Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal etabli par la loi dans l'Etat membre d'emission) (Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Surrender procedures between Member States - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ C-562/21PPU (22 February 2022)

Openbaar Ministerie (Tribunal etabli par la loi dans l'Etat membre d'emission) (Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Surrender procedures between Member States - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ C-562/21PPU (22 February 2022)

Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read with Article 47 of the Charter, does not permit the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender solely on the basis of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State. The authority must conduct a two-step examination: (1) determine if there is objective, reliable, specific, and updated material indicating a real risk of breach of the right to a fair trial due to such deficiencies; (2) assess specifically and precisely whether those deficiencies had or are likely to have a tangible influence on the individual case, considering the person's situation, the nature of the offence, and...

Citation
[2022] EUECJ C-562/21PPU
Parties
Requested Person (case C 562/21 Ppu): X; Requested Person (case C 563/21 Ppu): Y; Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 562/21 Ppu): Sąd Okręgowy w Lublinie (District Court, Lublin, Poland); Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 563/21 Ppu): Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (District Court, Zielona Góra, Poland); Executing Judicial Authority: Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
22 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 562/21 PPU and C 563/21 Ppu) / Grand Chamber Judgment on Reference From National Court
Outcome
Reference for a preliminary ruling answered; guidance provided to national court.
Legal Topics
European Arrest Warrant, Mutual Recognition, Judicial Cooperation, Right to a Fair Trial, Judicial Independence, Tribunal Established by Law, Surrender Procedures, Systemic Deficiencies
European Union Law Criminal Law Human Rights Law European Arrest Warrant Mutual Recognition Judicial Cooperation Right to a Fair Trial Judicial Independence +3 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

X

Requested Person (case C 562/21 Ppu)

Y

Requested Person (case C 563/21 Ppu)

Sąd Okręgowy w Lublinie (District Court, Lublin, Poland)

Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 562/21 Ppu)

Sąd Okręgowy w Zielonej Górze (District Court, Zielona Góra, Poland)

Issuing Judicial Authority (case C 563/21 Ppu)

Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Executing Judicial Authority

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (joined Cases C 562/21 PPU and C 563/21 Ppu) / Grand Chamber Judgment on Reference From National Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 and Article 47 of the Charter permit refusal to execute a European arrest warrant due to systemic or generalised deficiencies in judicial independence in the issuing Member State, specifically regarding the right to a tribunal previously established by law and the absence of effective remedies.

Ratio Decidendi

Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read with Article 47 of the Charter, does not permit the executing judicial authority to refuse surrender solely on the basis of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State. The authority must conduct a two-step examination: (1) determine if there is objective, reliable, specific, and updated material indicating a real risk of breach of the right to a fair trial due to such deficiencies; (2) assess specifically and precisely whether those deficiencies had or are likely to have a tangible influence on the individual case, considering the person's situation, the nature of the offence, and...

Court Disposition

Reference for a preliminary ruling answered; guidance provided to national court.

Orders

  • Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read with Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as requiring the executing judicial authority to carry out a two-step examination before refusing surrender on grounds of systemic or generalised deficiencies in judicial independence; refusal is only justified if...