62025CJ0712_RES
Case C‑712/25 PPU [Rastoshev] (
i
)
XM
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad – Sofia)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2026
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution – Execution of the European arrest warrant – Article 4(7)(a) – Grounds for optional non-execution – Offences which have been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State – Risk of impunity)
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Offences committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State – Margin of discretion of the executing judicial authority – Scope – Refusal to execute the warrant on the sole ground of the place where the offence was committed – Not permissible
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(1), Arts 3, 4 and 4a)
(see paragraphs 33-48, 52, operative part)
Résumé
Hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the Apelativen sad – Sofia (Court of Appeal, Sofia, Bulgaria), the Court of Justice, in the context of an urgent reference for a preliminary ruling, rules, for the first time, on the interpretation of the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant (EAW) relating to offences which have been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State, within the meaning of Framework Decision 2002/584. (
1
)
On 18 September 2025, the Vice-President responsible for investigation at the tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (Court of Marseille, France) issued an EAW against XM for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings and obtaining his surrender to French authorities for several offences allegedly committed between 2018 and 2024. Those offences were committed within the framework of an international criminal organisation with the aim of rigging sports competitions and took place in the territory of multiple Member States, including France and Bulgaria.
By decision of 20 October 2025, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria) ordered the execution of that EAW and placed XM in pre-trial detention until his actual surrender to the French authorities.
Called upon to examine an action introduced by XM against that decision, the referring court points out the existence of two divergent lines of case-law in respect of the interpretation of the provision transposing Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 into Bulgarian law. (
2
) According to the first line of case-law, the fact that the offence referred to in the EAW was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of Bulgaria cannot in itself suffice to justify a refusal to execute the EAW. On the other hand, according to the second line of case-law, such a circumstance should be regarded as a sufficient ground to refuse execution, since the Bulgarian Criminal Code is applicable to all offences committed in the territory of that Member State, without exception.
In those circumstances, the referring court asked the Court about the interpretation of Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584.
Findings of the Court
At the outset, the Court recalls that Framework Decision 2002/584 sets out, first, the grounds for mandatory non-execution of an EAW (
3
) and, second, the grounds for optional non-execution of an EAW, (
4
) which the Member States are free to transpose into their domestic law or not. However, where the latter are transposed, the Member States may not provide that the judicial authorities are required automatically to refuse to execute any EAW concerned. Those authorities must have a margin of discretion, allowing them to carry out an examination on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances. Depriving them of that possibility would have the effect of substituting a mere option to refuse to execute an EAW with a genuine obligation, even though such a refusal constitutes the exception, the execution of the EAW being the general rule. It is thus clear from the wording of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584 – in particular from the use of the verb ‘may’ – that the executing judicial authority must have discretion to decide whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the EAW on the grounds referred to in Article 4.
As regards, more specifically, Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the Court notes that, by classifying the ground for refusal provided for by that provision as optional, the EU legislature intended to allow the person who is the subject of an EAW issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, who is liable to be prosecuted both by the issuing judicial authority and by the executing judicial authority, to be prosecuted by the authority which is in the most appropriate position from the point of view of proper administration of criminal justice.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 1(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, that framework decision has the objective of enabling the arrest and surrender of a requested person so that the offence committed does not go unpunished and in order to ensure that criminal proceedings are brought against that person. That objective forms part of the broader objective of the prevention and combating of crime within the area of freedom, security and justice, laid down in Article 3(2) TEU, which that framework decision seeks to implement by avoiding the risk of impunity for the perpetrators of offences. The Court considers that those objectives would be liable to be undermined if the executing judicial authority were required, irrespective of the specific circumstances of each case, to refuse to execute a EAW issued for the purposes of criminal prosecution and surrender of the requested person on the sole ground that the offence targeted by that warrant was committed, in whole or in part, on the territory of the executing Member State.
The Court concludes that the application of the ground for non-execution set out in Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 should be left to the discretion of the executing judicial authority. That authority must, to that end, have discretion enabling it to examine all of the relevant circumstances of the case, in order to determine which of the judicial authorities, the issuing or executing authority, is in the most appropriate position to ensure the proper administration of criminal justice and, consequently, to safeguard the legitimate interest of all Member States in the prevention of crime within the area of freedom, security and justice. That applies a fortiori where the offences giving rise to the EAW form part of a complex international criminal organisation, with the result that they could have been committed in part, and have produced their effects, in the territory of multiple Member States, in particular that of the issuing Member State, in which criminal prosecutions could have been brought against the person concerned.
In its assessment, the executing judicial authority must therefore take into account the specific circumstances of each case, which include inter alia the nature and characteristics of the offence, and in particular, where applicable, its international dimension, the place where the damage resulting from that offence materialised, and the progress of the criminal proceedings in the issuing Member State and, depending on the case, in the executing Member State.
Therefore, the international territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters provided for by Bulgarian criminal law cannot constitute a sufficient ground for refusing to execute an EAW, especially since in the present case the Bulgarian judicial authorities had not initiated criminal proceedings against the person concerned.
Consequently, the Court rules that Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 precludes case-law of a Member State to the effect that the fact that the offence, for which an EAW was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, was committed, in whole or in part, on the territory of the executing Member State is sufficient to refuse to execute that warrant.
(
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.
(
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, and corrigendum in OJ 2006 L 279, p. 30), 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 provision provides that the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the EAW where the warrant relates to offences which are regarded by the law of the executing member state as having been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State or in a place treated as such.
(
3
)	Those grounds are set out in Article 3 of Framework Decision 2002/584.
(
4
)	Those grounds are set out in Articles 4 and 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584.