Case C‑327/18 PPU

RO

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court (Ireland))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — European arrest warrant — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Grounds for non-execution — Article 50 TEU — Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 19 September 2018

1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Council Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of convicted or suspected persons to the issuing judicial authorities — Obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles — Arrest warrant issued by the authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union — Risk that the requested person may be deprived of fundamental rights and rights derived from the framework decision on the arrest warrant — Verification by the executing judicial authority — Scope

   (Art. 2 TEU and 6 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 4; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1(3) and 15(2))

2. Member States — Withdrawal from the European Union — Consequences — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Issue of an arrest warrant by the departing Member State — Effect of notification of withdrawal on the obligations of the executing Member State — No effect before the withdrawal from the European Union of the issuing Member State

   (Art. 50 TEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299)

1.  See the text of the judgment.

   (see paras 37-42, 49, 50)

2.  Article 50 TEU must be interpreted as meaning that mere notification by a Member State of its intention to withdraw from the European Union in accordance with that article does not have the consequence that, in the event that that Member State issues a European arrest warrant with respect to an individual, the executing Member State must refuse to execute that European arrest warrant or postpone its execution pending clarification of the law that will be applicable in the issuing Member State after its withdrawal from the European Union. In the absence of substantial grounds to believe that the person who is the subject of that European arrest warrant is at risk of being deprived of rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 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, following the withdrawal from the European Union of the issuing Member State, the executing Member State cannot refuse to execute that European arrest warrant while the issuing Member State remains a member of the European Union. In that context, it must be observed that such a notification does not have the effect of suspending the application of EU law in the Member State that has given notice of its intention to withdraw from the European Union and, consequently, EU law, which encompasses the provisions of the Framework Decision and the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition inherent in that decision, continues in full force and effect in that State until the time of its actual withdrawal from the European Union. Consequently, as the Advocate General stated in point 70 of his Opinion, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, in order to decide whether a European arrest warrant should be executed, it is essential that, when that decision is to be taken, the executing judicial authority is able to presume that, with respect to the person who is to be surrendered, the issuing Member State will apply the substantive content of the rights derived from the Framework Decision that are applicable in the period subsequent to the surrender, after the withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union. Such a presumption can be made if the national law of the issuing Member State incorporates the substantive content of those rights, particularly because of the continuing participation of that Member State in international conventions, such as the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 and the ECHR, even after the withdrawal of that Member State from the European Union. Only if there is concrete evidence to the contrary can the judicial authorities of a Member State refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.

   (see paras 45, 61, 62, operative part)