1.

Should Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a certain discretion as to whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute the EAW?

2.

Should the concept of ‘the same acts’ in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA be interpreted in the same way as in Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and, if not, how should that concept be interpreted in the former provision?

3.

Should the condition laid down in Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA that the ‘sentence has been served … or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country’ be interpreted as covering a situation in which the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a custodial sentence that he or she has served in part in the sentencing country and the remainder of which has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that country, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to convicted persons who have committed serious acts, such as the requested person, and is not based on rational criminal policy considerations?