Case C‑168/13 PPU

Jeremy F.

v

Premier ministre

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Conseil constitutionnel)

(Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Speciality rule — Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State — Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent — Appeal with suspensive effect — Whether permitted)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 30 May 2013

1.        Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions — Person deprived of liberty, the resolution of the dispute being capable of having considerable influence on the length of that deprivation

(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 23a; Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Art. 107)

2.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Object — Replacing 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, recitals 5 and 7, Art. 1(1) and (2))

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))

4.        Judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States — Possible prosecution for other offences — Onward surrender — Application for extension of the European arrest warrant on which the surrender was based or for onward surrender to another Member State — Decision of the judicial authority of the executing Member State to give consent within 30 days from receipt of the application — Possibility of providing in national legislation for an appeal with suspensive effect against that decision — Lawfulness — Conditions

(Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, recital 12, Arts 17, 27(4) and 28(3)(c))

1.        A request by a referring court for the application of the urgent procedure provided for in Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is justified where the applicant in the main proceedings is deprived of liberty and the resolution of the main proceedings may have considerable influence on the length of that deprivation.

(see paras 30-32)

2.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 34, 35, 57, 58)

3.        See the text of the decision.

(see paras 36, 49, 50)

4.        Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as not precluding Member States from providing for an appeal suspending execution of the decision of the judicial authority which rules, within 30 days from receipt of the request, on giving consent either to the prosecution, sentencing or detention with a view to the carrying out of a custodial sentence or detention order of a person for an offence committed prior to his surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant, other than that for which he was surrendered, or to the surrender of a person to a Member State other than the executing Member State, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for an offence committed prior to his surrender, provided that the final decision is adopted within the time-limits laid down in Article 17 of the framework decision.

Independently of the guarantees expressly provided for by Framework Decision 2002/584, the fact that that decision does not provide for a right of appeal with suspensive effect against decisions relating to European arrest warrants neither prevents the Member States from providing for such a right nor requires them to do so. Provided that the application of the framework decision is not frustrated, as the second paragraph of recital 12 in the preamble states, it does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating inter alia to respect for the right to a fair trial.

However, certain limits must be set as regards the margin of discretion enjoyed by Member States in this respect.

As regards, first, the decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant, the time-limits prescribed in Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as requiring the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant to be taken, in principle, either within 10 days from consent being given to the surrender of the requested person, or, in other cases, within 60 days from his arrest. Only in specific cases may those periods be extended by an additional 30 days, and only in exceptional circumstances may the time-limits prescribed in Article 17 not be complied with by a Member State. Consequently, any appeal with suspensive effect against a decision executing a European arrest warrant provided for by the national legislation of a Member State cannot, in any event, unless the competent court decides to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, intervene such as to disregard those time-limits.

As regards, secondly, the decision to give consent to the extension of the warrant or to an onward surrender, Articles 27(4) and 28(3)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as requiring decisions of the judicial authority to be made, in principle, within a period of 30 days from receipt of the request.

(see paras 38, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 64-66, 71, 75, operative part)