Openbaar Ministerie (Independance de l'autorite judiciaire d'emission) (Urgent preliminary ruling - European arrest warrant - Judgment) [2020] EUECJ C-354/20PPU (17 December 2020)

Openbaar Ministerie (Independance de l'autorite judiciaire d'emission) (Urgent preliminary ruling - European arrest warrant - Judgment) [2020] EUECJ C-354/20PPU (17 December 2020)

Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State, it cannot deny the status of 'issuing judicial authority' to the court which issued the European arrest warrant, nor presume a real risk of breach of the right to a fair trial, without carrying out a specific and precise verification taking account of the individual's personal situation, the nature of the offence, and the factual context.

Citation
[2020] EUECJ C-354/20PPU
Parties
Requested Person (case C 354/20 Ppu): L; Requested Person (case C 412/20 Ppu): P; Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 354/20 Ppu): Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Regional Court, Poznań, Poland); Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 412/20 Ppu): Sąd Okręgowy w Sieradzu (Regional Court, Sieradz, Poland); Executing Judicial Authority: Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands); Prosecutor: Officier van justitie (Public Prosecution Service, Netherlands)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
17 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 354/20 PPU and C 412/20 Ppu) / Grand Chamber Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union
Outcome
Questions answered; executing judicial authority cannot automatically refuse execution of a European arrest warrant due to systemic deficiencies in the issuing Member State's judiciary; specific and precise individual assessment required.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Judicial Independence, Mutual Recognition, Right to a Fair Trial, Rule of Law
European Union Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters Judicial Independence Mutual Recognition Right to a Fair Trial +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L

Requested Person (case C 354/20 Ppu)

P

Requested Person (case C 412/20 Ppu)

Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu (Regional Court, Poznań, Poland)

Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 354/20 Ppu)

Sąd Okręgowy w Sieradzu (Regional Court, Sieradz, Poland)

Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 412/20 Ppu)

Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Executing Judicial Authority

Officier van justitie (Public Prosecution Service, Netherlands)

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 354/20 PPU and C 412/20 Ppu) / Grand Chamber Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether systemic or generalised deficiencies in the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State allow the executing judicial authority to refuse execution of a European arrest warrant without individual assessment.
  2. 2 Whether the existence of such deficiencies allows denial of the status of 'issuing judicial authority' to the court issuing the warrant.
  3. 3 Whether a presumption of risk to the right to a fair trial can be made without specific and precise verification.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State, it cannot deny the status of 'issuing judicial authority' to the court which issued the European arrest warrant, nor presume a real risk of breach of the right to a fair trial, without carrying out a specific and precise verification taking account of the individual's personal situation, the nature of the offence, and the factual context.

Court Disposition

Questions answered; executing judicial authority cannot automatically refuse execution of a European arrest warrant due to systemic deficiencies in the issuing Member State's judiciary; specific and precise individual assessment required.

Orders

  • Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, do not allow automatic refusal to execute a European arrest warrant or denial of 'issuing judicial authority' status based solely on systemic or generalised deficiencies; a specific and precise verification of the individual case is required.
  • Costs are a matter for the referring court.