CELEX: 62020CA0354
Language: en
Date: 2020-12-17 00:00:00
Title: Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 1(3) — Article 6(1) — Surrender procedures between Member States — Conditions for execution — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 47 — Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal — Systemic or generalised deficiencies — Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ — Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued — Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered)

22.2.2021   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 62/10
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 17 December 2020 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of European arrest warrants issued in respect of L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)
      (Joined Cases C-354/20 PPU and C 412/20 PPU) (1)
      
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 1(3) - Article 6(1) - Surrender procedures between Member States - Conditions for execution - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 47 - Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal - Systemic or generalised deficiencies - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Taking into consideration of developments after the European arrest warrant concerned has been issued - Obligation of the executing judicial authority to determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person concerned will run a real risk of breach of his or her right to a fair trial if he or she is surrendered)
      (2021/C 62/10)
      Language of the case: Dutch
      
         Referring court
      
      Rechtbank Amsterdam
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      L (C-354/20 PPU), P (C-412/20 PPU)
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, which is called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued is to be surrendered, has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the Member State that issues that arrest warrant which existed at the time of issue of that warrant or which arose after that issue, that authority cannot deny the status of ‘issuing judicial authority’ to the court which issued that arrest warrant and cannot presume that there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will, if he or she is surrendered to that Member State, run a real risk of breach of his or her fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, without carrying out a specific and precise verification which takes account of, inter alia, his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence in question and the factual context in which that warrant was issued, such as statements by public authorities which are liable to interfere with how an individual case is handled.
      
         (1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2020.
      
         OJ C 378, 9.11.2020.