Case C‑314/18
SF
(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Rechtbank Amsterdam)
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2020
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant — Article 5(3) — Surrender of the person concerned made subject to a guarantee that that person will be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty imposed on him in the issuing Member State — Time of return — Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA — Article 3(3) — Scope — Article 8 — Adaptation of the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State — Article 25 — Enforcement of a sentence under Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA)
1. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Surrender of a national or resident of the executing Member State for the purposes of criminal proceedings — Guarantees to be given by the issuing Member State — Return of the person concerned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the measure involving deprivation of liberty imposed on him — Time of return — Final sentencing decision — Exception
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1(3) and 5(3) and Council Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 1(a), 3(3) and (4) and 25)
(see paragraphs 44, 48-54, 56, 59-62, operative part 1)
2. Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2008/909 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters — Enforcement of sentences subsequent to a European arrest warrant — Execution of the arrest warrant in the executing Member State when the person concerned is returned there in order to serve the measure involving deprivation of liberty imposed on him in the issuing Member State — Adaptation of the duration of the sentence imposed by the executing Member State — Conditions
(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Art. 5(3), and Council Framework Decision 2008/909, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, Arts 8(2) and 25)
(see paragraphs 65-68, operative part 2)
Résumé
In the judgment in SF (European arrest warrant — Guarantee of return to the executing State) (C‑314/18) delivered on 11 March 2020, the Court ruled, first, that, when the Member State executing a European arrest warrant makes the return of one of its nationals or residents, in respect of whom such a warrant has been issued for the purposes of criminal proceedings, subject to the condition that that person will be returned to that Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him in the issuing Member State, that latter Member State must, in principle, return that person as soon as the sentencing decision has become final. The position will be different only where concrete grounds relating to the rights of defence of the person concerned or the proper administration of justice make his presence essential in the issuing Member State pending a definitive decision on any procedural steps coming within the scope of the criminal proceedings relating to the offence on the basis of which the European arrest warrant has been issued. Secondly, the Court held that the executing Member State can, in order to enforce that custodial sentence or detention order, adapt the duration of that sentence only within the strict conditions set out in Article 8(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909. (1)
That judgment was delivered in the context of proceedings relating to the execution, in the Netherlands, of a European arrest warrant issued by a United Kingdom judge for the purposes of criminal proceedings against a Netherlands national. In the Netherlands, the Public Prosecutor had requested the issuing judicial authority to provide the guarantee provided for in Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, (2) consisting in a commitment given, prior to the surrender, that the person concerned would, if convicted, be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order that might be imposed on him. (3) In response, the United Kingdom Home Office had stated that, if the person concerned were to be sentenced to a measure involving deprivation of liberty in the United Kingdom, he would be returned to the Netherlands as soon as the criminal proceedings and any other proceedings relating to the offence underlying the European arrest warrant were concluded. That authority had also stated that a transfer under Framework Decision 2002/584 did not, in its opinion, allow the Netherlands to alter the duration of the sentence which might be imposed in the United Kingdom.
First, in respect of the time at which the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, the execution of which is subject to the provision of a guarantee within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, must be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order imposed on him in the issuing Member State, the Court first of all noted that that time was not specified in the provision. That said, it emphasised the particular weight attached by the EU legislature, both under that provision and under Framework Decision 2008/909, to the prospects of the social rehabilitation of the national or resident of the executing Member State, by allowing him to serve, in its territory, the custodial sentence or detention order to be imposed on him in the issuing Member State after his surrender pursuant to the European arrest warrant. The Court underlined the importance of the fact that, in such a situation, the issuing Member State must return that person as soon as the sentencing decision in question has become final. The Court nevertheless stated that, at that time, if it were to be established that the person concerned is required to be present in the issuing Member State by reason of other procedural steps coming within the scope of the criminal proceedings relating to the offence underlying the European arrest warrant, the objective of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the person concerned must be balanced against both the effectiveness of the criminal prosecution and the safeguarding of the procedural rights of the person concerned.
Secondly, as regards the option, provided in Article 8(2) of Framework Decision 2008/909, for the competent authority of the executing Member State to adapt the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State, the Court pointed out that that option was strictly regulated by that provision, stating that Article 8 provides the sole exceptions to the obligation to recognise the judgment forwarded and to enforce the sentence, which is to correspond in its length and nature to the sentence imposed in the judgment delivered in the issuing Member State. The Court thus rejected the interpretation of Article 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909 (4) according to which, in the situation of a person who has been surrendered to the issuing Member State in return for a guarantee of return, an adaptation of the sentence by the executing Member State beyond the situations contemplated under Article 8 of that framework decision may be allowed.