Case C‑305/22
C.J.
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București)
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 September 2025
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence – Article 4(6) – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Conditions for an executing Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the execution of that sentence – Article 3(2) – Concept of ‘finally judged … in respect of the same acts’ – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters for the purpose of their enforcement in another Member State – Article 25 – Compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the framework decision in the event that a Member State undertakes to enforce a sentence handed down by a judgment delivered by an issuing State – Requirement of consent on the part of the issuing State as regards another Member State’s assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of such a sentence – Article 4 – Possibility for the issuing State to forward the judgment and certificate referred to in that article to the executing State – Consequences where forwarding does not take place – Principle of sincere cooperation – Article 22 – Right of the issuing State to enforce that sentence – Maintenance of the European arrest warrant – Obligation on the part of the executing judicial authority to enforce a European arrest warrant )
1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence or detention order – Requested person staying in, or a resident of the executing Member State within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 – Conditions for non-execution of the arrest warrant – Undertaking on the part of the executing Member State to enforce the sentence – Compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909 – Scope – Requirement of consent on the part of the issuing State – Discretion of that State
(Council Framework Decisions 2002/584, Art. 1(2), Arts 4(6) and 5(3), and 2008/909, recitals 8 and 12 and Arts 4, 13 and 25 and Annex I)
(see paragraphs 47, 49-52, 57, 59, 61-67, 72, 87, operative part 1)
2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence or detention order – Requested person staying in, or a resident of the executing Member State within the meaning of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 – Refusal to execute the arrest warrant in breach of the conditions and procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909 – Effects of the refusal decision – Right of the issuing Member State to maintain the arrest warrant and enforce the sentence – Conditions
(Council Framework Decisions 2002/584, Arts 4(6) and 26(1), and 2008/909, Art. 4(22) and (25))
(see paragraphs 75-82, 85-87, operative part 1)
3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant – Requested person who has been finally judged in respect of the same acts – Final judgment in respect of the same acts – Concept – Decision refusing to surrender a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence, recognising the sentencing judgment and ordering that that sentence be enforced in the executing State – Precluded
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Arts 3(2) and 4(6))
(see paragraphs 92-98, operative part 2)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Court of Appeal, Bucharest, Romania), the Court, sitting as the Grand Chamber, rules on the relationship between Framework Decisions 2002/584 (1) and 2008/909, (2) where the enforcement of a custodial sentence following a European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) in the executing State has been decided unilaterally by that State, despite the express disagreement of the issuing State.
On 25 November 2020, an EAW was issued by the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, against C.J. for the purpose of enforcing a prison sentence. In December 2020, C.J. was arrested in Italy. At the request of the Italian authorities, the issuing judicial authority forwarded the sentencing judgment to those authorities, but opposed the recognition of that judgment and the assumption of responsibility, in Italy, for enforcement of the sentence.
By judgment of 6 May 2021, the Corte d’appello di Roma (Court of Appeal, Rome, Italy) refused, on the basis of the ground of optional non-execution laid down in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to surrender C.J., recognised the sentencing judgment and ordered that the sentence be enforced in Italy. That court held that the enforcement of the sentence in Italy would promote the social rehabilitation of C.J., who was lawfully and permanently resident in that State.
After receiving the arrest warrant specifying the form of enforcement of the sentence in Italy, the Romanian judicial authorities stated, in a letter addressed to the Italian judicial authorities, that, as long as they were not informed of the commencement of the enforcement of the sentence in Italy, they would retain their right to execute the sentence in Romania. They also stated that the EAW issued against C.J. had not been annulled and remained in force.
On 15 October 2021, the Office for Enforcement of the Second Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, raised an objection to enforcement in respect of the sentencing judgment before the referring court.
In that context, the referring court, called upon to rule inter alia on the validity of the EAW, decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning, in essence, first, the legal consequences of a refusal, based on Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to surrender a requested person in the event of non-compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909 by the executing State and, second, the legal classification of such a refusal decision.
Findings of the Court
First, the Court examines the relationship between Framework Decision 2002/584 and Framework Decision 2008/909. In that regard, those two framework decisions give concrete expression, in criminal matters, to the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition. However, there is nothing to indicate that the EU legislature intended to provide for two separate legal systems as regards the recognition and enforcement of judgments in criminal matters, according to whether or not an EAW exists. As regards, more particularly, the effect of Framework Decision 2008/909 on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, in view of the identical nature of the objective pursued, first, by that ground and, second, by the rules laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909, namely that of facilitating the social rehabilitation of persons sentenced in another Member State, where a judicial authority of the executing State wishes to apply that ground, it must take account of those rules.
Thus, the Court finds that, in order to observe the effectiveness of the system of surrender between the Member States established by Framework Decision 2002/584, the recognition of the sentencing judgment and the assumption of responsibility for enforcing the sentence must take place in accordance with the conditions and the procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909. In that regard, the issuing State must inter alia consent to the executing State’s assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of the sentence. That consent takes the form of the forwarding to the executing State, in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 4 of that framework decision, of the sentencing judgment, together with the certificate, the specimen of which is set out in Annex I to that framework decision. Therefore, where the issuing State considers, on the basis of objective circumstances, that the sentence will not actually be enforced in the executing State or that enforcement of that sentence in that State will not contribute to the objective of social rehabilitation of the requested person upon expiry of the custodial sentence imposed on him or her, it may refuse to forward the sentencing judgment and the accompanying certificate. The same applies where the issuing State considers, on the basis of criminal policy considerations, that the enforcement of the sentence imposed on its territory is justified. However, the issuing State must ensure that the prerogative conferred on it by Framework Decision 2008/909 to refuse such forwarding is exercised in such a way as to enable effective cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States in criminal matters and which ensures that the operation of the EAW and the mutual recognition of judgments for the purposes of their enforcement in another Member State are not brought to a standstill. Furthermore, the issuing and executing judicial authorities must make full use of the instruments provided for in Framework Decisions 2002/584 and 2008/909, in order to foster the mutual trust on which that cooperation is based.
In those circumstances, where it is not possible for the executing State actually to assume responsibility for enforcing the sentence, including on account of non-compliance with the conditions and procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909, an EAW must be executed, in order to prevent the impunity of the requested person. The execution of an EAW constitutes the rule, while refusal to execute that warrant is an exception which must be interpreted strictly.
Consequently, where the executing judicial authority has refused, on the basis of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to execute an EAW, in breach of the conditions and procedure laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909 as regards recognition of a sentencing judgment and the assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of that sentence, the issuing State retains the right to enforce that sentence and therefore to maintain the EAW. (3) A contrary interpretation would open the door to circumvention of the rules laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909 and would undermine the operation of the simplified and effective system for the surrender of requested persons established by Framework Decision 2002/584. It is, however, for the issuing judicial authority to examine whether, in the light of the specific features of the case, that retention, which is liable to affect the personal freedom of the requested person, is proportionate. Such an examination would then have to take into account the consequences for that person of the maintenance of the EAW and the prospects for its execution.
Secondly, the Court finds that a decision by which the executing judicial authority has refused, on the basis of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, recognised the sentencing judgment imposing that sentence and ordered the enforcement of that sentence in the executing State cannot be regarded as being covered by the concept of ‘finally judged … in respect of the same acts’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of that framework decision. The examination carried out in the context of such a decision does not entail the initiation of criminal proceedings against the sentenced person and does not involve an assessment of the merits of the case, since such a decision is intended solely to enable the sentence handed down in the issuing State to be enforced in the executing State.