Case C-318/24 PPU, Breian: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov – Romania) – Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against P.P.R. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender of requested persons to issuing judicial authorities – Respect for fundamental rights – Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary of the issuing Member State – Deficiencies concerning the absence of proof of the taking of an oath by judges – Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment – Detention conditions in the issuing Member State – Assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authority – Refusal by the executing judicial authority to execute the European arrest warrant – Effects of that refusal for the executing judicial authority of another Member State)
Date: 2024-07-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European arrest warrant, appointment of members, case-law (EU), detention before trial, independence of the judiciary, interpretation of the law, judge, right to an effective remedy, right to justice, ruling








C_202405779EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/5779


7.10.2024






Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 July 2024 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Braşov – Romania) – Execution of the European arrest warrant issued against P.P.R.


(Case C-318/24 PPU,
                (1)
Breian)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Surrender of requested persons to issuing judicial authorities - Respect for fundamental rights - Systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary of the issuing Member State - Deficiencies concerning the absence of proof of the taking of an oath by judges - Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment - Detention conditions in the issuing Member State - Assessment undertaken by the executing judicial authority - Refusal by the executing judicial authority to execute the European arrest warrant - Effects of that refusal for the executing judicial authority of another Member State)
(C/2024/5779)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Braşov

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: P.P.R.

Other parties: Parchetul de pe lângă Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie – Direcţia Naţională Anticorupţie – Serviciul Teritorial Braşov

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Article 1(3) and Article 15(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,
must be interpreted as meaning that the executing authority of a Member State is not obliged to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant where the executing authority of another Member State has previously refused to execute that arrest warrant on the ground that the surrender of the person concerned may infringe the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Nevertheless, within the framework of its own examination of the existence of a ground for non-execution, that authority must give due consideration to the reasons underlying the refusal decision adopted by the first executing authority. Those provisions do not preclude, in the same circumstances, the issuing judicial authority from maintaining the European arrest warrant in question, provided that, according to its own assessment, execution of that arrest warrant should not be refused on the ground of a risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that it is proportionate to maintain that warrant.










2.


Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,
must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued claims that his or her surrender to the issuing Member State would result in an infringement of his or her right to a fair trial, the existence of a decision of the Interpol Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) concerning that person’s situation cannot, in itself, justify a refusal by the executing judicial authority to execute that arrest warrant. However, such a decision may be taken into account by that judicial authority in order to decide whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute that arrest warrant.










3.


Article 267 TFEU
must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority issuing a European arrest warrant is not obliged to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court before deciding, in the light of the grounds on the basis of which the executing judicial authority refused to execute that arrest warrant, whether to withdraw or maintain that warrant, unless there is no judicial remedy under national law against the decision it will be called upon to make, in which case it is, in principle, obliged to make a reference to the Court.










4.


Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,
must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority executing a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence cannot refuse to execute that arrest warrant on the ground that the record of the oath taken by one of the judges who imposed that sentence cannot be found, or that another judge of the same formation has taken an oath only as a public prosecutor.










5.


Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,
must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority issuing a European arrest warrant does not have the right to participate, as a party, in the proceedings for the execution of that arrest warrant before the executing judicial authority.










6.


Article 1(3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of mutual trust,
must be interpreted as meaning that when examining detention conditions in the issuing Member State, the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of information concerning the detention conditions in prisons in the issuing Member State which it has obtained itself, and in respect of which it has not requested supplementary information from the issuing judicial authority. The executing judicial authority cannot apply a higher standard as regards detention conditions than that guaranteed by Article 4 of the Charter.






(1)  OJ C C/2024/4048.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5779/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)