Dawid Piotrowski.
Date: 2018-01-23
40


In that regard, the Court has consistently held that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see, inter alia, judgments of 11 January 2017, Grundza, C‑289/15, EU:C:2017:4, paragraph 32, and of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39, paragraph 30).
46


As regards the context and overall scheme of Article 3(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, it should be noted that, as is apparent in particular from Article 1(1) and (2) and recitals 5 and 7 thereof, the purpose of the framework decision is to replace the multilateral system of extradition based on the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 with a system of surrender, as between judicial authorities, of convicted or suspected persons for the purpose of enforcing judgments or of conducting prosecutions, the system of surrender being based on the principle of mutual recognition (judgments of 16 November 2010, Mantello, C‑261/09, EU:C:2010:683, paragraph 35; of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 75; and of 10 November 2016, Kovalkovas, C‑477/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:861, paragraph 25).
47


Accordingly, in the area governed by Framework Decision 2002/584, the principle of mutual recognition, which constitutes, as is stated in particular in recital 6 thereof, the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, is given effect in Article 1(2) of that decision, pursuant to which Member States are, in principle, obliged to give effect to a European arrest warrant (judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).
48


It follows that executing judicial authorities may, in principle, refuse to execute such a warrant only in the cases of obligatory non-execution, laid down in Article 3 of Framework Decision 2002/584, or of optional non-execution, laid down in Articles 4 and 4a of that decision. Accordingly, while the execution of the European arrest warrant constitutes the rule, the refusal to execute such a warrant is intended to be an exception which must be interpreted strictly (see, to that effect, judgments of 29 June 2017, Popławski, C‑579/15, EU:C:2017:503, paragraph 19, and of 10 August 2017, Tupikas, C‑270/17 PPU, EU:C:2017:628, paragraphs 50 and 51).
49


Admittedly, the Court has previously accepted that exceptions may be made to the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust between Member States in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, as is apparent from Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, that decision cannot have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights, as enshrined in, inter alia, the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraphs 82 and 83), and, in the present case, in particular, in Article 24 of the Charter, concerning the rights of children, which Member States are required to observe when implementing the framework decision.
50


Nevertheless, in so far as proceedings relating to a European arrest warrant are concerned, observance of those rights falls primarily within the responsibility of the issuing Member State, which must be presumed to be complying with EU law, in particular the fundamental rights conferred by that law (see, to that effect, Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 191 and the case-law cited).
52


Second, such a determination may cover matters which are, as in the main proceedings, subjective, such as the individual characteristics of the minor concerned and of his family and associates, and his level of maturity, or objective, such as reoffending or whether youth protection measures have previously been adopted, which would in fact amount to a substantive re-examination of the analysis previously conducted in connection with the judicial decision adopted in the issuing Member State, which forms the basis of the European arrest warrant. As the Advocate General observed in point 56 of his Opinion, such a re-examination would infringe and render ineffective the principle of mutual recognition, which implies that there is mutual trust as to the fact that each Member State accepts the application of the criminal law in force in the other Member States, even though the implementation of its own national law might produce a different outcome, and does not therefore allow the executing judicial authority to substitute its own assessment of the criminal responsibility of the minor who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for that previously carried out in the issuing Member State in connection with the judicial decision on which the warrant is based.
53


Moreover, such a possibility would be incompatible with the objective of facilitating and accelerating judicial cooperation pursued by Framework Decision 2002/584 (see, to that effect, judgments of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198, paragraph 76, and of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39, paragraph 31).
54


It is common ground that that framework decision established a simplified and more efficient system for the surrender of persons who have been convicted or are suspected of having infringed criminal law (see, to that effect, judgments of 28 June 2012, West, C‑192/12 PPU, EU:C:2012:404, paragraph 53, and of 16 July 2015, Lanigan, C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, paragraph 40), which makes it possible to remove, as stated in recital 5 of the framework decision, the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the extradition procedures that existed before the adoption of that decision (judgment of 30 May 2013, F, C‑168/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:358, paragraph 57).
55


That objective underlies, inter alia, the treatment of the time limits for adopting decisions relating to a European arrest warrant (judgment of 30 May 2013, F, C‑168/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:358, paragraph 58), with which Member States are required to comply (judgment of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited) and the importance of which is stated in a number of provisions of Framework Decision 2002/584 (judgment of 16 July 2015, Lanigan, C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
56


As regards, in particular, the adoption of the decision on the execution of a European arrest warrant, Article 17(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 provides that such a warrant is to be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency. Article 17(2) and (3) prescribes precise time limits of 10 and 60 days respectively for taking the final decision on the execution of the warrant, depending on whether or not the requested person consents to his surrender. Only in specific cases in which the European arrest warrant cannot be executed within those time limits does Article 17(4) of the framework decision allow them to be extended by a further 30 days, the executing judicial authority being obliged immediately to inform the issuing judicial authority, giving the reasons for the delay. Outside such specific cases, only exceptional circumstances can allow a Member State, in accordance with Article 17(7) of the framework decision, not to observe those time limits, that Member State similarly having to inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay.
57


In order to simplify and accelerate the surrender procedure in accordance within the time limits laid down by Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584, the annex to the decision provides a specific form which the issuing judicial authorities are required to complete, furnishing the specific information requested.
58


According to Article 8 of Framework Decision 2002/584, that information relates, inter alia, to the identity and nationality of the requested person, evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2 of the framework decision, 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, the penalty imposed or the prescribed scale of penalties for the offence under the law of the issuing Member State and, if possible, any other consequences of the offence.
59


It is thus clear that the purpose of that information is to provide the minimum official information required to enable the executing judicial authorities to give effect to the European arrest warrant swiftly by adopting their decision on the surrender as a matter of urgency. The form provided in the Annex to Framework Decision 2002/584 does not contain any specific information that would enable the executing judicial authorities to assess, where appropriate, the specific circumstances of the minor concerned by reference to objective or subjective conditions, such as those referred to in Article 57bis(1) and (2) of the Law on youth protection, to which the possibility of prosecuting or convicting a minor is specifically subject under the criminal law of their Member State.
60


It is true, as stated by the Italian and Romanian Governments in their written observations, that if the executing judicial authorities find that the information disclosed by the issuing Member State is insufficient to enable them to adopt a decision on surrender, the option is available to them under Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584 to request that the necessary supplementary information be furnished as a matter of urgency in order to obtain other evidence produced before the issuing judicial authority.
61


However, it should be noted that recourse may be had to that option only as a last resort in exceptional cases in which the executing judicial authority considers that it does not have the official evidence necessary to adopt a decision on surrender as a matter of urgency. Accordingly, the practice whereby a Member State assesses the specific circumstances of a minor who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued by an authority in another Member State could oblige the executing judicial authority automatically to seek additional information from the issuing judicial authority in order to satisfy itself that the additional conditions relating to an assessment, based on the circumstances of the individual, for determining whether a minor may in fact be prosecuted or convicted in the executing Member State have been met, which would deprive the objective of simplifying and ensuring a swift surrender procedure of any practical effect.