Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)

12 February 2026 (*)

( 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 conducting a criminal prosecution – Execution of the European arrest warrant – Article 4(7)(a) – Grounds for optional non-execution – Offences which have been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the Member State of enforcement – Risk of impunity )

In Case C‑712/25 PPU [Rastoshev], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Apelativen sad – Sofia (Court of Appeal, Sofia, Bulgaria), made by decision of 11 November 2025, received at the Court on 11 November 2025, in the criminal proceedings against

XM,

other party:

Sofiyska apelativna prokuratura,

THE COURT (Fourth Chamber),

composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Chamber, M. Condinanzi (Rapporteur), N. Jääskinen, R. Frendo and A. Kornezov, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,

Registrar: R. Stefanova-Kamisheva, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 13 January 2026,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        XM, by N. H. Baydakov and P. K. Penevilova, advokati,

–        the French Government, by B. Dourthe and M. Guiresse, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by H. Leupold, J. Vondung and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 2 February 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(7)(a) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1, and corrigendum, OJ 2006 L 279, p. 30), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings relating to the execution, in Bulgaria, of a European arrest warrant issued by the French judicial authorities against XM, a Bulgarian national, and his surrender, for the purposes of criminal prosecution against him.

 Legal context

 European Union law

3        Recital 6 of Framework Decision 2002/584 states:

‘The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation.’

4        Article 1 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides:

‘1.      The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision 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.

2.      Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

…’

5        Article 3 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for mandatory non‑execution of the European arrest warrant’, provides:

‘The judicial authority of the Member State of execution (hereinafter “executing judicial authority”) shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases:

…’

6        Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional non‑execution of the European arrest warrant’, is worded as follows:

‘The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:

…

7.      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

…’

 Bulgarian law

7        The Zakon za ekstraditsiata i evropeiskata zapoved za arest (Law on extradition and the European arrest warrant) of 3 June 2005 (DV No 46/05), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the ZEEZA’), transposes Framework Decision 2002/584 into Bulgarian law.

8        Article 40 of the ZEEZA, entitled ‘Grounds for refusal to execute a European arrest warrant’, provides, in paragraph 1(5):

‘(1)      The provincial court may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant where:

…

5.      the offence has been committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria …’

9        Article 44(7) and (12) of the ZEEZA reads as follows:

‘7.      The court shall immediately deliver a judgment on the surrender of the requested person or on the refusal to execute the European arrest warrant. In all cases in which the Court authorises the execution of a European arrest warrant, it shall order as a coercive measure that the requested person be remanded in custody until such time as he or she is actually surrendered to the issuing state.

…

12.      The judgment of the provincial court is subject to appeal before the relevant court of appeal, whose decision shall be final.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

10      On 18 September 2025, the Vice-President responsible for investigation at the tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (Court of Marseille, France) issued a European arrest warrant against XM for the purpose of initiating criminal prosecutions against him and obtaining his surrender for six offences which he committed, namely: (i) organised fraud; (ii) active corruption consisting in an offer of an advantage made to a participant in a sports competition giving rise to betting activities for the purpose of altering the normal and fair course of the event; (iii) handling of the proceeds of crime as part of a criminal organisation; (iv) aggravated money laundering consisting in aiding and abetting, as part of a criminal organisation, in unlawfully hiding the source of assets or income of the perpetrator of a criminal offence; (v) aggravated money laundering consisting in participation in a criminal organisation carrying out an operation to invest, conceal or convert the proceeds of crime; and (vi) participation in a criminal organisation for the purposes of crime preparation.

11      Those offences were committed between 2018 and 2024, as part of a system aimed at rigging tennis matches in the territory of several States, including the French Republic and the Republic of Bulgaria.

12      By decision of 20 October 2025, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), ruling at first instance, ordered the execution of that European arrest warrant and placed XM in pre-trial detention until his actual surrender to the French authorities.

13      XM brought an appeal against that decision before the Apelativen sad – Sofia (Court of Appeal, Sofia, Bulgaria), the referring court, arguing that the execution of that European arrest warrant should be refused on the ground that the alleged offences were committed, in part, on Bulgarian territory. Thus, XM should be prosecuted under the Bulgarian Criminal Code, which applies to all offences committed in the national territory and to acts committed abroad by Bulgarian nationals.

14      That appeal does not have suspensory effect on the pre-trial detention of XM, who remains deprived of his liberty. In addition, it is apparent from the documents submitted to the Court that, on the date on which the request for a preliminary ruling was made, the Bulgarian judicial authorities had not yet initiated criminal prosecutions against XM for those offences.

15      The referring court points out that there are, in essence, two divergent lines of case-law in Bulgaria on the question whether the fact that the offence giving rise to a European arrest warrant was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria constitutes, in itself, a ground for refusing the execution of that European arrest warrant.

16      According to the first line of case-law such a scenario cannot, in itself, justify a refusal to execute. It is therefore for the referring court to carry out an overall assessment taking into account, in particular, the cross-border nature of the offences at issue, the absence of criminal prosecution in the executing Member State, the place where the offence concerned was carried out and where the damage was suffered by the victims, as well as the objective of ensuring the effectiveness of criminal investigation and of avoiding the risk of impunity.

17      By contrast, according to the second line of case-law, the fact that the offence in respect of which the European arrest warrant was issued was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria should be regarded as a sufficient ground to refuse the execution, given that the Bulgarian Criminal Code is to apply to all offences committed in the territory of that Member State, with no exceptions, even where there are international legal instruments or treaties ratified by the Republic of Bulgaria.

18      The referring court points out that that inconsistency in the national case-law on the interpretation of the provisions transposing Framework Decision 2002/584 cannot be overcome by a decision of the Varhoven kasatsioinen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria), since the decisions of the courts of appeal in that regard are final, in accordance with Article 44(12) of the ZEEZA.

19      The referring court is therefore of the view that a preliminary ruling by the Court will make it possible to remedy the inconsistency in the case-law which directly affects the effective and correct application of EU law.

20      In those circumstances, the Apelativen sad – Sofia (Court of Appeal of Sofia) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 4(7)(a) of [Framework Decision 2002/584] consistent with the case-law of an executing State according to which the fact that the criminal activity in respect of which the European arrest warrant (EAW) has been issued took place in whole or in part in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria, as executing State, amounts to a sufficient and independent ground for refusing to execute the EAW, in the light of the territorial jurisdiction of the Republic of Bulgaria to bring criminal proceedings in respect of the same offence?’

 The request that the reference be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure

21      The referring court has requested that the case be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

22      It follows from those provisions that the application of that procedure is subject to two cumulative conditions. First, the reference for a preliminary ruling must raise questions of interpretation relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, which is the subject of Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty. Second, the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, as described by the referring court, must be characterised by the existence of a situation of urgency.

23      As regards the first condition, it should be noted that the present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584, which falls within the areas referred to in Title V of Part Three of the TFEU, relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. Accordingly, that request may be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.

24      As regards the second condition, that condition is satisfied, in particular, where the person concerned in the main proceedings is currently deprived of liberty and when his or her continued detention turns on the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings, it being specified that the situation of the person concerned must be assessed as it stood at the time when the request for the application of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure was examined (judgment of 4 September 2025, Adrar, C‑313/25 PPU, EU:C:2025:647, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).

25      In the present case, first, it is apparent from the order for reference that, by its decision of 20 October 2025 authorising the execution of the European arrest warrant issued by the French authorities, the Sofiyiski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) placed XM in pre-trial detention pending his surrender to French authorities. The referring court specifies that the appeal brought against that decision does not have suspensory effect and that XM was, consequently, deprived of liberty on the date of the order for reference.

26      Second, the question posed by the referring court seeks to determine whether Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it would be required to refuse to execute that European arrest warrant on the sole ground that the offence was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the executing Member State. Thus, the continued detention of XM depends on the outcome of the main proceedings.

27      In those circumstances, the Fourth Chamber of the Court, acting on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decided, on 24 November 2025, to grant the referring court’s request that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.

 Consideration of the question referred

28      By its question, the referring court asks in essence whether Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 should be interpreted as precluding case-law of a Member State to the effect that the fact that the offence, for which a European arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the executing Member State is sufficient to refuse to execute that warrant.

29      As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, under that provision, the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant where that warrant relates to offences which 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.

30      It should also be noted that Framework Decision 2002/584 aims, by the establishment of a simplified and effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the attainment of the objective set for the European Union of becoming an area of freedom, security and justice, and has as its basis the high level of trust which must exist between the Member States (judgment of 21 December 2023, GN (Ground for refusal based on the best interests of the child), C‑261/22, EU:C:2023:1017, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

31      In the field governed by Framework Decision 2002/584, the principle of mutual recognition, which, as is apparent in particular from recital 6 of that framework decision, constitutes the ‘cornerstone’ of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, is expressed in Article 1(2) of that framework decision, which lays down the rule that Member States are to execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of that framework decision (see, in particular, judgments of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited, and of 21 December 2023, GN (Ground for refusal based on the best interests of the child), C‑261/22, EU:C:2023:1017, paragraph 36).

32      It follows, first, that the executing judicial authorities may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant only on grounds stemming from Framework Decision 2002/584, as interpreted by the Court. Second, while execution of the European arrest warrant constitutes the rule, refusal to execute is intended to be an exception which must be interpreted strictly (judgment of 21 December 2023, GN (Ground for refusal based on the best interests of the child), C‑261/22, EU:C:2023:1017, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

33      In that regard, Framework Decision 2002/584 explicitly sets out, in Article 3, grounds for mandatory non-execution of a European arrest warrant and, in Articles 4 and 4a, grounds for optional non-execution of such a warrant (judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

34      As regards the grounds for optional non-execution listed in Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that the Member States have discretion when transposing that framework decision. Therefore, they are free to transpose those grounds into their domestic law or not to do so. They may also choose to limit the situations in which the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant, thereby facilitating the surrender of requested persons, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition set out in Article 1(2) of that framework decision (judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

35      Moreover, it should be observed that, according to Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584, the executing judicial authority ‘may refuse’ to execute a European arrest warrant on the grounds listed in points 1 to 7 of that article which include, inter alia, the fact that that warrant concerns offences which 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.

36      It is thus clear from the wording of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584 – in particular from the use of the verb ‘may’ together with the infinitive of the verb ‘refuse’, the subject of which is the executing judicial authority – that that authority must, itself, have a margin of discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant on the grounds referred to in Article 4 (judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

37      It follows that, when they do opt to transpose one or more of the grounds for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584, Member States cannot provide that judicial authorities are required to refuse to execute any European arrest warrant formally falling within the scope of those grounds, without those authorities having the opportunity to take into account the circumstances specific to each case (judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited).

38      That interpretation of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584 is borne out by the context in which Article 4 arises.

39      First, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 32 of the present judgment, the grounds for non-execution of a European arrest warrant must be interpreted strictly. A national provision or piece of case-law which would prevent the executing judicial authority from exercising the power conferred on it by Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584 to assess, with regard to the particular circumstances of each case, whether the conditions to refuse surrender are satisfied, would have the effect of substituting that option with an obligation to refuse surrender, thus transforming the refusal to surrender from an exception into a general rule (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraphs 46 and 47).

40      Second, the Court has already held that it is apparent from a comparison between the wording of Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584, which provides that the executing judicial authority ‘may refuse’, and that of Article 3 thereof which, as its title indicates, sets out the grounds for ‘mandatory non-execution’ on the basis of which the executing judicial authority ‘shall refuse’ to execute a European arrest warrant, that that authority has no discretion under Article 3 of that framework decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 48].

41      That interpretation of Article 4 is also consistent with the objective of Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584, which must be taken into account by the executing judicial authority during its assessment (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 September 2025, C.J. (Enforcement of a sentence further to an EAW), C‑305/22, EU:C:2025:665, paragraph 44) and which belongs, more generally, to the context of the objectives pursued by that framework decision.

42      The EU legislature, while recognising that Member States may prosecute the perpetrators of offences committed in their territory, intended, by providing that that ground for refusal of execution is an optional ground, to allow the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, who is liable to be prosecuted both by the issuing judicial authority and by the executing judicial authority, to be prosecuted by the authority which is in the most appropriate position from the point of view of proper administration of criminal justice.

43      In order to achieve such an objective, the executing judicial authority must have discretion enabling it to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, whether there is objective evidence capable of establishing that it is in such a position and therefore to justify, on the basis of Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the refusal to execute a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and the surrender of the person concerned.

44      Furthermore, the specific objective of that framework decision, which, in accordance with Article 1(1), is to enable the arrest and surrender of a requested person so that the crime committed does not go unpunished and that that person is prosecuted (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 December 2018, IK (Enforcement of an additional sentence), C‑551/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:991, paragraph 39), forms part, more generally, of the objective set out in Article 3(2) TEU, of the prevention and combating of crime within the area of freedom, security and justice, which Framework Decision 2002/584 seeks to implement by avoiding the risk of impunity for persons who have committed an offence. Those objectives would risk being undermined if the executing judicial authority were required, irrespective of the specific circumstances of each case, to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and the surrender of the requested person on the sole ground that the offence giving rise to the European arrest warrant was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the executing Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 17 March 2021, JR (Arrest Warrant – Conviction in a Third State, Member of the EEA), C‑488/19, EU:C:2021:206, paragraph 72, and of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 59).

45      It follows that the application of the ground for non-execution must be left to the discretion of the executing judicial authority which must, to that end, have a margin of discretion allowing it to examine all of the relevant circumstances of the case, in order to determine, on the basis of objective evidence, which of the judicial authorities, the issuing or the executing authority, is in the most appropriate position to ensure the proper administration of criminal justice and, consequently, safeguard the legitimate interest of all Member States in the prevention of crime within the area of freedom, security and justice (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2021, X (European arrest warrant – Ne bis in idem), C‑665/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:339, paragraph 60).

46      This is particularly the case where the offences for which the European arrest warrant has been issued form part of a complex international criminal organisation, with the result that they could have been in part committed, and have produced their effects, in the territory of multiple Member States, in particular that of the issuing Member State, in which criminal prosecutions could have been brought against the person concerned.

47      Thus, in its assessment, the executing judicial authority must take into account the specific circumstances of each case, such as the nature and characteristics of the offence in question, and in particular, where applicable, its international dimension or the fact that it was committed in the context of an international criminal organisation, the place where the damage resulting from that offence materialised, the location of the victims, the availability and proximity of evidence and witnesses, and the progress of the criminal proceedings in the issuing Member State and, where applicable, in the executing Member State.

48      Consequently, the international territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters provided for by Bulgarian criminal law, referred to by some of the decisions of the Bulgarian courts of appeal mentioned by the referring court in its request for a preliminary ruling, cannot, in itself, constitute a sufficient ground for refusing to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of conducting a prosecution, especially since it is apparent from the file submitted to the Court and from the hearing before it that the Bulgarian judicial authorities had not initiated criminal proceedings against the person concerned for those offences.

49      Finally, it should be noted that the binding character of Framework Decision 2002/584 places on national authorities an obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law as from the date of expiry of the period for the transposition of that framework decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 June 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Information on the national arrest decision), C‑105/21, EU:C:2022:511, paragraph 82 and the case-law cited).

50      In that context, it must be made clear that the requirement to interpret national law in conformity with EU law entails, for national courts, including those ruling as courts of last instance, the obligation to change their settled case-law, where necessary, if that case-law is based on an interpretation of national law that is incompatible with the objectives of a framework decision (judgment of 8 November 2016, Ognyanov, C‑554/14, EU:C:2016:835, paragraph 67).

51      In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that there is national case-law under which Bulgarian law may be interpreted in such a way as to achieve a result consistent with that sought by Framework Decision 2002/584.

52      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling is that Article 4(7)(a) of Framework Decision 2002/584 should be interpreted as precluding case-law of a Member State to the effect that the fact that the offence, for which a European arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the executing Member State is sufficient to refuse to execute that warrant.

 Costs

53      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 4(7)(a) 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 precluding case-law of a Member State to the effect that the fact that the offence, for which a European arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, was committed, in whole or in part, in the territory of the executing Member State is sufficient to refuse to execute that warrant.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Bulgarian.

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