ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
22 April 2024 (*)
(Expedited procedure)
In Case C‑202/24 [Alchaster] (i),
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Supreme Court (Ireland), made by decision of 7 March 2024, received at the Court on 14 March 2024, in the proceedings
Minister for Justice and Equality
v
MA,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur, L. Bay Larsen, and the Advocate General, M. Szpunar,
makes the following
Order
1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (OJ 2021 L 149, p. 10; ‘the TCA’), and of Article 49(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
2 The request has been made in proceedings relating to the execution in Ireland of four arrest warrants issued by the District Judge of the Magistrates’ Courts of Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) against MA.
3 The Supreme Court (Ireland) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Where, pursuant to the [TCA] (incorporating the provisions of [Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1)]) surrender is sought for the purposes of prosecution on terrorist offences and the individual seeks to resist such surrender on the basis that he contends that it would be a breach of [Article] 7 of the [European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’)] and [Article] 49(2) of the [Charter] on the basis that a legislative measure was introduced altering the portion of a sentence which would be required to be served in custody and the arrangements for release on parole and was adopted after the date of the alleged offence in respect of which his surrender is sought and, where the following considerations apply:
(i) The requesting state (in this case the [United Kingdom]) is a party to the ECHR and gives effect to the [ECHR] in its domestic law pursuant the Human Rights Act, 1998;
(ii) The application of the measures in question to prisoners already serving a sentence imposed by a court, has been held by the courts of the United Kingdom (including the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) to be compatible with the [ECHR];
(iii) It remains open to any person including the individual if surrendered, to make a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights;
(iv) There is no basis for considering that any decision of the European Court of Human Rights would not be implemented by the requesting state;
(v) Accordingly, the [Supreme] Court is satisfied that it has not been established that surrender involves a real risk of a violation of [Article] 7 [ECHR] or the Constitution;
(vi) It is not suggested that surrender is precluded by [Article] 19 of the Charter;
(vii) Article 49 of the Charter does not apply to the trial or sentencing process;
(viii) It has not been submitted that there is any reason to believe there is any appreciable difference in the application of [Article] 7 [ECHR] and [Article] 49 of the Charter;
Is a court against whose decision there is no right of appeal for the purposes of [the third paragraph of] Article 267 … TFEU, and having regard to [Article] 52(3) of the Charter and the obligation of trust and confidence between [Member States] and those obliged to operate surrender [pursuant] to the [European arrest warrant] provisions [and] pursuant to the [TCA], entitled to conclude that the requested person has failed to establish any real risk that his surrender would be a breach of [Article] 49(2) of the Charter or is such a court obliged to conduct some further inquiry, and if so, what is the nature and scope of that inquiry?’
4 By separate document of 25 March 2024, the referring court requested that the present case be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
5 Under Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure, where the nature of a case requires that it be dealt with within a short time, the President of the Court may, at the request of the referring court or tribunal or, exceptionally, of his or her own motion, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, decide that that case is to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure derogating from the provisions of those rules.
6 In support of its request, the referring court states that MA is currently in custody pending a final decision on the request for surrender to the United Kingdom. In addition, the present question referred for a preliminary ruling is raised in an action brought by MA before that court, which is called upon to examine whether it is appropriate to accede to or refuse the request for his surrender.
7 In that regard, it should be noted that the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the referring court is raised in a case with regard to a person in custody, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. Furthermore, the answer to that question is liable, in the light of the nature of the question and the circumstances in which it is raised, to have an effect on the continued detention of the person concerned (see, to that effect, judgment of 19 December 2019, Junqueras Vies, C‑502/19, EU:C:2019:1115, paragraph 45).
8 In those circumstances, it must be held that the nature of the present case justifies its being dealt with within a short time in accordance with Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
9 Consequently, it is appropriate to order that Case C‑202/24 be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
Case C‑202/24 shall be determined pursuant to the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
[Signatures]