerns a national law under 
which the person sought must be released 90 days after being arrested, 
irrespective of the risk of absconding. The main proceedings in the present case 
concern a national law which, conversely, makes detention mandatory (at the time 
of the surrender decision), irrespective of the absence of any risk of absconding. 
Since the Court of Justice of the European Union held in [Case] C-492/18 that 
detention must be continued because it is objectively necessary (paragraph 50 and 
the first sentence of the operative part), detention in the absence of any such 
necessity should not take place from the outset. 
40 On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union cited 
above, the referring court takes the view that mandatory detention of the person 
sought in the period from the issue of the judicial decision on surrender until the 
actual physical surrender is contrary to Articles 12 and 23 of Framework Decision 
2002/584 if there is from the outset no risk of absconding and no risk of the 
surrender being prevented. Detention is objectively necessary only at the time of 
surrender. 
Detention in prison 
41 If the referring court makes an order for the person sought to be taken into 
custody, national law requires that that person be held in prison until he or she is 
surrendered. That person will therefore spend a few days, a week or longer in 
prison, where he or she will be subject to the same conditions as persons who have 
been detained in accordance with the rules set out in Article 5(1)(c) of the 
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms (‘ECHR’). 
42 The question arises whether being held in prison corresponds to the type of 
detention permitted by Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 
2002/584. 
TSACHKOV 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
43 The Court of Justice of the European Union has previously held that the detention 
of a person sought corresponds to the situation referred to in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR 
(paragraph 80 of the judgment of 8 December 2022, C-492/22 PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:964), which is why a person who is sought does not benefit 
from the guarantees applicable in the event of detention under Article 5(1)(c) 
ECHR, in particular those relating to the criminal prosecution of that person in the 
issuing State (judgment of 28 January 2021 (С-649/19, ECLI:EU:C:2021:75) and 
judgment of 30 June 2022 (С-105/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:511)). 
44 If the legal basis for the detention of the person sought is in fact that provided for 
in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, even if a surrender decision has already been issued, 
such detention should be subject to more lenient conditions, possibly similar to 
those applicable to a person who is being deported (for example, the conditions of 
detention laid down in Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115), and not to those 
applicable to a person accused of having committed a criminal offence. 
42. The European Court of Human Rights takes the view that, in the event of 
extradition, detention must take place under conditions which guarantee protection 
against arbitrariness. That includes, inter alia, the obligation to ensure that the 
place and conditions of detention are appropriate (§ 97 in Liu v. Poland, 
application no. 37610/18, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1006JUD003761018; § 55 in 
Shiksaitov v. Slovakia, applications no. 56751/16 and no. 33762/17, 
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1210JUD005675116; § 150 in Rustamov v. Russia, 
application no. 11209/10, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0703JUD001120910; § 144 in 
Umirov v. Russia, application no. 17455/11, 
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2012:0918JUD001745511). It does not, however, elaborate on 
what appropriate conditions means. 
43. Nonetheless, Article 5(1)(f) ECHR subjects both persons who are being 
deported and those who are being extradited to the same criterion. It may therefore 
be assumed that the conditions of detention applicable to these two groups of 
persons must be the same or at least similar. 
44. EU law provides protection only for persons being deported, in the form of 
better material conditions of detention than those present in a prison (Article 16 of 
Directive 2008/115), in so far as that detention does not serve a punitive purpose. 
Paragraphs 36, 38, the second sentence of paragraph 45 and paragraph 55 of the 
judgment of 10 March 2022 (С-519/20 ECLI:EU:C:2022:178) are to be construed 
to that effect. However, no such protection is available to persons who are the 
subject of extradition proceedings (Article 2(2)(b), second alternative, of Directive 
2008/115). 
45 The question arises whether EU law provides such protection also for persons 
sought on the basis of a European arrest warrant, who have been detained by the 
executing judicial authority. Since, in the view of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union, that group of persons is detained under the conditions laid down 
in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR, the material conditions of that detention applicable to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
them should be at least similar to those applicable to persons to be deported in 
accordance with Directive 2008/115. 
46 It would otherwise transpire that EU law treats persons sought under Framework 
Decision 2002/584 in two different ways. First, it states that their detention is 
subject to the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR and they are not 
therefore afforded the protection that corresponds to detention under 
Article 5(1)(c) ECHR. Then, however, it allows national law to subject them to 
physical detention conditions corresponding to detention under Article 5(1)(c) 
ECHR. 
47 For those reasons, the referring court considers that the national law at issue, 
Article 260 of the ZINZS, under which a person sought on the basis of a European 
arrest warrant must be detained in prison, is contrary to the type of detention 
provided for in Articles 12 and 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584. That follows 
from the fact that detention in prison corresponds to the detention provided for in 
Article 5(1)(c), whereas the type of detention provided for in the framework 
decision corresponds to that referred to in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. 
Alternative view 
48 Set out above are reasons indicating that the national law is contrary to 
Framework Decision 2002/584, from the point of view of both mandatory 
detention and detention in prison. It is nonetheless possible to conceive of 
counter-arguments to the effect that the national law is fully consistent with the 
framework decision. These would be applicable if it were to be assumed that 
mandatory detention at the time of the issue of the decision to recognise and 
enforce the European arrest warrant constitutes the execution of the detention 
ordered by the national arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal proceedings in 
the issuing State. 
49 The European [arrest] warrant is based on a national arrest warrant. In reality, the 
European arrest warrant is merely a technical instrument for initiating the 
execution of the national arrest warrant in the territory of another Member State. 
50 More specifically, the national arrest warrant is directly enforceable in the issuing 
State and the police authorities execute it by arresting the person sought. In that 
scenario, arrest is mandatory and the police authorities themselves have no 
discretion. After being arrested, the person in question is sent to prison. 
51 Through the intermediary of the European arrest warrant (and the judicial 
cooperation mechanism under Framework Decision 2002/584 that is linked to that 
warrant), the national arrest warrant undergoes a limited review as to its legality 
by the executing judicial authority. Once the latter has reached a positive 
conclusion in that regard, it is perfectly logical and normal that an order should be 
made for the person sought to be mandatorily detained and for that detention to be 
in prison. 
TSACHKOV 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
52 Mandatory detention of the person sought upon the issue of the surrender decision 
would thus constitute an act of execution of the arrest warrant issued by the 
issuing judicial authority. What is more, that is in fact the purpose of Framework 
Decision 2002/584. To grant the request expressed by the European arrest warrant 
is in essence to recognise and execute the national arrest warrant on which the 
European arrest warrant is based. 
53 More specifically, the issuing judicial authority issues an arrest warrant in 
accordance with Article 5(1)(c) ECHR. Next, it issues a European arrest warrant 
by which it asks the executing judicial authority to execute that very arrest. 
54 Detention of the person sought as ordered by the executing judicial authority 
during its examination of whether the European arrest warrant is well founded 
constitutes detention as referred to in Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. However, that is the 
case only at the beginning of the proceedings, for as long as it remains unclear 
whether or not the European arrest warrant will be recognised. 
55 Once the executing judicial authority decides to recognise the European arrest 
warrant, an order must automatically and mandatorily be made for the person 
sought to be detained, irrespective of any other circumstances. That follows from 
the fact that the executing judicial authority is effectively executing the arrest 
ordered by the issuing judicial authority. 
56 It is for this very reason that, once the judicial decision to recognise the European 
arrest warrant has been issued, the detention of the person sought becomes 
detention within the meaning of Article 5(1)(c) ECHR. Moreover, it follows 
logically from this that detention must be mandatory and take place in prison. 
57 As compared with traditional extradition, the system under Framework Decision 
2002/584 creates a qualitatively different procedure for the surrender of persons 
sought for the purposes of their criminal prosecution, in so far as it is based on 
mutual trust and the mutual recognition of judicial arrest warrants. This is also the 
origin of the principle contained in Article 1(2) of that framework decision, 
according to which every European arrest warrant must be executed unless there 
are grounds for refusing to do so, which are listed exhaustively and must be 
interpreted restrictively. There is no such principle in the case of extradition. 
58 Those qualitative differences lead to the conclusion that the judicial decision of 
the executing judicial authority to recognise the European arrest warrant and 
surrender the person sought is in essence an execution of the national arrest 
warrant issued by the issuing judicial authority. That makes both the mandatory 
detention of the person sought following the issue of that judicial decision and the 
fact that he or she is sent to prison normal and logical. 
59 This supports the conclusion that the national law is fully consistent with 
Framework Decision 2002/584. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 5. 9. 2024 – CASE C-580/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
60 However, this approach would give renewed topicality to the questions referred in 
the requests for a preliminary ruling in Cases C-649/19 and C-105/21, even if only 
in respect of the period from the issue of the judicial decision recognising and 
executing the European arrest warrant until its actual effective execution. 
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby 
ORDERED: 
that the following question be REFERRED to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
Is a national law which provides that, when the executing judicial authority 
adopts a decision to recognise a European arrest warrant issued for the 
purposes of criminal proceedings and to surrender the person sought, it must 
also mandatorily issue a decision ordering the arrest of that person, following 
which the person sought will remain detained in prison until such time as he 
or she is surrendered, consistent with Article 12 and Article 23(5) of 
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA? 
This order is not subject to appeal.