Case C‑128/18
Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 October 2019
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Grounds for refusal of execution — Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Assessment by the executing judicial authority — Criteria)
1.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Article 1(3) — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles — Scope — Limits
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 45-49)
2.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Article 15(2) — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Consequences of a finding of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment of the person subject to the European arrest warrant
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 15(2))
(see paragraphs 50-57)
3.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment — Verification by the executing judicial authority — Scope
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 60-69, 85, operative part)
4.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment — Verification by the executing judicial authority — Personal space available to each detainee — Rules of calculation
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 72-77, 85, operative part)
5.        Fundamental rights — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Level of protection — Fundamental rights guaranteed by the law of a Member State — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence — Possibility of a State making the surrender subject to a condition resulting from the higher minimum requirements provided for in respect of its own prison system — None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 53; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 3, 4 and 4a)
(see paragraph 79)
6.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment — Verification by the executing judicial authority — Existence, in the issuing Member State, of measures to reinforce the monitoring of detention conditions — Possibility of ruling out the existence of a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in the light of those measures — None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(3))
(see paragraphs 80, 81, 85, operative part)
7.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles — Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State — Risk of inhuman or degrading treatment — Possibility of weighing the existence of such a risk against considerations relating to the efficacy of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to the principles of mutual trust and recognition — None
(Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, recital 6 and Art. 1(2) and (3))
(see paragraphs 82-85, operative part)
Résumé
The judicial authority executing a European arrest warrant is required to assess whether the conditions of detention of the individual concerned in the establishment in which that person will be detained are compatible with the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment
In the judgment in Dorobantu (C‑128/18), delivered on 15 October 2019, the Court, sitting as a Grand Chamber, interpreted, in the light of the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment referred to in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), the provision of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant (1) which provides that that instrument is not to have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 EU.
The dispute in the main proceedings concerns the execution, in Germany, of a European arrest warrant issued by a Romanian court in respect of a Romanian national. A German court, as the authority executing that European arrest warrant, queried the criteria to be applied when assessing whether the conditions of detention to which that individual would be exposed in the event of his being surrendered to the Romanian authorities comply with the requirements that arise under Article 4 of the Charter. The present case has enabled the Court to clarify the case-law resulting, in particular, from its judgments in Aranyosi and Căldăraru (2) and Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions of detention in Hungary). (3)
In the first place, the Court adjudicated on the extent and scope of the assessment by the executing judicial authority of detention conditions in the issuing Member State. In that regard, it ruled that when that authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing there to be systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention in the prisons of the issuing Member State, it must, for the purpose of assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender to the issuing Member State of the person subject to a European arrest warrant, that person will run a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, take account of all the relevant physical aspects of the conditions of detention in the prison in which it is actually intended that that person will be detained. In view of the fact that the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute, that review is not limited to obvious inadequacies.
Furthermore, in view, on the one hand, of the specific and precise nature of such a review and, on the other, of the time limits set by the Framework Decision, the executing judicial authority cannot make an assessment of conditions of detention in all the prisons in the issuing Member State in which the individual concerned might be detained. For the purpose of reviewing the conditions of detention in the prison in which it is actually intended that that individual will be detained, the executing judicial authority must request from the issuing judicial authority the information it deems necessary and must rely, in principle, on the assurances given by the issuing judicial authority, in the absence of any specific indications that the detention conditions are in breach of Article 4 of the Charter.
The physical aspects which the executing judicial authority must assess include the personal space available to each detainee in a cell in that prison, sanitary conditions and the extent of the detainee’s freedom of movement within the prison.
In the second place, as regards, in particular, the personal space available per detainee, the Court noted that the executing judicial authority must, in the absence, currently, of minimum standards in that respect under EU law, take account of the minimum requirements under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), (4) in so far as the right contained in that provision corresponds to the right guaranteed by Article 4 of the Charter. Referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court considered, in particular, that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR arises when the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3 m2 in multi-occupancy accommodation, a presumption which can normally be rebutted only if the reductions in that personal space are short, occasional and minor, if they are accompanied by freedom of movement outside the cell and out-of-cell activities and if the general conditions of detention at the facility concerned are appropriate. The Court also stated that in calculating the available space, the area occupied by sanitary facilities should not be taken into account, but space occupied by furniture should, although detainees must still have the possibility of moving around normally within the cell.
In the third place, the Court held that the existence of monitoring measures including subsequent judicial review of detention conditions in the issuing Member State may be taken into account by the executing judicial authorities when they make an overall assessment of the conditions in which it is intended that a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant will be held. However, the executing judicial authority cannot rule out the existence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment merely because the person concerned has, in the issuing Member State, a legal remedy enabling that person to challenge the conditions of his detention or because there are legislative or structural measures that are intended to reinforce the monitoring of detention conditions.
Last, in the fourth place, the Court ruled that a finding, by the executing judicial authority, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender of the person concerned to the issuing Member State, that person will run such a risk, because of the conditions of detention prevailing in the prison in which it is actually intended that he will be detained, cannot be weighed, for the purposes of deciding on that surrender, against considerations relating to the efficacy of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and to the principles of mutual trust and recognition. The fact that the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute precludes the fundamental right not to be subjected to such treatment from being in any way limited by such considerations. Thus, the need to guarantee that the person concerned will not be subjected to any inhuman or degrading treatment justifies, exceptionally, a limitation of the principles of mutual trust and recognition.
1      Article 1(3) 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), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24).
2      Judgment of the Court of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198).
3      Judgment of the Court of 25 July 2018, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Conditions of detention in Hungary) (C‑220/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:589).
4      Convention signed at Rome on 4 November 1950.