REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Date: 2020-07-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European arrest warrant, application of EU law, criminal proceedings, extradition, judicial proceedings

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 2.7.2020  COM(2020) 270 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

1.1. 

 Background 

Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the 
surrender procedures between Member States1 (‘the Framework Decision’) is the first EU 
legal  instrument  on  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  based  on  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition2.  The  Framework  Decision  has  provided  a  more  efficient  mechanism  to 
ensure  open  borders  are  not  exploited  by  those  seeking  to  evade  justice,  and  has 
contributed  to  the  EU  objective  of  developing  and  maintaining  an  area  of  freedom, 
security  and  justice.  It  is  a  widely  used  instrument  for  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal 
matters in the EU. According to the statistics for 20183, an estimated average of 54,5% of 
requested  persons  consent  to  their  surrender  (compared  to  62,96%  in  2017),  with  the 
surrender procedure lasting on average 16,41 days after the arrest. The average surrender 
time for those who do not consent is around 45,12 days. This is in stark contrast with the 
lengthy  extradition  procedures  that  used  to  exist  between  Member  States  prior  to  the 
Framework Decision.  

In  February  2009,  the  Framework  Decision  was  amended  by  Council  Framework 
Decision  2009/299/JHA  concerning  trials  in  absentia4,  inserting  a  clear  and  common 
ground for non-execution of decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at 
the  trial5.  Furthermore,  the  procedural  rights  of  persons  arrested  on  the  basis  of  a 
European  arrest  warrant  have  been  strengthened  by  six  directives6  on:  the  right  to 
interpretation and translation7; the right to information8; the right of access to a lawyer9; 

in 

the  Tampere  European  Council  Conclusions  and  adopted  by 

1 OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 
2  The  program  of  measures  to  implement  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  of  criminal  decisions 
envisaged 
the  Council  on 
30 November 2000,OJ C 12 E, 15.1.2001, p. 10: “The principle of mutual recognition is founded on mutual 
trust  developed  through  the  shared  values  of  Member  States  concerning  respect  for  human  dignity, 
freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and human rights, so that each authority has confidence that 
the  other  authorities  apply  equivalent  standards  of  protection  of  rights  across  their  criminal  justice 
systems”. 
3 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-90-en.do  
4  Council  Framework  Decision  2009/299/JHA  of  26 February  2009  amending  Framework  Decisions 
2002/584/JHA,  2005/214/JHA,  2006/783/JHA,  2008/909/JHA  and  2008/947/JHA,  thereby  enhancing  the 
procedural  rights  of  persons  and  fostering  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to 
decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81, 27.3.2009, p. 24. 
5 The consolidated version: 
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC1006(02)&from=DA, p. 45. 
6  Resolution  of  the  Council  of  30  November  2009  on  a  Roadmap  for  strengthening  procedural  rights  of 
suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings set the basis for six directives, OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, 
p. 1. 
7 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to 
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1; REPORT FROM THE 
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of 
Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to 
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, COM(2018) 857 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0857. 
8  Directive  2012/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  May  2012  on  the  right  to 
information in criminal proceedings, OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1; REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2012/13/EU 
of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  May  2012  on  the  right  to  information  in  criminal 
proceedings, COM(2018) 858 final:  

 
 
 
      
                                                 
strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present 
at the trial10; procedural safeguards for children11 and legal aid12.  

The  Commission  issued  three  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  Framework 
Decision13.  The  Council  published  a  Handbook  on  how  to  issue  the  European  arrest 
warrant  to  assist  practitioners  in  200814  and  revised  it  in  201015.  The  Commission 
updated  the  Handbook  in  201716.  Between  March  2006  and  April  2009,  the  practical 
application  of  the  Framework  Decision  was  subject  to  a  peer  review  among  Member 
States  with  the  Commission  as  observer  in  the  context  of  the  4th round  of  mutual 
evaluations17. Certain aspects of the Framework Decision are currently subject to a new 
peer  review  under  the  9th round  of  mutual  evaluations,  assessing  selected  practical  and 
operational aspects of the European arrest warrant18.  

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0858. 
9  Directive  2013/48/EU  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  22  October  2013  on  the  right  of 
access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to 
have  a third party informed  upon deprivation of  liberty and to communicate  with third  persons and  with 
consular  authorities  while  deprived  of  liberty,  OJ  L  294,  6.11.2013,  p.  1;  REPORT  FROM  THE 
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of 
Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of 
access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to 
have a third person informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with 
consular authorities while deprived of liberty, COM(2019) 560 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0560. 
10  Directive  (EU)  2016/343  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  9  March  2016  on  the 
strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial, 
OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 1. 
11 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural 
safeguards for children who are suspects and accused in criminal proceedings, OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1. 
12 Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal 
aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest 
warrant proceedings, OJ L 297, 4.11.2016, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 91, 5.4.2017, p. 40. 
13  REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  based  on  Article  34  of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  of 
13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (revised 
version), COM(2006) 8 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52006DC0008;  
REPORT  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  on  the  implementation  since  2005  of  the  Council  Framework 
Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member 
States, COM(2007) 407 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588746623870&uri=CELEX:52007DC0407 
and 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on 
the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest 
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, COM(2011)175 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588746744852&uri=CELEX:52011DC0175. 
14  Final  version  of 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-8216-2008-REV-2/en/pdf. 
15  Revised  version  of  the  European  handbook  on  how  to  issue  a  European  Arrest  Warrant: 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-17195-2010-REV-1/en/pdf. 
16 Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant, OJ C 335, 6.10.2017, p. 1:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC1006(02)&from=DA. 
17 Follow-up to the evaluation  reports on the  fourth round of  mutual evaluations: practical application of 
the  relevant  surrender  procedures  between  Member  States: 
the  European  arrest  warrant  and 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15815-2011-INIT/en/pdf. 
18  9th round  of  mutual  evaluations  -  Scope  of  the  evaluation  and  contributions  to  the  questionnaire: 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6333-2019-INIT/en/pdf. 

issue  a  European  Arrest  Warrant: 

the  European  handbook  on  how 

to 

2 

 
                                                                                                                                                 
On  27  February  2014, 
the  European  Parliament  adopted  a  resolution  with 
recommendations  to  the  Commission  on  the  review  of  the  European  arrest  warrant19, 
proposing  in  particular  a  prior  proportionality  check;  a  mandatory  ground  for  non-
execution  concerning  fundamental  rights;  the  right  to  an  effective  legal  remedy  and  a 
better  definition  of  the  crimes  where  the  European  arrest  warrant  should  apply.  The 
Commission in its reply to the European Parliament explained why it did not consider it 
appropriate  to  revise  the  Framework  Decision  either  alone  or  alongside  a  revision  of 
other mutual recognition instruments20.  

The  limitations  of  the  judicial  control  by  the  Court  of  Justice  and  of  the  enforcement 
powers of the Commission in the area of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in 
criminal  matters  were  lifted  on  1  December  2014,  following  the  end  of  the  five  year 
transitional period concerning the ex-third pillar instruments under Protocol No 36 to the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union21. Consequently, the interpretation of 
the  Framework  Decision  has  given  rise  to  a  steadily  increasing  number  of  requests  for 
preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice. Therefore, the number of preliminary ruling 
references on the Framework Decision has rapidly increased, from a total of 12 in 2014 
to over 50 by the middle of 2020.  

1.2. 

Purpose and main elements of the Framework Decision  

The  Framework  Decision  replaced  the  traditional  system  of  extradition  with  a  simpler 
and quicker mechanism of surrender of requested persons for the purposes of conducting 
a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. It is based on 
the  principle  of  mutual  recognition.  The  issuing  Member  State’s  judicial  decision  must 
be recognised in the executing Member State without further formalities, unless grounds 
for non-execution apply. 

The main elements of the Framework Decision distinguishing it from extradition regimes 
are: 

  The  European  arrest  warrant  is  a  judicial  decision  enforceable  in  another 

Member State on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition; 

  The  grounds  for  non-execution  are  limited  and  exhaustively  listed  in  the 

Framework Decision;  

  There is no verification of double criminality with regard to 32 categories of 
offences  listed in  Article 2(2) of the  Framework  Decision, as defined by  the 
issuing Member State, if those offences are punishable by a custodial sentence 
or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years; 

  The  surrender  of  a  Member  State’s  own  nationals  is  the  general  rule,  with 
only  few exceptions. These exceptions concern the enforcement of custodial 
sentences in one’s ‘home’ Member State and apply equally to residents. The 
main  reason  for  these  exceptions  is  to  promote  the  social  rehabilitation  of  a 
requested person; 

19 European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the 
review of the European Arrest Warrant (2013/2109(INL)), OJ C 285, 29.8.2017, p. 135. 
20  Follow  up  to  the  European  Parliament  resolution  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on  the 
review of the European arrest warrant, SP(2014) 447: 
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?lang=en&reference=2013/2109(INL). 
21 OJ C 115, 9.5.2008, p. 322. 

3 

 
                                                 
  There are strict time limits to take a decision on the execution of a European 

arrest warrant and to surrender a requested person; 

  To  make  requests  simpler  and  easier  to  comply  with,  they  are  based  on  the 

European arrest warrant form. 

1.3.  Objective and scope of the report 

This  report  assesses  how  the  Framework  Decision  as  amended  by  Council  Framework 
Decision 2009/299/JHA has been transposed in all 27 Member States bound by it22. The 
assessment  is  based  primarily  on  the  analysis  of  the  national  measures  transposing  the 
Framework Decision that were notified to the General Secretariat of the Council and the 
Commission in accordance with Article 34(2) of the Framework Decision. 

Most  Member  States  have  amended  their  national  laws  transposing  the  Framework 
Decision  since  the  last  Commission  report  from  201123.  Therefore,  in  preparing  this 
report, the Commission’s recommendations from previous reports and recommendations 
from the 4th round of mutual evaluations concerning transposition (e.g. on proportionality 
of issued European arrest warrants24) were taken into consideration.  

Similar to the first Commission implementation report from 200525, this report includes 
an  assessment  of  the  provisions  of  the  Framework  Decision.  It  focuses  on  selected 
provisions,  which  form  the  core  of  the  Framework  Decision  and  are  crucial  for  the 
smooth  functioning  of  the  European  arrest  warrant.  These  provisions  include  in 
particular:  the  designation  of  the  competent  judicial  authorities,  the  definition  and  the 
scope  of  the  European  arrest  warrant,  fundamental  rights  and  procedural  rights  of  a 
requested person, grounds for non-execution and verification of double criminality, and 
time limits for taking a decision and surrendering a requested person. 

2.  GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

As of the publication date of this report, all Member States had notified transposition of 
the Framework Decision26. 

22 The Framework Decision is binding on all 27 Member States, including Denmark and Ireland. The report 
also includes the UK, which is bound by the Framework Decision until the end of the transition period on 
31 December 2020.  
23 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND  THE COUNCIL 
on the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European 
arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, COM(2011)175 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1588746744852&uri=CELEX:52011DC0175. 
24 A downward trend concerning the number of issued European arrest warrant could be observed in some 
Member States on the basis of statistics provided by Member States:  
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-90-en.do. 
25 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 
June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and  the surrender procedures between Member States (revised 
version), COM(2006) 8 final:  
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52006DC0008. 
26  Under  Article  34(1)  of  the  Framework  Decision,  Member  States  had  to  transpose  the  Framework 
Decision  into  national  law  by  31  December  2003.  In  case  of  Member  States,  which  joined  the  EU  later 
(respectively in 2004, 2007 and 2013), the applicable deadline  for transposition was their accession date. 
More than half of the Member States met the deadlines for transposition.  

4 

 
                                                 
The general assessment demonstrates a rather satisfactory level of implementation of the 
Framework Decision in a significant number of Member States. However, the assessment 
of national implementing measures has also demonstrated certain issues of compliance in 
some  Member  States.  Unless  remedied,  such  deficiencies  limit  the  effectiveness  of  the 
European arrest warrant. Therefore, the Commission will take every appropriate measure 
to ensure conformity with the Framework Decision throughout the EU, including, where 
necessary,  initiating  infringement  proceedings  under  Article 258  of  the  Treaty  on  the 
Functioning of the European Union. 

Since  the  publication  of  the  last  implementation  report,  the  Commission  has  organised 
five experts’ meetings with the Member States to support them in the practical operation 
of the Framework Decision27.  

In March 2020, a European arrest warrant coordination group was set up. The purpose of 
the  European  arrest  warrant  coordination  group  is  to  enhance  the  swift  exchange  of 
information  and  cooperation  of  different  actors  involved  in  the  operation  of  the 
Framework Decision, i.e. practitioners and policy-makers from Member States, Eurojust, 
EJN, the General Secretariat of the Council and the Commission. The exchanges within 
the group should lead to a more uniform application of the Framework Decision. 

3.  SPECIFIC POINTS OF ASSESSMENT 

3.1.  Competent judicial authorities and central authorities (Articles 6 and 7)  

In accordance with Article 6, all Member States have notified the General Secretariat of 
the  Council  which  judicial  authorities  are  competent  to  issue  and  execute  a  European 
arrest warrant. In general, this has been their judicial authorities competent to investigate 
and hear criminal cases.  

3.1.1.  Issuing judicial authorities (Article 6(1)) 

The  Court  of  Justice  ruled  that  the  term  ‘judicial  authority’  in  Article 6(1)  of  the 
Framework Decision is not limited only to the judges or courts of a Member State, but 
must  be  construed  more  broadly,  including  the  authorities  participating  in  the 
administration  of  criminal  justice  in  that  Member  State.  Therefore,  public  prosecutor’s 
offices  qualify  as  issuing  judicial  authorities,  provided  that  they  are  not  exposed  to  the 
risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case 
from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in connection with the adoption of a 
decision to issue a European arrest warrant28. Furthermore, the Court of Justice clarified 
that the term ‘judicial authority’ cannot be interpreted as also covering a police service29 
or an organ of the executive of a Member State, such as a Ministry of Justice30. 

27 On 1 April 2014, 20 November 2014, 7 July 2016, 17 October 2017 and 7 May 2019. 
28  Cf.  Judgments  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  27  May  2019,  OG  and  PI,  C-508/18  and  C-82/19  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:456  and  PF,  C-509/18,  ECLI:EU:C:2019:457; judgments  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  12 
December  2019,  JR  and  YC,  C-566/19  PPU  and  C-626/19  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2019:1077,  XD,  C-625/19 
PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1078 and ZB, C-627/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:1079. 
29  Cf.  Judgment  of 
ECLI:EU:C:2016:858. 
30  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  November  2016,  Kovalkovas,  C-477/16  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2016:861. 

the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  November  2016,  Poltorak,  C-452/16  PPU, 

5 

 
                                                 
Given the possibility for the executive to give instructions to their public prosecutors31, a 
small  number  of  Member  States  have  recently  designated  courts  or  judges  as  the 
competent issuing authorities to comply with the judgment in joined Cases C-508/18, OG 
and C-82/19 PPU, PI32 and the judgment in Case C-509/18, PF33.  

Currently, in half of the Member States courts or judges are solely competent to issue a 
European arrest warrant. In a few Member States, it is entirely to the public prosecutor’s 
offices to issue a European arrest warrant. Several Member States have designated both 
courts and public prosecutor’s offices as issuing authorities. Furthermore, some of those 
Member States have designated different authorities depending on the stage of criminal 
proceedings  (e.g.  pre-indictment  and  post-indictment  or  pre-trial  and  trial)  or  on  the 
purpose of the European arrest warrant (prosecution or execution of a sentence). In one 
Member  State,  a  court  endorses  a  proposal  by  a  public  prosecutor’s  office  to  issue  a 
European  arrest  warrant34.  One  Member  State  designated  its  public  prosecutor’s  office 
and  criminal  sanctions  agency  as  competent  authorities.  A  small  number  of  Member 
States have appointed a single dedicated body (e.g. the Prosecutor General’s Office).  

3.1.2.  Executing judicial authorities (Article 6(2)) 

As competent executing authorities, a large majority of Member States have designated 
courts (e.g. courts of appeal; district courts; supreme courts) or judges. For example, one 
Member  State  designated  a  specialised  juvenile  judge  for  European  arrest  warrants 
concerning minors; another Member State designated two different bodies, depending on 
whether  a  person  consents  to  surrender  or  not.  A  few  Member  States  have  designated 
public  prosecutor’s  offices.  A  small  number  of  Member  States  have  designated  both 
courts  and  public  prosecutor’s  offices.  Some  Member  States  have  appointed  a  single 
dedicated body (e.g. the Prosecutor General’s Office or the High Court).  

3.1.3.  Central authorities (Article 7) 

Article 7 provides for  a  possibility  for Member  States to  designate one  or more central 
the  administrative 
authorities 
transmission  and  reception  of  European  arrest  warrants  and  other  related  official 
correspondence.  

judicial  authorities  with 

the  competent 

to  assist 

A significant number of Member States have designated a central authority in accordance 
with  Article 7(1).  In  most  cases,  this  was  their  Ministry  of  Justice.  A  small  number  of 
Member States have designated multiple central authorities (e.g. three central authorities: 
besides the Ministry of Justice also the Chief Public Prosecutor and the Police Presidium, 
or the Federal Ministry of Interior and the Federal Criminal Police Office). 

A few Member States granted the designated central authority(ies) additional powers not 
authorised under Article 7(2) (e.g. the central authorities are responsible for preliminary 
endorsement  of  incoming  European  arrest  warrants;  or  the  central  authority  may  under 
certain conditions postpone execution of a ruling on surrender). 

31 The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard: 
 https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2019_en.pdf, p. 51 – 52. 
32  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  27  May  2019,  OG  and  PI,  C-508/18  and  C-82/19  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:456. 
33 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019, PF, C-509/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:457. 
34 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 October 2019, NJ, C-489/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:849. 

6 

 
                                                 
3.2.  Language regime (Article 8(2)) 

Under  Article 8(2),  a  European  arrest  warrant  must  be  translated  by  the  competent 
issuing authorities into the official language(s) of the executing Member State. Member 
States  may  declare  that  they  will  accept  a  translation  in  one  or  more  other  official  EU 
languages.  

More  than  half  of  the  Member  States  deposited  a  declaration  stating  that  they  accept 
European arrest warrants in other official languages than their own (typically English)35. 
A  small  number  of  Member  States  have  made  their  declarations  conditional  on  a 
reciprocal  commitment  from  other  Member  States.  A  few  Member  States  have 
established  preferential  language  regimes  for  incoming  European  arrest  warrants  from 
certain neighbouring Member States.  

3.3.  Definition  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  obligation  to  respect 
fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles (Article 1) 

3.3.1.  Definition (Article 1(1)) 

All  Member  States  transposed  Article 1(1)  of  the  Framework  Decision  defining  the 
European arrest warrant as a judicial decision36 issued by a Member State with a view to 
the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes 
of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.  

Most Member States explicitly refer to the European arrest warrant as a judicial decision, 
and  almost  all  Member  States  laid  out  explicitly  that  the  European  arrest  warrant  must 
apply  for  the  purposes  of  conducting  a  criminal  prosecution  or  executing  a  custodial 
sentence or detention order. However, where European arrest warrants for the purposes 
of conducting a criminal prosecution are concerned, a couple of Member States deviated 
from  the  Framework  Decision  having  adopted  a  narrower  approach  towards  the 
prosecution purposes, by requiring that a European arrest  warrant  is  “trial ready”37. All 
Member States make a reference to “custodial sentence”; however, a small number lack 
an explicit reference to “detention order”.  

3.3.2.  Obligation  to  respect  fundamental  rights  and  fundamental  legal 

principles (Article 1(3) and Recitals 10, 12 and 13) 

Article 1(3) states that the Framework Decision must not have the effect of modifying the 
obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles, as enshrined in 
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union38. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union 
refers  to  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union39,  the  European 

35 Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant, OJ C 335, 6.10.2017, p. 1, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC1006(02)&from=DA, p. 74 – 75. 
36  Cf.  Judgments  of 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  November  2016,  Poltorak,  C-452/16  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2016:858;  Kovalkovas,  C-477/16  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:861  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Justice of 9 October 2019, NJ, C-489/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:849. 
37 Trial readiness means that a decision has been made to charge the person with, and try him or her for an 
offence.  
38 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 13. 
39 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391. 

7 

 
                                                 
Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms40  and  the 
constitutional traditions common to the Member States. 

Recital 10 specifies that the mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high 
level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only 
in the event of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of the principles set out 
in  Article 2  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union41,  determined  by  the  European  Council 
pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Treaty on European Union42 with the consequences set out 
in Article 7(3)43 of the Treaty on European Union44. 

Recital 12  provides  that  nothing  in  the  Framework  Decision  may  be  interpreted  as 
prohibiting  refusal  to  surrender  a  person  for  whom  a  European  arrest  warrant  has  been 
issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said 
arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the 
grounds  of  his  or  her  sex,  race,  religion,  ethnic  origin,  nationality,  language,  political 
opinions or sexual orientation, or the person's position may be prejudiced for any of these 
reasons. Recital 12 also states that the Framework Decision does not prevent a Member 
State  from  applying  its  constitutional  rules  relating  to  due  process,  freedom  of 
association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media. 

Recital 13  reflects  Articles  4  and  19(2)  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union  stating  that  no  person  should  be  removed,  expelled  or  extradited  to  a 
State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, 
torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment45. 

These provisions apply to Member States both when acting as the issuing Member State 
and as the executing Member State46. 

The large majority of Member States have explicitly transposed the obligation to respect 
fundamental  rights  and  fundamental  legal  principles,  some  in  general  terms,  but  others 
with specific reference to the rights mentioned in recitals 12 and 13. For example, some 
national  transpositions  refer  generally  to  treaties  on  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms47 and/or to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. A few Member States 
transposed  Article 1(3)  of  the  Framework  Decision  by  referring  solely  to  the  European 

40 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 (ETS 
No.005). 
41 Before the amendments of the Treaty on European Union: Article 6(1). 
42 Before the amendments of the Treaty on European Union: Article 7(1). 
43 Before the amendments of the Treaty on European Union: Article 7(2). 
44 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586. 
45 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 
PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:198,  paragraph  104;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  6  September  2016, 
the  Court  of  Justice  of 
Petruhhin,  C-182/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:630,  paragraph  60;  order  of 
6 September 2017,  Schotthöfer  &  Steiner  v  Adelsmayr,  C-473/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:633,  paragraph  27; 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, ML, C-220/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589; judgment of 
the Court of Justice of 15 October 2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:857 and judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 2 April 2020, IN, Case C-897/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2020:262, paragraphs 63 to 68. 
46  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  January  2013,  Radu  C-396/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:39, 
paragraphs  39  to  43;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  16  July  2015,  Lanigan,  C-237/15  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2015:474, paragraphs 53 and 54 and judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 December 2018, IK, 
C-551/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:991, paragraphs 66 and 67. 
47  E.g.  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms;  the 
Convention  against  torture  and  other  cruel,  inhuman  or  degrading  treatment  or  punishment  of 
10 December 1984;  the  International  Covenant  on  Civil  and  Political  Rights  of  16  December  1966; 
Convention relating to the status of refugees of 28 July 1951. 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, omitting a 
reference to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.  

Some Member States refer also to national constitutions. However, referring to national 
constitutions  may  go  beyond  Article 1(3)  of  the  Framework  Decision,  in  particular  as 
Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union refers only to those constitutional principles 
that  are  common  to  Member  States.  According  to  the  case  law  of  the  Court  of  Justice 
Member States cannot demand a higher level of national protection of fundamental rights 
from another Member State than that provided by EU law48.  

Furthermore,  a  small  number  of  Member  States  have  not  explicitly  referred  to 
fundamental  rights  and  fundamental  legal  principles  in  their  implementing  provisions, 
since their constitutional laws oblige them to respect fundamental rights and fundamental 
legal principles. 

Despite  the  absence  of  a  corresponding  provision  in  the  Framework  Decision,  most 
Member  States  explicitly  provide  for  a  mandatory  ground  for  non-execution,  based  on 
the  violation  of  fundamental  rights  or  by  referring  to  violations  of  rights  referred  to  in 
recitals 12 and 13 (e.g. race, nationality, religion or political opinions).  

3.4. 

Issuing a European arrest warrant (Articles 2(1) and 8(1)) 

3.4.1.  Scope  and  conditions  for  issuing  a  European  arrest  warrant 
(Article 2(1)) 

A European  arrest  warrant  may  be issued for acts  punishable by the law  of the issuing 
Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at 
least  12 months  or,  where  a  sentence  has  been  passed  or  a  detention  order  made,  for 
sentences of at least four months.  

This provision was transposed in a conform manner by most Member States. However, a 
small  number  of  Member  States  have  not  explicitly  provided  discretion  for  their 
competent  issuing  judicial  authorities  to  examine  whether,  in  the  light  of  the  particular 
circumstances of each case, it is proportionate to issue a European arrest warrant49.  
A few Member States have provided for a narrower scope to address the proportionality50 
of European arrest warrants that can be issued by their judicial authorities (e.g. imposing 
higher thresholds; requiring that a term of four months should still remain to be served, 
or requiring that an European arrest warrant must be in the interest of justice). 

The  Framework  Decision  is  silent  on  surrender  for  offences  punishable  by  a  lower 
penalty than the threshold set out in Article 2(1) when those offences are accessory to the 

48  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  February  2013,  Melloni,  C-399/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, 
paragraph  63  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  15  October  2019,  Dorobantu,  C-128/18, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:857, paragraph 79. 
49  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  27  May  2019,  OG  and  PI,  C-508/18  and  C-82/19  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:456, paragraphs 71 and 75. 
50 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND  THE COUNCIL 
on  the  implementation  since  2007  of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0175&from=EN, p. 7 – 8. 

9 

 
                                                 
main  offences  that  do  meet  that  threshold51.  In  practice,  some  Member  States  have 
decided to allow surrender in such cases, whereas others do not52.  

Moreover,  some  Member  States  have  explicitly  adapted  the  scope  in  accordance  with 
Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on supervision measures as an alternative to 
provisional  detention53,  to  the  effect  that  a  European  arrest  warrant  can  also  be  issued 
where  the  threshold  of  12 months  is  not  fulfilled,  if  a  supervision  measure  has  been 
breached.  

3.4.2.  Requirements  for  the  content  of  a  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  first 

level of judicial protection (Article 8(1)) 

Article 8(1)  of  the  Framework  Decision  lays  down  the  requirements  regarding  the 
content of a European arrest warrant54. In particular this includes:  

  evidence of an enforceable judicial decision55 (such as a national arrest warrant) 
which must be distinct from the European arrest warrant itself to guarantee the 
first level of judicial protection56;  
the nature and legal classification of the offence;  

 
  a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including 
the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person 
and the penalty imposed57.  

Nearly  all  Member  States  transposed  Article 8(1)  of  the  Framework  Decision  in  a 
literal 
complete  and  conform  manner,  with  a  comparatively  high  number  of 
transpositions  of  Article 8(1).  One  Member  State  stipulates  that  the  European  arrest 
warrant  must  be  accompanied  by  additional  documents  (e.g.  a  copy  of  the  applicable 
provisions;  a  report  concerning  facts  on  which  the  European  arrest  warrant  is  based; 
information about the sources of evidence). 

51 The European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (ETS No 024) contains a provision on 
accessory offences. 
52 Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant, OJ C 335, 6.10.2017, p. 1, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC1006(02)&from=DA, p. 82. 
53 Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member 
States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures 
as an alternative to provisional detention, OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20. 
54  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  December  2008,  Leymann  and  Pustovarov,  C-388/08  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2008:669,  paragraphs  52  and  53  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  23 January 2018, 
Piotrowski, C-367/16, EU:C:2018:27, paragraphs 57 to 59. 
55  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  June  2016,  Bob-Dogi,  C-241/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:385, 
paragraphs 54 and 58 and judgment of 10 November 2016, Özçelik, C-453/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:860, 
paragraphs 33 to 37. 
56  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  June  2016,  Bob-Dogi,  C-241/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2016:385, 
paragraphs 55 and 56; judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, C-508/18 and C-82/19 
PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456, paragraphs 66 and 67 and judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 May 2019, 
PF, C-509/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:457, paragraphs 44 and 45. 
57  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  December  2008,  Leymann  and  Pustovarov,  C-388/08  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2008:669, paragraph 52; judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 December 2018,  IK, C-551/18 
PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2018:991  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  3  March  2020,  X,  C-717/18, 
ECLI:EU:C:2020:142, paragraph 37. 

10 

 
                                                 
3.5.  Direct contacts between the issuing judicial authority and the executing 

judicial authority (Articles 10(5) and 15(2)) 

Article 10(5) provides that all difficulties concerning the transmission or the authenticity 
of any document needed for executing the European arrest warrant must be dealt with by 
direct contacts between the judicial authorities involved or, where appropriate, with the 
involvement  of  the  central  authorities  of  the  Member  States  (cf.  3.1).  Over  half  of  the 
Member States correctly transposed Article 10(5); however, in some Member States the 
relevant provisions could not be identified, and a small number of Member States have 
transposed  it  only  partially  (e.g.  expressly  addressing  only  the  authenticity,  but  not  the 
transmission issues).  

In accordance with Article 15(2), if the executing judicial authority finds the information 
communicated  by  the  issuing  Member  State  to  be  insufficient  to  allow  it  to  decide  on 
surrender, it must request that the necessary supplementary information be furnished as a 
matter of urgency58. This is in particular with respect to Articles 3 to 5 (Grounds for non-
execution,  cf.  3.8.  and  Guarantees,  cf. 3.9.)  and  Article  8  (Content,  cf.  3.4.2.)  of  the 
Framework  Decision59.  The  executing  judicial  authority  may  fix  a  time  limit  for  the 
receipt of this information, taking into account the need to observe the time limits set in 
Article  17  (cf.  3.13.).  A  large  number  of  Member  States  transposed  the  provision  in  a 
conform manner. Some Member States do not explicitly refer to the element of urgency, 
but specify that time limits must be fixed. One Member State transposed the provision as 
optional. However, in two Member States the relevant provisions could not be identified.  

3.6.  Executing a European arrest warrant (Article 1(2)) 

The executing judicial authority has a general duty to execute a European arrest warrant 
on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions 
of the Framework Decision (Article 1(2))60.  

Less than half of the Member States have provided an explicit reference to the principle 
of mutual recognition in their laws. Two Member States have referred to this principle in 
soft  law.  A  few  Member  States  have  instead  referred  to  the  principle  of  reciprocity.  In 
some  others,  no  specific  transposing  provisions  could  be  identified.  In  cases  where  the 
principle  of  mutual  recognition  is  not  explicitly  mentioned  in  the  national  laws 
transposing  the  Framework  Decision,  it  can  be  inferred  from  the  structure  of  the 
transposing  laws.  However,  the  transposition  of  the  grounds  for  non-execution  in 
particular  indicates  that  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  is  not  fully  observed  in  a 
significant number of Member States (cf. 3.8.).  

58 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 
PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198, paragraphs 95 and 96; judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 June 2016, Bob-
Dogi, C-241/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:385, paragraph 65; judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 January 2018, 
Piotrowski,  C-367/16,  EU:C:2018:27,  paragraphs  60  and  61;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of 
25 July 2018,  ML,  C-220/18  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2018:589,  paragraph  63  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Justice of 15 October 2019, Dorobantu, C-128/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:857, paragraph 67. 
59  Cf.  Judgment  of 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:1026, paragraph 91. 
60  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  February  2013,  Melloni,  C-399/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, 
paragraph  36; 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  30  May  2013,  Jeremy  F,  C-168/13, 
ECLI:EU:C:2013:358, paragraph 34 and  judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2016,  Aranyosi and 
Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, paragraph 79. 

the  Court  of  Justice  of  22  December  2017,  Ardic,  C-571/17  PPU, 

judgment  of 

11 

 
                                                 
3.7.  Double criminality (Article 2(2) and (4)) 

3.7.1.  List of 32 offences which give rise to surrender without verification 

of double criminality (Article 2(2)) 

Article 2(2)  provides  the  list  of  32 categories  of  criminal  offences  that  give  rise  to 
surrender without verification of double criminality, if they are punishable in the issuing 
Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at 
least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State61.  

Some of the categories of the 32 offences have been harmonised to a certain extent at EU 
level on the basis of Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union62.  

The  majority  of  Member  States  transposed  Article 2(2)  literally.  A  few  Member  States 
have introduced a direct reference to Article 2(2) in their national legislation. However, 
two Member States have introduced substantial changes that affect the list of 32 offences 
(e.g.  by  narrowing  the  scope  of  certain  categories  or  not  transposing  all  categories). 
Moreover,  a  couple  of  Member  States  provide  for  verification  of  double  criminality  in 
cases  concerning  their  own  nationals.  One  Member  State  provides  that  aggravating 
circumstances should not be taken into account when considering the threshold of at least 
three years when acting as the executing Member State.  

3.7.2.  Verification of double criminality (Article 2(4)) 

The executing judicial authority may verify double criminality for offences that are not 
on  the  list  of  32 offences,  or  for  offences  that  are  on  the  list  but  the  threshold  of  three 
years is not met63. Therefore, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for 
which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of 
the  executing  Member  State,  whatever  the  constituent  elements  or  however  it  is 
described64 (Article 2(4)).  All  Member States transposed Article 2(4) of the Framework 
Decision.  However,  in  a  small  number  of  Member  States  the  related  provisions 
concerning  the  lack  of  double  criminality  as  a  ground  for  non-execution  could  not  be 
identified (cf. 3.8.2.).  

Most  Member  States  have  not  transposed  explicitly  that  the  double  criminality 
verification must be conducted as regards the corresponding offence under the law of the 
executing Member State “whatever its constituent elements or however it is described”.  

61  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  3  May  2007,  Advocaten  voor  de  Wereld,  C-303/05, 
ECLI:EU:C:2007:261,  paragraphs  48  to  60  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  3  March  2020,  X, 
C-717/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:142, paragraphs 36 to 39. 
62  E.g.:  financial  crime:  Directive  2014/62/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
15 May 2014 on the protection of the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting by criminal law, and 
replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2000/383/JHA,  OJ  L  151,  21.5.2014,  p.  1;  terrorism:  Directive 
(EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism 
and 
replacing  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  and  amending  Council  Decision 
2005/671/JHA, OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6; cybercrime: Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  of  12 August  2013  on  attacks  against  information  systems  and  replacing  Council 
Framework  Decision  2005/222/JHA,  OJ  L  218,  14.8.2013,  p.  8  and  trafficking  in  human  beings: 
Directive  2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and 
combating  trafficking  in  human  beings  and  protecting  its  victims,  and  replacing  Council  Framework 
Decision 2002/629/JHA, OJ L 101, 15.4.2011, p. 1. 
63 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 March 2020, X, C-717/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:142, paragraph 42. 
64  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  11  January  2017,  Grundza,  C-289/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:4, 
paragraphs 35, 38 and 49. 

12 

 
                                                 
Moreover,  a  small  number  of  Member  States  have  imposed  additional  conditions  (e.g. 
requiring  that  the  offence  subject  to  the  double  criminality  verification  must  be 
punishable by 12 months of imprisonment in both, the issuing and the executing Member 
State65; or requiring classification as a misdemeanour or as a felony under the law of the 
executing Member State;  or excluding  aggravating circumstances  when  considering the 
threshold of at least 12 months; or imposing a requirement concerning a European arrest 
warrant for execution purposes that a term of four months must still remain to be served). 

3.8.  Grounds for non-execution (refusal) (Articles 3, 4 and 4a) 

The general duty to execute a European arrest warrant enshrined in Article 1(2) is limited 
by the mandatory and optional grounds for non-execution of the European arrest warrant 
(Articles  3,  4  and  4a  of  the  Framework  Decision).  These  grounds  are  exhaustive66.  As 
regards the grounds for optional non-execution, the executing judicial authority may only 
invoke  those  which  are  transposed  into  its  national  law67.  Moreover,  the  refusal  to 
execute  a  European  arrest  warrant  is  intended  to  be  an  exception  which  must  be 
interpreted strictly68. 

However, the assessment indicates that over half of the Member States have provided for 
additional  grounds  for  non-execution  (e.g.  based  on  the  fundamental  rights  (cf.  3.3.2.), 
political  offences,  the  proportionality  principle,  additional  thresholds  in  the  executing 
Member States (cf. 3.7.2.), the requirement of trial-readiness (cf. 3.3.1.) or indication of 
guilt,  if  a  requested  person  does  not  consent,  danger  for  security,  public  order  or  other 
essential interests of the executing Member State).   

Moreover,  some  Member  States  have  provided  additional  requirements  and  restrictions 
concerning  own  nationals  (e.g.  verification  of  double  criminality  concerning  own 
nationals).  

3.8.1.  Mandatory grounds for non-execution  

Where  one  or  more  of  the  three  mandatory  grounds  for  non-execution  apply,  the 
executing  judicial  authority  must  refuse  to  execute  the  European  arrest  warrant 
(Article 3). 

  Amnesty (Article 3(1))  

Execution must be refused if the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based is 
covered  by  amnesty  in  the  executing  Member  State.  Another  requirement  is  that  the 
executing Member State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own criminal 
law. Nearly all Member States transposed Article 3(1). In one Member State, the relevant 
provision  could  not  be  identified.  A  small  number  of  Member  States  have  referred  to 
“pardon” instead of “amnesty”, or to both.  

65 Cf. Order of the Court of Justice of 25 September 2015, A, C-463/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:634. 
66 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2009,  Wolzenburg, C-123/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:616, 
paragraph 57 and judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 and 
C-659/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 80. 
67  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2017,  Popławski,  C-579/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:503, 
paragraph 21. 
68  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2017,  Popławski,  C-579/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:503, 
paragraph  19  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  August  2017,  Tupikas,  C-270/17  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:628, paragraph 50. 

13 

 
                                                 
  Ne bis in idem (Article 3(2))  

Execution  must  be  refused  if  the  executing  judicial  authority  is  informed  that  the 
requested person has been finally judged69 by a Member State in respect of the same acts 
(the idem requirement70 as an autonomous concept of EU law71). It is also required where 
a sentence has been passed, that sentence has been served or is currently being served or 
may  no  longer  be  executed  under  the  law  of  the  sentencing  Member  State  (the 
enforcement requirements72).  

All  Member  States  have  transposed  Article 3(2).  However,  a  small  number  of  Member 
States  refer  to  “the  same  offence”  instead  of  “the  same  acts”73.  Concerning  the 
enforcement  requirements,  several  Member  States  have  not  transposed  all  three 
alternative criteria. 

  Under the age of criminal responsibility (Article 3(3)) 

Execution must be refused where, due to his or her age, the requested person cannot be 
held  criminally  responsible  for  the  acts  on  which  the  European  arrest  warrant  is  based 
under  the  law  of  the  executing  Member  State74.  No  issues  have  been  identified  with 
respect  to  transposition  of  Article 3(3),  even  though  the  age  for  criminal  responsibility 
may vary from one Member State to another. 

judgment  of 

judgment  of 

69  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  11  February  2003,  Gözütok  and  Brügge,  C-187/01, 
ECLI:EU:C:2003:87;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  March  2005,  Miraglia,  C-469/03, 
ECLI:EU:C:2005:156;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  28  September  2006,  van  Straaten,  C-150/05, 
ECLI:EU:C:2006:614;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  22  December  2008,  Turanský,  C-491/07, 
ECLI:EU:C:2008:768;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  16  November  2010,  Mantello,  C-261/09, 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  5  June  2014,  M,  C-398/12, 
ECLI:EU:C:2010:683; 
ECLI:EU:C:2014:1057;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2016,  Kossowski,  C-486/14, 
ECLI:EU:C:2016:483  and 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  25 July 2018,  AY,  C-268/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:602. 
70 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 9 March 2006, Van Esbroeck, C-436/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:165; 
judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  28  September  2006,  van  Straaten,  C-150/05,  ECLI:EU:C:2006:614; 
judgment  of 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  28  September  2006,  Gasparini  and  Others,  C-467/04, 
ECLI:EU:C:2006:610;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  July  2007,  Kretzinger,  C-288/05, 
ECLI:EU:C:2007:441;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  July  2007,  Kraaijenbrink,  C-367/05, 
ECLI:EU:C:2007:444;  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  16 November  2010,  Mantello,  C-261/09, 
ECLI:EU:C:2010:683. 
71 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 November 2010, Mantello, C-261/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:683, 
paragraph 38. 
72  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  11  February  2003,  Gözütok  and  Brügge,  C-187/01, 
ECLI:EU:C:2003:87;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  18  July  2007,  Kretzinger,  C-288/05, 
ECLI:EU:C:2007:441;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  11  December  2008,  Bourquain,  C-297/07, 
ECLI:EU:C:2008:708  and  judgment  of  Court  of  Justice  of  27  May  2014,  Spasic,  C‑ 129/14  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2014:586. 
73  The  same  remark  applies  to  other  relevant  Articles,  e.g.  Article  4(2),  (3)  and  (5)  of  the  Framework 
Decision, which refer to “same acts”. 
74 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 23 January 2018, Piotrowski, C-367/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:27. 

14 

 
                                                 
3.8.2.  Grounds for optional non-execution (Articles 4 and 4a) 

Articles 4 and 4a of the Framework Decision provide for eight optional grounds for non-
execution. Member States have no obligation to transpose the optional grounds for non-
execution75.  

Some Member State have transposed only certain grounds from Article 4. Furthermore, a 
number of Member State have made all of the transposed grounds mandatory, giving no 
discretion  to  their  executing  authorities.  Only  a  small  number  of  Member  States  have 
made  all  of  the  transposed  grounds  optional.  Moreover,  some  Member  States  have 
transposed certain grounds from Article 4 and Article 4a as optional, and certain grounds 
as mandatory. 

  Lack of double criminality (Article 4(1)) 

Execution  of  a  European  arrest  warrant  may  be  refused  where,  in  cases  referred  to  in 
Article 2(4) (cf. 3.7.2.), the act on which the European arrest warrant is based does not 
constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State76, except for offences 
related to taxes or duties, customs and exchange (fiscal offences). Moreover, Article 4(1) 
only  concerns  offences  which  are  not  covered  by  the  list  of  32 offences,  for  which  the 
verification  of  double  criminality  is  abolished  if  the  threshold  of  three years  is  met77 
(Article 2(2)). 

In a small number of Member States, the relevant provision could not be identified, even 
though  they  have  transposed  Article 2(4)  (cf.  3.7.1.).  Some  Member  States  transposed 
Article 4(1)  as  an  optional  ground  and  a  number  of  Member  States  transposed 
Article 4(1) as a mandatory ground for non-execution. 

Most Member States have transposed the exception on fiscal offences related to taxes or 
duties,  customs  and  exchange.  However,  some  Member  State  have  transposed  the 
exception only partially (e.g. omitting a reference to “customs and exchanges”). A small 
number  of  Member  States  have  not  explicitly  transposed  the  exception  for  fiscal 
offences.  Moreover,  in  one  Member  State  the  fiscal  offences  are  explicitly  subject  to 
similarity of taxes and duties in the issuing and the executing Member State, including a 
requirement  of  a  custodial  sentence  of  at  least  three  years  (excluding  aggravating 
circumstances) in the executing Member State.  

A small number of Member States have imposed additional requirements (cf. 3.7.2.).  

  Prosecution pending in the executing Member State (Article 4(2))  

Execution  may  be  refused  where  the  person  who  is  the  subject  of  the  European  arrest 
warrant  is  being  prosecuted  in  the  executing  Member  State  for  the  same  act  as  that  on 
which the European arrest warrant is based.  

All Member States have transposed Article 4(2). Most have transposed it as an optional 
ground for non-execution, except for those where it is mandatory or partially mandatory 

75 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2009,  Wolzenburg, C-123/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:616, 
paragraphs  59  to  61  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2017,  Popławski,  C-579/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 21. 
76  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  11  January  2017,  Grundza,  C-289/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:4, 
paragraphs 38 and 49. 
77 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 March 2020, X, C-717/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:142, paragraph 42. 

15 

 
                                                 
(e.g. one Member State favours its own nationals by providing that the ground for non-
execution  is  mandatory  for  its  own  nationals  and  optional  for  non-nationals).  For 
example,  one  Member  State  has  made  the  ground  conditional  on  criminal  proceedings 
clearly being able to be conducted more easily in the executing Member State.  

  Prosecution  for  the  same  offence  precluded  in  the  executing  Member  State 

(Article 4(3))  

Transposition  of  Article 4(3)  requires  a  distinction  among  three  situations:  the  judicial 
authorities  of  the  executing  Member  State  have  decided  either  not  to  prosecute  for  the 
offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to stop proceedings, or a final 
judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the 
same acts, which prevents further proceedings. 

Only  one  Member  State  has  not  transposed  Article 4(3).  Half  of  Member  States  have 
transposed  it  as  an  optional  ground  for  non-execution.  Other  Member  States  have 
transposed  it  as  a  mandatory  ground,  except  for  a  small  number  that  have  transposed 
some of the three alternative conditions as optional, and some as mandatory. Moreover, 
some  of  those  Member  States  have  only  partially  transposed  the  three  conditions  from 
Article 4(3).  

  Prosecution or punishment statute-barred (Article 4(4))  

Execution may be refused where the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested 
person is statute-barred, according to the law of the executing Member State, and the acts 
fall within the jurisdiction of that Member State under its own criminal law.  

Nearly all Member States, except one, have transposed Article 4(4). One has referred to 
the passage of time. A number of Member States have established this ground for non-
execution as mandatory.  

  Final judgment in a third State - transnational ne bis in idem (Article 4(5)) 

Execution  may  be  refused  where  the  executing  judicial  authority  is  informed  that  the 
requested  person  has  been  finally  judged  by  a  third  State  for  the  same  acts  (the  idem 
requirement)  provided  that,  where  there  has  been  a  sentence,  it  has  been  served  or  is 
currently  being  served  or  may  no  longer  be  executed  under  the  law  of  the  sentencing 
country (enforcement requirements). 

All  Member  States,  but  one,  have  implemented  Article 4(5).  More  than  half  of  the 
Member States have transposed it as an optional ground for non-execution, and the rest 
as  a  mandatory  ground.  However,  some  Member  States  only  partially  transposed  the 
three alternative conditions concerning enforcement. 

  The  executing  Member  State  undertakes  the  execution  of  the  sentence 

(Article 4(6))  

Where  the  European  arrest  warrant  has  been  issued  for  the  purposes  of  execution  of  a 
custodial  sentence  or  detention  order,  and  the  requested  person  is  staying  in,  or  is  a 
national  or  a  resident  of  the  executing  Member  State,  the  executing  judicial  authority 
might  consider  whether  the  sentence  could  be  executed  in  its  Member  State  instead  of 

16 

 
surrendering the person to the issuing Member State78. The terms ‘resident’ and ‘staying’ 
in  Article 4(6)  must  be  defined  uniformly,  since  they  concern  autonomous  concepts  of 
EU law79. 

A  small  number  of  Member  States  have  not  transposed  Article 4(6).  Other  Member 
States have transposed it in a varied manner, since the personal scope of transposition of 
Article 4(6) is quite diverse.  

Only  some  Member  States  have  transposed  Article 4(6)  as  an  optional  ground  for  non-
execution.  Most  have  made  it  mandatory80  or  partially  mandatory,  since  some  of  them 
distinguish  between  own  nationals  and  non-nationals81  (residents)  by  providing  a 
mandatory  ground  for  non-execution  for  own  nationals  and  an  optional  ground  for 
residents,  or  being  silent  on  residents.  Some  Member  States  further  qualified  the 
condition of residency (e.g. permanent residence82 of 2 or 5 years, a residence permit83). 
Moreover, one Member State has transposed Article 4(6) as applying only to EU citizens, 
and  thereby  excluding  third  country  nationals.  On  the  other  hand,  one  Member  State 
explicitly refers to persons granted asylum. Only a small number of Member States have 
transposed Article 4(6) to also cover persons staying in.  

  Extraterritoriality  (offences  committed  outside  the  territory  of  the  issuing 

Member State) (Article 4(7)) 

Execution may be refused where the European arrest warrant relates to offences which:  

(a) 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.  

or  

(b) have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and the law of 
the  executing  Member  State  does  not  allow  prosecution  for  the  same  offences  when 
committed outside its territory.  

Some Member States transposed only one of the two grounds. 

78  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2017,  Popławski,  C-579/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:503, 
paragraph  21  to  24;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  13  December  2018,  Sut,  C-514/17, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:1016,  paragraph  34  to  38  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  24  June  2019, 
Popławski II, C‑ 573/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:530. 
Cf. Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle 
of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving 
deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p. 
27; Handbook on the transfer of sentenced persons and custodial sentences in the European Union,  OJ C 
403, 29.11.2019, p. 2: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XC1129(01)&from=EN, p. 34. 
79  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  17  July  2008,  Kozłowski,  C-66/08,  ECLI:EU:C:2008:437, 
paragraphs 46 and 54. 
80  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  June  2017,  Popławski,  C-579/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:503, 
paragraph 21. 
81  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  5  September  2012,  Lopes  da  Silva  Jorge,  C-42/11, 
ECLI:EU:C:2012:517, paragraphs 52 and 59. 
82 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2009, Wolzenburg, C-123/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:616, 
paragraph 74. 
83 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 October 2009,  Wolzenburg, C-123/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:616, 
paragraph 53. 

17 

 
                                                 
A  few  Member  States  have  not  transposed  the  ground  under  paragraph (a).  More  than 
half  of  the  Member  States  transposed  the  ground  under  paragraph (a)  as  an  optional 
ground  for  non-execution.  Moreover,  some  of  those  Member  States  have  not  explicitly 
transposed “in whole or in part” and/or “place treated as such”.  

A small number of Member States have not transposed the ground under paragraph (b). 
More than half of the Member States transposed this provision as an optional ground for 
non-execution. 

  Trials in absentia (Article 4a) 

Article 4a  provides  for  an  optional  ground  for  non-execution  for  situations  where  an 
executing judicial authority has received a European arrest warrant concerning execution 
of  a  custodial  sentence  or  a  detention  order  arising  from  proceedings  in  the  issuing 
Member  State  where  the  person  was  not  present84  (a  decision  rendered  in  absentia). 
However,  this  option  is  accompanied  by  four  exceptions,  where  an  executing  judicial 
authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant based on a decision rendered 
in absentia85.  

Half  of  the  Member  States  transposed  Article 4a  as  a  mandatory  ground  for  non-
execution  and  the  other  half  transposed  it  as  an  optional  ground.  Concerning  the  four 
exceptions, the relevant provisions could not be identified in several Member States. In 
some  Member  States,  which  transposed  the  four  exceptions,  the  minimum  procedural 
standards defined in these exceptions have not been explicitly transposed. These include 
autonomous concepts of EU law, concerning in particular “being summoned in person”, 
“actually received official information” or “being aware of the scheduled trial”86. 

3.9.  Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State (Article 5) 

Article 5  provides  that  the  execution  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  by  the  executing 
judicial  authority  may,  by  its  national  law,  be  subject  to  certain  conditions,  which  are 
exhaustively laid down in Article 587. Those conditions may relate to the review of life-
term imprisonment or the return of nationals and residents to the executing Member State 
to serve custodial sentences passed against them in the issuing Member State88.  

Over half of the Member States have transposed the option to make the execution of the 
European  arrest  warrant  conditional  on  review  of  a  custodial  life  sentence  or  lifetime 
detention  order.  Moreover,  a  large  majority  of  Member  States  has  transposed  the 
possibility  to  make  the  execution  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  conditional  upon 
returning  nationals  and  residents  after  being  heard  to  the  executing  Member  State  to 

84  Cf.  Judgments  of 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  10  August  2017,  Zdziaszek,  C-271/17  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:629  and  Tupikas,  C-270/17  PPU,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:628  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of 
Justice of 22 December 2017, Ardic, C-571/17 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2017:1026. 
85  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  February  2013,  Melloni,  C-399/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, 
paragraphs 51 and 52. 
86 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 May 2016, Dworzecki, C-108/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:346, 
paragraph 32. 
87  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  26  February  2013,  Melloni,  C-399/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, 
paragraph 38; judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C-404/15 and C-
659/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 80 and  judgment of the  Court of Justice  of 16 July 2015, 
Lanigan, C-237/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:474, paragraph 36. 
88 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 2020, SF, C-314/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:191. 

18 

 
                                                 
serve  the  custodial  sentence  or  detention  order  passed  against  them  in  the  issuing 
Member  State.  Transposition  has  been  only  partial  in  some  Member  States,  since  they 
have  not  set  out  clearly  that  the  person  must  be  returned  after  being  heard.  Moreover, 
some Member States are giving preferential treatment to their own nationals. 

3.10.  Procedural  rights  of  the  requested  person  (Articles  11,  13(2),  14  and 

23(5)) 

The  Framework  Decision  grants  the  requested  person  several  procedural  rights.  In 
accordance  with  Article 11  the  requested  person  has  the  right  to  be  informed  of  the 
European arrest warrant and its contents, the possibility of consenting to surrender, and 
has  the  right  to  be  assisted  by  a  legal  counsel  and  an  interpreter.  These  rights  must  be 
provided in accordance with the national law of the executing Member State. Moreover, 
the  directives  on  minimum  procedural  rights  have  supplemented  and  strengthened  the 
rights provided in the Framework Decision89. 

All  Member  States  have  transposed  Article 11.  However,  in  a  few  Member  States  the 
requirements  were  only  partially  transposed  or  not  all  the  relevant  elements  could  be 
identified (e.g. no explicit provisions requiring that the requested person be informed of 
the  possibility  to  consent  to  surrender,  or  the  requested  person  is  informed  only  on 
entering a detention facility).  

In  addition,  various  provisions  of  the  Framework  Decision  grant  the  requested  person 
minimum procedural rights, in particular:  

  Article 13(2)  requires Member States  to  adopt  the measures  necessary to  ensure 
that the consent to surrender and renunciation of the entitlement to the speciality 
rule (referred to in Article 27(2)) are established in such a way as to show that the 
person  concerned  has  expressed  them  voluntarily  and  in  full  awareness  of  the 
consequences  before  the  executing  authority.  To  that  end,  the  requested  person 
must  have  the  right  to  a  legal  counsel.  All  Member  States  transposed 
Article 13(2).  However,  the  elements  of  voluntariness  and  full  awareness  of  the 
consequences could not be identified in the national legislation of some Member 
States.  Similar  issues  were  detected  in  some  Member  States  with  regard  to 
renunciation of entitlement to the speciality rule in the issuing Member State after 
a surrender (Article 27(3)(f)). 

  Article 14  provides  that  where  the  arrested  person  does  not  consent  to  his/her 
surrender,  he/she  is  entitled  to  be  heard  by  the  executing  judicial  authority,  in 
accordance  with  the  law  of  the  executing  Member  State90.  Nearly  all  Member 
States correctly transposed Article 14.  

  Article 23(5) provides that on expiry of the time limits for surrender the requested 
person  must  be 
transposed 
Article 23(5). However, one Member State includes the explicit possibility for the 

released91.  Most  Member  States  correctly 

89  Cf.  1.1.  p.  1  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  12  December  2019,  XD,  C-625/19  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2019:1078, paragraph 55. 
90  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  29  January  2013,  Radu  C-396/11,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:39, 
paragraphs 41 and 42. 
91  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  25  January  2017,  Vilkas,  C-640/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2017:39, 
paragraphs 70 to 73. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
executing  authority  to  unilaterally  extend  detention  of  the  requested  person  for 
10 days  prior  to  agreeing  on  a  new  date  and  time  with  the  issuing  authority 
(cf. 3.14.). In a small number of Member States, the relevant provisions could not 
be identified.  

3.11.  Privileges and immunities (Article 20) 

Article 20 of the Framework Decision concerns privileges and immunities on which the 
requested  person  can  rely.  The  provision  was  transposed  in  a  complete  and  conform 
manner by less than a half of the Member States. In others only partial transposition was 
noted (e.g. privileges have not been explicitly addressed) or the relevant provisions could 
not be identified (e.g. the procedure to request waiving of privileges or immunities). 

3.12.  Consent to surrender, rule of speciality and its renunciation (Articles 13 

and 27)  

In general, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived 
of his  or her liberty  for  an offence committed prior to  the surrender other than that  for 
which the person was surrendered. This is the rule of speciality, set out in Article 27 of 
the Framework Decision92.  

The  Framework  Decision  gives  a  possibility  to  Member  States  to  notify  that,  in  their 
relations with other Member States that have given the same notification, they renounce 
the  rule  of  speciality,  unless  in  a  particular  case  the  executing  judicial  authority  states 
otherwise  in  its  decision  on  surrender.  According  to  the  information  available  to  the 
Commission, only three Member States have given such notifications.  

Moreover, Article 27(3) provides for several exceptions to the rule of speciality, one of 
them being a renunciation to the rule of speciality by the requested person, in accordance 
with Article 13. 

The  requested  person  has  a  possibility  to  consent  to  surrender  under  Article 13.  If  the 
arrested  person  indicates  that  he  or  she  consents  to  surrender,  that  consent  and,  if 
appropriate,  express  renunciation  of  entitlement  to  the  rule  of  speciality  must  be  given 
before  the  executing  judicial  authority,  in  accordance  with  the  domestic  law  of  the 
executing Member State. Most Member States transposed Article 13 correctly. However, 
in  a  small  number  of  Member  States  the  requested  person  automatically  loses  the 
protection  of  the  rule  of  speciality  in  situations  where  he  or  she  has  consented  to  be 
surrendered.  Consequently,  the  requested  person  no  longer  has  a  say  in  waiving 
protection by the rule of speciality.  In some Member States, the transposing provisions 
could  not  be  identified,  or  transposition  is  only  partial  by  not  explicitly  providing  for 
renunciation of entitlement to the rule of speciality.  

A few Member States have applied the possibility for the person to revoke both consent 
and  renunciation.  A  small  number  of  Member  States  have  applied  only  the  option  to 

92  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  December  2008,  Leymann  and  Pustovarov,  C-388/08  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2008:669  and  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  6  December  2018,  IK,  C-551/18  PPU, 
ECLI:EU:C:2018:991, paragraphs 59 to 61. 

20 

 
                                                 
revoke  the  consent.  In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  consent  to  surrender  and 
renunciation cannot be revoked.  

In  this  context,  in  some  Member  States,  an  appeal  against  a  decision  to  surrender  a 
requested person is possible, even when a person consents to surrender.  

3.13.  Time  frame  and  procedures  for  the  decision  to  execute  the  European 

arrest warrant (Articles 15(1) and 17) 

The decision on surrender must in principle be taken within strict time limits, as specified 
in  the  Framework  Decision  (Article  15(1))93.  Notwithstanding  these  time  limits,  all 
European  arrest  warrants  must  be  dealt  with  and  executed  as  a  matter  of  urgency 
(Article 17(1)).  However,  not  all  Member  States  have  explicitly  transposed  this 
requirement.  

If  the  requested  person  consents  to  his  or  her  surrender,  the  final  decision  on  the 
execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after 
consent  has  been  given  (Article 17(2)).  The  majority  of  Member  States  have  correctly 
transposed this provision; in two Member States, the transposing provisions could not be 
identified.   

If the requested person does not consent to his or her surrender, the final decision on 
the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days 
after the arrest of the requested person (Article 17(3)). A large majority of Member States 
have correctly transposed this provision. One Member State has not transposed the time 
limit  of  60  days.  Moreover,  a  few  Member  States  provide  alternatively  that  the  60 day 
time limit starts either on the day of the arrest or from the day of the first interrogation. 

A  few  Member  States  have  transposed  the  10  and/or  60 day  time  limits  as  non-
mandatory.  

Exceptionally, where in a specific case the European arrest warrant  cannot be executed 
within the applicable time limits, they may be extended by a further 30 days. In that case, 
the  executing  judicial  authority  must  immediately  inform  the  issuing  judicial  authority 
and give the reasons for the delay (Article 17(4)).  

Less  than  half  of  the  Member  States  transposed  this  provision  completely.  Most 
transposed  it  only  partially  (e.g.  the  immediate  nature  of  notification  is  not  expressly 
reflected;  the  reasons  for  the  delay  are  not  required  to  be  provided;  there  is  only  a 
reference  to  the  time  limit  under  Article 17(3),  with  the  time  limit  of  10 days  in 
Article 17(2) not covered). In a small number of Member States the relevant provisions 
could not be identified. 

Moreover, the problems meeting the time limits specified in the Framework Decision in 
some Member States seem to stem also from lengthy appeal proceedings94. The relevant 
provisions concerning the length of the appeal proceedings could not be identified for all 
Member States. Some Member States do, however, provide strict time limits for appeal 
proceedings. 

93  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  30  May  2013,  Jeremy  F,  C-168/13,  ECLI:EU:C:2013:358, 
paragraph  62  and 
the  Court  of  Justice  of  16  July  2015,  Lanigan,  C-237/15, 
ECLI:EU:C:2015:474, paragraphs 32 and 33. 
94 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 May 2013, Jeremy F, C-168/13, ECLI:EU:C:2013:358. 

judgment  of 

21 

 
                                                 
As long as the executing judicial authority has not taken a final decision on the European 
arrest  warrant,  it  must  ensure  that  the  material  conditions  necessary  for  effective 
surrender  of  the  person  remain  fulfilled  (Article  17(5))95.  A  significant  number  of 
Member States correctly transposed Article 17(5). However, one provides a general and 
unconditional  obligation  to  release  a  requested  person  arrested  pursuant  to  a  European 
arrest warrant as soon as a period of 90 days from that person’s arrest has elapsed96. 

Article 17(7) provides that,  where in  exceptional  circumstances a Member State cannot 
observe the applicable time limits, it must inform Eurojust97, giving the reasons for the 
delay. In addition, a Member State which has experienced repeated delays on the part of 
another Member State in executing of European arrest warrants must inform the Council 
with a view to evaluating the implementation of the Framework Decision. In over half of 
the Member States the transposition is complete and conform. Other Member States only 
partially transposed Article 17(7) (e.g. by only referring to the time limit of 60 days, or 
by not imposing an obligation to inform Eurojust). 

3.14.  Time limits for surrender of the person (Article 23(1) to (4)) 

The time limit for surrendering the requested person starts to  run immediately after  the 
final  decision  on  the  execution  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  is  taken.  The  authorities 
concerned  should  arrange  and  agree  on  the  person’s  surrender  as  soon  as  possible 
(Article 23(1)). In any event, the surrender must take place no later than 10 days after the 
final  decision  on  the  execution  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  (Article 23(2)). 
Article 23(3) and (4) address respectively extensions of the time limits in cases when the 
surrender of the requested person within the 10 day period is prevented by circumstances 
beyond  the  control  of  any  of  the  Member  States98  or  in  cases  of  serious  humanitarian 
reasons. 

The timeframe for surrender has generally been transposed in an overall conform manner 
by some Member States only. In most Member States the main elements of Article 23(1) 
to  (4)  were  not  transposed  (e.g.  the  urgency,  the  mandatory  time  limits  and  their 
calculation; only referring to the circumstances in the issuing Member State; too narrow 
or too broad definition of “serious humanitarian reasons”). 

4.  CONCLUSION 

While  recognising  the  efforts  made  by  Member  States  to  date,  the  level  of 
implementation  of  the  Framework  Decision  is  still  not  satisfactory  in  some  Member 
States. This assessment, the statistics on the European arrest warrant and a comparative 
analysis with previous reports all indicate that certain Member States have not addressed 
some  of  the  previous  Commission’s  recommendations  and  those  stemming  from  the 
4th round of mutual evaluations. Moreover, it appears that some Member States have not 
yet implemented certain judgments of the Court of Justice.  

95  Cf.  Judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  16  July  2015,  Lanigan,  C-237/15,  ECLI:EU:C:2015:474, 
paragraph 58 to 61. 
96 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2019, TC, C-492/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:10.8 
97 In practice the reporting rate is rather low.  
Cf. Statistics on the European arrest warrant:  
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-90-en.do. 
98 Cf. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C-640/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:39. 

22 

 
                                                 
The  incomplete  and/or  incorrect  transposition  of  the  Framework  Decision  hampers  the 
application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  in  criminal  justice  matters.  The 
objective  of  developing  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  for  all  EU  citizens,  as 
laid down in Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union, cannot be achieved if Member 
States do not properly implement the instruments they all agreed on.  

The Commission will continue to assess individual Member States’ compliance with the 
Framework  Decision.  Unless  remedied,  the  Commission  will  take  the  appropriate 
measures  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  Framework  Decision  throughout  the  EU, 
including, where necessary, initiating infringement proceedings under Article 258 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

23