Case C-42/11

João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Amiens)

‛Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Implementation in national law — Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 5 September 2012

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 — Non-execution of a European arrest warrant reserved solely to the nationals of the Member State in question, automatically and absolutely excluding the nationals of other Member States — Not permissible

   (Art. 18 TFEU; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 4(6))

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Implementation by Member States — Duty to interpret national law in conformity

   (Art. 34(2)(b) EU; Council Framework Decision 2002/584)

1.  Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, although a Member State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which an executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision, it cannot automatically and absolutely exclude from its scope the nationals of other Member States staying or resident in its territory irrespective of their connections with it.

   It does not follow that the Member State of execution must necessarily refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a person resident or staying in that Member State. However, in so far as such a person demonstrates a degree of integration in the society of that Member State comparable to that of a national thereof, the executing judicial authority must be able to assess whether there is a legitimate interest which would justify the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State being enforced within the territory of the executing Member State.

   (see paras 51, 59, operative part)

2.  The national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, with a view to ensuring that that framework decision is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it.

   Although framework decisions may not, as laid down in Article 34(2)(b) EU, entail direct effect, their binding character nevertheless places on national authorities, and particularly national courts, an obligation to interpret national law in conformity. The national court must therefore to that end take into consideration not only the provisions intended to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584, but also the principles and provisions of domestic law governing the conclusions which a court is entitled to draw from the existence of discrimination prohibited under that law, and in particular the principles and provisions enabling that court to alleviate such discrimination until the legislature has taken the measures necessary to eliminate it.

   (see paras 53, 57, 60, operative part)

Case C-42/11

João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the cour d’appel d’Amiens)

‛Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Implementation in national law — Arrested person is a national of the issuing Member State — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence — Legislation of a Member State restricting the power not to execute the European arrest warrant to cases where the requested persons are nationals of that State’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 5 September 2012

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 — Non-execution of a European arrest warrant reserved solely to the nationals of the Member State in question, automatically and absolutely excluding the nationals of other Member States — Not permissible

   (Art. 18 TFEU; Council Framework Decision 2002/584, Art. 4(6))

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Implementation by Member States — Duty to interpret national law in conformity

   (Art. 34(2)(b) EU; Council Framework Decision 2002/584)

1.  Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and Article 18 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that, although a Member State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which an executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision, it cannot automatically and absolutely exclude from its scope the nationals of other Member States staying or resident in its territory irrespective of their connections with it.

   It does not follow that the Member State of execution must necessarily refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a person resident or staying in that Member State. However, in so far as such a person demonstrates a degree of integration in the society of that Member State comparable to that of a national thereof, the executing judicial authority must be able to assess whether there is a legitimate interest which would justify the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State being enforced within the territory of the executing Member State.

   (see paras 51, 59, operative part)

2.  The national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret that law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, with a view to ensuring that that framework decision is fully effective and to achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it.

   Although framework decisions may not, as laid down in Article 34(2)(b) EU, entail direct effect, their binding character nevertheless places on national authorities, and particularly national courts, an obligation to interpret national law in conformity. The national court must therefore to that end take into consideration not only the provisions intended to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584, but also the principles and provisions of domestic law governing the conclusions which a court is entitled to draw from the existence of discrimination prohibited under that law, and in particular the principles and provisions enabling that court to alleviate such discrimination until the legislature has taken the measures necessary to eliminate it.

   (see paras 53, 57, 60, operative part)