EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62022CO0636

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2023.
PY v Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Lecce.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte d'appello di Lecce.
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State – Article 5(3) – Objective of social rehabilitation – Third-country nationals residing in the territory of the executing Member State – Equal treatment – Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Case C-636/22.

Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2023:899

 ORDER OF THE COURT (Eighth Chamber)

16 November 2023 ( *1 )

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Questions the answer to which may be clearly deduced from the Court’s existing case-law – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State – Article 5(3) – Objective of social rehabilitation – Third-country nationals residing in the territory of the executing Member State – Equal treatment – Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)

In Case C‑636/22,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Corte d’appello di Lecce (Court of Appeal, Lecce, Italy), made by decision of 28 September 2022, received at the Court on 12 October 2022, in proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against

PY,

interested party:

Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale di Lecce,

THE COURT (Eighth Chamber),

composed of M. Safjan, President of the Chamber, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), President of the Third Chamber, and N. Jääskinen, Judge,

Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Order

1

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(3) and Article 5(3) 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 of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

2

The request has been made in the context of the execution, in Italy, of a European arrest warrant issued on 23 May 2022 by the Public Prosecutor for the tribunal judiciaire de Rennes (Court of Rennes, France) for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution against PY.

Legal context

European Union law

Framework Decision 2002/584

3

Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584 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.

3.   This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.’

4

Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant’, provides:

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

6.

if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law;

…’

5

Article 5(3) of that framework decision provides that:

‘The execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority may, by the law of the executing Member State, be subject to the following conditions:

3.

where a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution is a national or resident of the executing Member State, surrender may be subject to the condition that the person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing Member State.’

Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA

6

Recital 9 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27) states:

‘Enforcement of the sentence in the executing State should enhance the possibility of social rehabilitation of the sentenced person. In the context of satisfying itself that the enforcement of the sentence by the executing State will serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, the competent authority of the issuing State should take into account such elements as, for example, the person’s attachment to the executing State, whether he or she considers it the place of family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic and other links to the executing State.’

7

Article 25 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Enforcement of sentences following a European arrest warrant’, provides:

‘Without prejudice to Framework Decision [2002/584], provisions of this Framework Decision shall apply, mutatis mutandis to the extent they are compatible with provisions under that Framework Decision, to enforcement of sentences in cases where a Member State undertakes to enforce the sentence in cases pursuant to Article 4(6) of that Framework Decision, or where, acting under Article 5(3) of that Framework Decision, it has imposed the condition that the person has to be returned to serve the sentence in the Member State concerned, so as to avoid impunity of the person concerned.’

Italian law

8

Article 18 bis of legge n. 69 – Disposizioni per conformare il diritto interno alla decisione quadro 2002/584/GAI del Consiglio, del 13 giugno 2002, relativa al mandato d’arresto europeo e alle procedure di consegna tra Stati membri (Law No 69, Provisions to bring national law into line with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States), of 22 April 2005 (GURI No 98, of 29 April 2005), in the version applicable to the facts in the main proceedings (‘Law No 69/2005’), provides:

‘1.   Where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, the corte d’appello [(court of appeal)] may refuse surrender in the following cases:

(a)

if the European arrest warrant concerns offences which are regarded by Italian law as having been committed in whole or in part on its territory, or in a similar place, or offences committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State, and if Italian law does not permit prosecution of the same offences committed outside of its territory;

(b)

if the criminal proceedings are ongoing against the requested person for the same facts on which the European arrest warrant is based.

2.   When the European arrest warrant has been issued for the execution of a custodial sentence or a detention order, the corte d’appello [(court of appeal)] may refuse the surrender of the requested person where the requested person is an Italian national or a national of another EU Member State having actually and lawfully resided or stayed in Italy for a period of at least five years, provided that the corte d’appello [(court of appeal)] orders that the custodial sentence or detention order is executed in Italy, in accordance with national law.’

9

Article 19 of that law provides that the execution of a European arrest warrant by the Italian judicial authority, in the cases listed by that article, is subject to certain conditions. In particular, Article 19(1)(b) provides that when a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of criminal proceedings brought against an Italian national or a national of an EU Member State who has actually and lawfully resided in Italy for a period of at least five years, the execution of the European arrest warrant is subject to the condition that the person, after having been prosecuted, is returned to Italy in order to serve the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him or her by the issuing Member State.

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

10

On 23 May 2022, the Public Prosecutor for the tribunal judiciaire de Rennes (Court of Rennes) issued a European arrest warrant for the purposes of criminal proceedings against PY, an Afghan national, accused of offences of handling stolen goods, money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation.

11

The Corte d’appello di Lecce (Court of Appeal, Lecce, Italy), the referring court in the present case, dealing with the request for the execution of the European arrest warrant, ordered, in a first judgment, the surrender of the requested person to the issuing judicial authority.

12

On 16 September 2022, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy), partially set aside that judgment. That court considered that the Corte d’appello di Lecce (Court of Appeal, Lecce) should have determined, first, whether, and to what extent, PY was established in Italy and, therefore, whether the conditions laid down in Article 19(1)(b) of Law No 69/2005 had been met. Second, according to the Corte supreme di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation), the referring court should have determined whether PY was an Italian or third-country national and, if the latter, taken into account the request for a preliminary ruling issued by the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) in the case which subsequently led to the judgment of the Court on 6 June 2023, O.G. (European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national) (C‑700/21, ‘the judgment in O.G., EU:C:2023:444).

13

Following the decision of 16 September 2022 of the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation), the referring court again ordered, in a second judgment, the surrender of the requested person to the French authorities, noting that the issue of actual settlement by PY in Italy did not arise. According to the Corte d’appello di Lecce (Court of Appeal, Lecce), the necessary conditions for the application of Articles 18 bis and 19 of Law No 69/2005 were not, in any case, satisfied, that person being neither an Italian citizen nor a citizen of another EU Member State, but an Afghan national.

14

That second judgment was also set aside by the Corte di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation), finding that the evidence concerning the establishment of the requested person in Italy had not been adequately assessed.

15

The referring court, to which the case had again been sent back, considers it necessary to ask the Court about the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584 and, in particular, the potential incompatibility of Article 18 bis and 19 of Law No 69/2005 with Article 5(3) of that framework decision. Those national provisions do not allow the executing judicial authority, when the requested person is a third-country national residing in Italy, to make the surrender conditional on, after being heard, that person being returned to Italy in order to serve the custodial sentence or detention order imposed upon him or her by the issuing Member State.

16

In those circumstances the Corte d’appello di Lecce (Court of Appeal, Lecce) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)

Does Article 5(3) of [Framework Decision 2002/584] interpreted in the light of Article 1(3) of that decision and of Article 7 of the [Charter], preclude legislation, such as the Italian legislation, that – in the context of a European arrest warrant procedure for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution – absolutely and automatically precludes the executing judicial authorities from refusing to surrender third-country nationals staying or residing in Italy territory, irrespective of the links those individuals have with that territory.’

(2)

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what criteria and assumptions are used to establish that such links are to be regarded as so significant as to require the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender?’

17

The referring court requested that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

Procedure before the Court

18

By decision of the President of the Court of 14 November 2022, the procedure was stayed pending the final decision in Case C‑700/21. After the judgment in O.G. was delivered on 6 June 2023, the proceedings were resumed in accordance with a decision of the President of the Court of 9 June 2023.

19

As regards the referring court’s request that the case be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure, it should be noted that, as regards the decision to give a ruling by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, there is no need to adjudicate on that request (see, by analogy, order of 16 December 2021, Fedasil, C‑505/21, EU:C:2021:1049, paragraph 35).

Consideration of the questions referred

20

In accordance with Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order, in particular when the reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law.

21

In that context, it should be noted that the judicial cooperation established by Article 267 TFEU is based on a clear division of responsibilities between the national courts and the Court of Justice. First, the Court has no power to apply rules of EU law to a particular case, but only to rule on the interpretation of the Treaties and of acts of institutions, bodies offices or agencies of the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 May 2021, Asociaţia Forumul Judecătorilor din România and Others, C‑83/19, C‑127/19, C‑195/19, C‑291/19, C‑355/19 and C‑397/19, EU:C:2021:393, paragraph 201 and the case-law cited.). Second, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the recommendations of Court of Justice of the European Union to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings (OJ 2019 C 380, p. 1), it is for the national courts to draw concrete conclusions in the pending cases before them from the interpretations provided by the Court (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2018, Roche Lietuva, C‑413/17, EU:C:2018:865, paragraph 43).

22

In this case, the Court considers that the interpretation of EU law requested by the referring court can clearly be deduced from the judgment in O.G. It is therefore appropriate to apply Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure in the present case.

23

As set out in paragraph 21 of this order, it will be for the referring court to draw concrete conclusions in the main proceedings from the interpretation to be found in that case-law of the Court.

The first question

24

By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as precluding a national law that prevents, absolutely and automatically, the judicial authority in the Member States of execution from making the surrender of a third-country national who resides in the territory of that Member States subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to that Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him or her in the issuing Member State.

25

In that regard, it must be noted that the Court, hearing a request for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 1(3) and Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, held, in paragraph 38 of the judgment in O.G., that the discretion available to Member States when transposing the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision is not unlimited.

26

First, that Member State is required, in accordance with Article 1(3) of that framework decision to respect the rights and fundamental principles referred to in Article 6 TEU, including the principle of equality before the law, which is required by Article 20 of the Charter. The Member States are required, in accordance with Article 51(1) of the Charter, to comply with that provision when implementing EU law, which is the case when they transpose that ground of optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in Article 4(6) of that framework decision (see, to that effect, judgment in O.G., paragraphs 39 and 40).

27

In so far as Article 20 of the Charter does not contain any express limitation on its scope, the principle of equality before the law applies to all situations governed by EU law. This principle requires that similar situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same manner, unless such treatment is objectively justified (see, to that effect, judgment in O.G., paragraphs 41 and 42).

28

When assessing the conditions relating to the application of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the Court considered, in paragraph 44 of the judgment in O.G., that it must be determined whether the situation of a third-country national who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order and who is staying or resident in the executing Member State is comparable with that of a national of that Member State or that of a national of another Member State who is staying or resident in that Member State and is the subject of such a warrant.

29

In particular, as regards the condition of ‘residence’ provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the Court has held that a requested person ‘resides’ in the executing Member State when he or she has established his or her real residence there. It follows that, having regard to that condition, a third-country national, who is the subject of a European arrest warrant and who is resident in the executing Member State, is in a situation comparable with that of a national of that Member State or that of a national of another Member State who is resident in that Member State and is the subject of such a warrant (see, to that effect, judgment in O.G., paragraph 47).

30

Further, in paragraph 49 of the judgment in O.G., the Court held that the executing judicial authority must ascertain, after having verified, in particular, that the ‘residence’ condition referred to in the previous paragraph of this order is satisfied, whether there is a legitimate interest to justify the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State being enforced on the territory of the executing Member State. That assessment allows that authority to take account of the objective pursued by Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 which consists, according to well-established case-law, of increasing the requested person’s chances of reintegrating into society when the sentence imposed on him or her expires (judgment of 13 December 2018, Sut, C‑514/17, EU:C:2018:1016, paragraphs 33 and 36 and the case-law cited). Union citizens and third-country nationals who satisfy the condition set out in paragraph 29 of this order are likely to have comparable chances for social rehabilitation if, when they are the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, they serve their sentence or are detained in the executing Member State.

31

In those circumstances, the Court held, in paragraph 51 of the judgment in O.G., that a national law transposing Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 cannot be regarded as complying with the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter if it treats differently, on the hand, its own nationals and other citizens of the Union and, on the other hand, third-country nationals, by refusing the latter, absolutely and automatically, the benefit of the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant provided for in that provision, even where those third-country nationals are staying or resident in the territory of that Member State and without account being taken of the degree of integration of those third-country nationals within the society of that Member State. It is not possible for such a difference in treatment to be regarded as being objectively justified, within the meaning of the case-law recalled in paragraph 42 of the judgment in O.G.

32

Second, in paragraph 53 of the judgment in O.G., the Court held that a transposition of Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 cannot have the effect of depriving the executing judicial authority of the discretion necessary to be able to decide whether or not, having regard to the intended objective of that provision of social reintegration, to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant.

33

As recalled in paragraph 55 of the judgment in O.G., Article 18 bis of Law No 69/2005, which is intended to transpose Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 into Italian law, restricts the application of the ground of optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant set out in that latter provision solely to Italian nationals and nationals of other Member States, so that third-country nationals are excluded, absolutely and automatically, from benefiting from that ground, without any discretion being left in that regard to the executing judicial authority even though Article 4(6) does not limit the scope of application of that ground solely to Union citizens.

34

In those circumstances, in paragraph 56 of the judgment in O.G., the Court notes that, where the person subject to a European arrest warrant for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or detention order is a third-country national, such a national law deprives the executing judicial authority of the power to assess, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case, whether the connections between that person and the executing Member State are sufficient for the objective or social rehabilitation pursued by that provision to be better achieved by that person serving his or her sentence in that Member State and thus undermines that objective.

35

In the light of all those considerations, the Court held, in paragraph 58 of the judgment in O.G., that Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State.

36

As regards Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, first, concerning the comparability of the situation of a Union citizen who is the subject of a European arrest warrant provided for in that provision with that of a third-country national who is the subject of such a warrant, it must be noted that that provision may apply, as may Article 4(6) of that framework decision, to any person ‘resident’ in the executing Member State. Thus, Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, concerning the ‘resident’ condition, does not contain any indication that would justify the situation of a third-country national being distinguished from that of a Union citizen. Consequently, a third-country national, who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and who resides in the executing Member State, is in a situation comparable with that of a national of that Member State or that of a national of another Member State who resides in that Member State and is the subject of such a warrant. It follows that, in accordance with Article 20 of the Charter, the situations of those people cannot be treated differently.

37

Moreover, as regards the objective of Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, it must be noted that that provision aims to increase the chances of social reintegration of the national or resident of the executing Member State by allowing him or her to serve, in its territory, the custodial sentence or detention order which, after his or her surrender, under a European arrest warrant, would be imposed in the issuing Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 March 2020, SF (European arrest warrant – Guarantee of return to the executing State), C‑314/18, EU:C:2020:191, paragraph 48). As is apparent from paragraph 30 of the present order, that objective coincides with that of Article 4(6) of that same framework decision. Accordingly, Union citizens and third-country nationals who are the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting criminal proceedings, have, when they satisfy the ‘residence’ condition referred to in paragraph 29 of the present order, comparable chances of social reintegration where they able to serve the custodial sentence or detention order imposed in the issuing Member State.

38

Second, it is clear from the order for reference that Articles 18 bis and 19 of Law No 69/2005, which transpose Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 into Italian law, restrict, in essence, the application of that provision solely to Italian nationals and nationals of other Member States, so that third-country nationals are excluded, absolutely and automatically, from benefiting from that provision, without any discretion being left in that regard to the executing judicial authority even though the scope of Article 5(3) is not limited solely to Union citizens.

39

Thus, where the person subject to a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting criminal proceedings is a third-country national residing in Italy, such a national law deprives the executing judicial authority of the power to assess, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case, whether the connections between that person and the executing Member State are sufficient for the objective of social rehabilitation pursued by that provision to be better achieved by that person serving any sentence that might be imposed on him or her in that Member State, and accordingly undermines that objective.

40

In the light of all of those considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding a national law that prevents, absolutely and automatically, the judicial authority in the executing Member State from making the surrender of a third-country national residing in the territory of that Member State subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to that Member State for the purposes of the execution of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him or her in the issuing Member State.

The second question

41

By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to make the execution of the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national for the purpose of criminal proceedings who is resident in the territory of the executing Member State subject to the condition laid down in that article, the executing judicial authority must carry out an assessment of the elements capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State and, if so, what are those elements.

42

In that respect, the Court held in paragraph 68 of the judgment in O.G. that Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

43

In the light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the present order concerning the purpose and scope of Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the overall assessment referred to in the previous paragraph of the present order must also be made in the context of the application of that provision.

44

In those circumstances, the answer to the second question is that Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to make the execution of the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is resident in the territory of the executing Member State subject to the condition in that article, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

Costs

45

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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 (Eighth Chamber) hereby rules:

 

1.

Article 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a national law that prevents, absolutely and automatically, the judicial authority in the executing Member State from making the surrender of a third-country national residing in the territory of that Member State subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to that Member State for the purposes of the execution of the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him or her in the issuing Member State.

 

2.

Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to make the execution of the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is resident in the territory of the executing Member State subject to the condition in that article, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national’s situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

 

[Signatures]


( *1 ) Language of the case: Italian.

Top