62021CJ0158_RES
Case C‑158/21
Criminal proceedings
against
Lluís Puig Gordi and Others
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 31 January 2023
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority – Second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right of access to a tribunal previously established by law – Possibility of issuing a new European arrest warrant relating to the same person)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Expedited preliminary ruling procedure – Conditions – No circumstances justifying that the case be dealt with within a short time – Suspension of the proceedings before the referring court pending the Court’s answer – Persons subject to the main criminal proceedings who are not currently in custody
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court, Art. 105(1))
(see paragraphs 26-30)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Questions, asked by the issuing judicial authority, concerning the obligations of the judicial authority executing a European arrest warrant – Admissible questions
(Article 267 TFEU; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299)
(see paragraphs 53, 54)
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling – Admissibility – Conditions – Questions related to the actual facts of the action or its purpose – Questions on the interpretation of provisions of EU law which do not have direct effect – Irrelevant
(Art. 267 TFEU)
(see paragraph 59)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Power to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant – Refusal based on a ground arising solely from the law of the executing Member State – Not permissible – National provision providing for refusal of execution in the event of infringement of a fundamental right enshrined in EU law – Power of the executing judicial authority to apply such a provision – Condition
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Arts 4 and 47; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1, 3, 4, 4a, 6(1) and 8)
(see paragraphs 69-76, 79, operative part 1)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Power to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant – Refusal of execution based on the executing judicial authority’s verification of the jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority to issue such a warrant – Not permissible
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, recital 6 and Arts 1(1) and (2) and 6(1))
(see paragraphs 84-89, operative part 2)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Surrender of convicted or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities – Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Refusal of execution based on the risk that the person surrendered will be tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose – Not permissible – Exception – Conditions – Systemic or generalised deficiencies in the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group to which the person concerned belongs – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the court called upon to hear the proceedings concerning that person
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 97, 98, 101-103, 105-111, 114, 115, 119, 120, operative part 3)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Surrender of convicted or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities – Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Refusal of execution based on the risk that the person surrendered will be tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose – Refusal justified by the existence of a report by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which does not directly relate to that person’s situation – Not permissible – Assessment, by the executing judicial authority, of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the judicial system of the issuing Member State – Assessment, by the same authority, of deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group to which the person concerned belongs – Report capable of being taken into account in those assessments
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 122-126, operative part 4)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Surrender of convicted or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities – Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law – Refusal of execution on the ground of a risk, for the person surrendered, of a judgment by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose – Absence of a prior request for supplementary information made to the issuing judicial authority – Not permissible
(Art. 4(3) TEU, first para.; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 8(1) and 15(2))
(see paragraphs 131-136, operative part 5)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Surrender of convicted or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities – Refusal to execute a first European arrest warrant concerning a requested person – Issuing of several successive European arrest warrants for that same person – Whether permissible – Conditions
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, second para; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 140-146, operative part 6)
Résumé
Following the adoption of the laws relating to the independence of the Autonomous Community of Catalonia (Spain) and the holding of a referendum to that end, criminal proceedings were initiated against a number of individuals before the Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court, Spain), the referring court. In the autumn of 2019, several European arrest warrants (EAWs) were thus issued by that court. The procedures for the execution of the EAWs issued against Mr Puigdemont Casamajó and Mr Comín Oliveres were suspended after their election to the European Parliament. As regards the EAW issued against Mr Puig Gordi, the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg Brussel (Brussels Court of First Instance (Dutch-speaking), Belgium), by order adopted in August 2020, refused to execute it on the ground that, in its view, the referring court did not have jurisdiction to issue that EAW. By judgment delivered in January 2021, the cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium) dismissed the appeal brought against that order.
Against that background, the referring court asks the Court of Justice a series of questions aimed, essentially, at establishing whether an executing judicial authority may refuse to execute an EAW on the ground that, it its view, the issuing judicial authority does not have jurisdiction to issue that warrant or to try the person prosecuted, and whether the framework decision on the EAW (
1
) precludes the issuing of a new EAW after the execution of a first EAW has been refused.
By its judgment, the Court, sitting as the Grand Chamber, clarifies, inter alia, the conditions under which the executing judicial authority may refuse to act on an EAW on account of the risk of infringement, where the requested person is surrendered, of that person’s fundamental right to a fair trial, (
2
) in connection with such a lack of jurisdiction.
Findings of the Court
First of all, the Court states that an executing judicial authority may not refuse to execute an EAW on the basis of a ground for non-execution which stems not from Framework Decision 2002/584, but solely from the law of the executing Member State. In that regard, the Court states that the grounds relied on in its case-law as requiring or authorising that no action be taken in respect of an EAW all derive from Framework Decision 2002/584. Furthermore, to accept that a Member State may add other grounds, based on national law, to those grounds for not executing an EAW would hinder the proper functioning of the simplified system for the surrender of persons established by that framework decision. The Court adds, however, that a Member State is entitled, exceptionally, to invoke a ground for non-execution based on the obligation to ensure respect for the fundamental rights afforded to the person concerned under EU law, (
3
) subject to compliance with the strict conditions set out in the Court’s case-law in that regard.
In the second place, the Court rules that the executing judicial authority may not verify whether an EAW has been issued by a judicial authority which had jurisdiction for that purpose and refuse to execute that EAW where it considers that that is not the case. (
4
) In that regard, Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 provides that the issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue an EAW by virtue of the law of that State. Although the executing judicial authority must ensure, before executing an EAW, that it was indeed issued by a judicial authority, it cannot, however, verify that the authority in question has jurisdiction to issue such a warrant in the light of the rules of the law of the issuing Member State. Within the framework of the procedural autonomy afforded to each Member Sate, it is for the latter to designate the judicial authorities that have jurisdiction to issue an EAW, those judicial authorities then having to assess themselves their jurisdiction for that purpose in the light of the law of the issuing Member State.
In the third place, the Court states that the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a person for whom an EAW has been issued may not refuse to execute that warrant on the ground that that person is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court which lacks jurisdiction for that purpose unless,
– first, that judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the person concerned belongs, in the light of the requirement for a tribunal established by law, which mean that the individuals concerned are generally deprived, in that Member State, of an effective legal remedy enabling a review of the jurisdiction of the criminal court called upon to try them, and
– secondly, that judicial authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case in question, there are substantial grounds for believing that, taking into account the information that is provided by the person for whom that EAW has been issued, the court which is called upon to hear the proceedings to which that person will be subject manifestly lacks jurisdiction for that purpose.
In particular, the Court states that the jurisdiction of a court to hear a case is part of the requirement for a ‘tribunal established by law’, flowing from Article 47 of the Charter. Consequently, where a person for whom an EAW has been issued claims that he or she will be exposed, following his or her surrender, to an infringement of his or her right to an effective remedy before an impartial tribunal because the court called upon to try him or her lacks jurisdiction, it is for the executing judicial authority to assess whether that allegation is well founded in the context of that two-step examination. Where the executing judicial authority considers that the information available to it does not demonstrate the existence of the abovementioned deficiencies, that authority cannot refuse to execute that EAW on that ground. Where, in the issuing Member State, legal remedies make it possible to review the jurisdiction of the court called upon to try such a person (in the form of an examination of its own jurisdiction by that court or an action available before another court), the risk, for that same person, of being tried by a court of that Member State which has no jurisdiction for that purpose may, in principle, be ruled out by the exercise, by that person, of those legal remedies. In the absence of evidence to demonstrate the existence of the deficiencies referred to above, the executing judicial authority cannot presume that such legal remedies are lacking, since that authority is, on the contrary, required, in accordance with the principle of mutual trust, to base its analysis on the existence and effectiveness of those legal remedies.
In the fourth place and lastly, the Court finds that several successive EAWs may be issued against a requested person with a view to obtaining his or her surrender by a Member State after the execution of a first EAW concerning that person has been refused by that Member State, provided that the execution of a new EAW does not result in an infringement of the fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined in Article 6 TEU, (
5
) and provided that the issuing of the latter EAW is proportionate. The issuing of a new EAW may prove necessary, in particular after the evidence which prevented execution of the previous EAW has been rejected. In the context of the examination of whether it is proportionate to issue a new EAW, the issuing judicial authority must nevertheless take into account the nature and gravity of the offence for which the requested person is being prosecuted, the consequences for that person of the EAW or EAWs previously issued against him or her, or the prospects of execution of any new EAW.
(
1
)	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), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’).
(
2
)	That right is enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
(
3
)	Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584.
(
4
)	The Court rules on the basis of Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584.
(
5
)	That obligation is laid down in Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584.