Case C-192/12 PPU

Melvin West

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus)

‛Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence — Article 28 — Subsequent surrender — ‘Chain’ of European arrest warrants — Execution of a third European arrest warrant in respect of the same person — Concept of ‘executing Member State’ — Consent to surrender — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure’

Summary of the Judgment

1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order — Subsequent surrender — Condition — Consent of executing Member State — Concept of executing Member State where there are several surrenders between Member States pursuant to successive European arrest warrants — Member State which carried out last surrender

   (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 28(2))

2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Purpose — Replacement of the system of extradition between Member States with a system of surrender between judicial authorities

   (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299)

3. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Principle of mutual recognition — Scope

   (Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 1(2))

1.  According to Article 28(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, where none of the exceptions referred to in that article applies, a person who was surrendered to the issuing Member State pursuant to a European arrest warrant may be surrendered by that State to a Member State other than the ‘executing Member State’ pursuant to a European arrest warrant only with the consent of that ‘executing Member State’. Even if that article does not explicitly envisage a situation in which the requested person is the subject of requests for successive surrenders, in the scheme established by that provision, which concerns the subsequent surrender by the issuing Member State of a person already surrendered to it, the concept of ‘executing Member State’ refers to the Member State which executed the European arrest warrant on the basis of which the person concerned was surrendered to that issuing Member State and which confers on the latter the power to surrender that person, as executing Member State, to another Member State.

   Therefore, Article 28(2) of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person has been subject to more than one surrender between Member States pursuant to successive European arrest warrants, the subsequent surrender of that person to a Member State other than the Member State having last surrendered him is subject to the consent only of the Member State which carried out that last surrender. That interpretation reinforces the system of surrender established by the Framework Decision for the good of the area of freedom, security and justice, in accordance with the mutual confidence which must exist between the Member States. By limiting the situations in which the executing judicial authorities of the Member States involved in the successive surrenders of the same person may refuse to consent to the execution of a European arrest warrant, such an interpretation only facilitates the surrender of requested persons, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition set out in Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision, which constitutes the essential rule introduced by that decision.

   (see paras 50, 51, 62, 80, operative part)

2.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see para. 54)

3.  See the wording of the judgment.

   (see paras 54, 55, 62)