Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Spetsializiran nakazatelen sad. Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender procedures between Member States – Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(c) – European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a national measure putting a person under investigation – Concept of an ‘arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ – No national arrest warrant – Consequences – Effective judicial protection – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
1) This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 8(1)(c) 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), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’), and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).
...
48) As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that the principle of mutual recognition on which the European arrest warrant system is based is founded on the mutual confidence between the Member States that their national legal systems are capable of providing equivalent and effective protection of the fundamental rights recognised at EU level, particularly in the Charter (judgment of 1 June 2016, Bob-Dogi, C‑241/15, EU:C:2016:385, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
58) By its third question, which is in two parts, the referring court asks, in essence, first, where no provision is made in the legislation of the issuing Member State for an action to be brought before a court for the purpose of obtaining review of the conditions under which a European arrest warrant was issued by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, whether Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as permitting the national court hearing an action seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the continued pre-trial detention of a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a national measure that cannot be regarded as a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, and in the context of which a plea in law is raised alleging that that European arrest warrant is invalid in the light of EU law, to find that it has jurisdiction to conduct such a review of validity. Secondly, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as requiring the effect of a finding by the national court that the European arrest warrant at issue was issued in breach of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, in so far as it is not based on a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of that provision, to be the release of the person placed in pre-trial detention following his or her surrender by the executing Member State to the issuing Member State.
59) By the first part of its third question, the referring court asks whether, when faced with the consequences of executing a European arrest warrant in the context of an action in which it is claimed that MM’s pre-trial detention should be lifted, it is for it to provide the effective judicial protection required by Article 47 of the Charter, or whether, on the contrary, it should relinquish the issue relating to the validity of the European arrest warrant by affording MM the opportunity to initiate fresh proceedings with a view to obtaining financial compensation.
71) In addition, it should be observed that compliance with the Charter is binding, as is stated in Article 51(1) of the Charter, on the Member States and, consequently, on their courts, when they are implementing EU law, which is the case when the issuing judicial authority and the executing judicial authority are applying the provisions of national law adopted to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584 (judgment of 1 June 2016, Bob-Dogi, C‑241/15, EU:C:2016:385, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). That must also be the case when what is at issue is the effectiveness of the judicial review that must be carried out, directly or indirectly, with regard to decisions relating to the European arrest warrant.
72) Accordingly, where the procedural law of the issuing Member State does not provide for a separate legal remedy allowing a court to review the conditions under which the European arrest warrant was issued and its proportionality, whether before, after, or at the same time as its adoption, Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that a court which is called upon to give a ruling at a stage in the criminal proceedings which follows the surrender of the requested person must be able to carry out an indirect review of the conditions under which that warrant was issued where the validity of that warrant has been challenged before it.
74) Accordingly, the answer to the first part of the third question is that, where no provision is made in the legislation of the issuing Member State for an action to be brought before a court for the purpose of obtaining review of the conditions under which a European arrest warrant has been issued by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as permitting the national court hearing an action seeking to challenge the lawfulness of the continued pre-trial detention of a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a national measure that cannot be regarded as a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, and in the context of which a plea in law is raised alleging that that European arrest warrant is invalid in the light of EU law, to find that it has jurisdiction to conduct such a review of validity.
80) Therefore, neither Framework Decision 2002/584 nor Article 47 of the Charter requires a national court to release a person who is the subject of a pre-trial detention measure if it finds that the European arrest warrant that led to that person’s surrender is invalid.
82) Accordingly, Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not requiring the effect of a finding by the national court that the European arrest warrant at issue has been issued in breach of Article 8(1)(c) of that framework decision, in so far as it is not based on a ‘[national] arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’ for the purposes of that provision, to be the release of the person placed in pre-trial detention following his or her surrender by the executing Member State to the issuing Member State. It is therefore for the referring court to decide, in accordance with its national law, what consequences the absence of such a national measure, as a legal basis for the European arrest warrant at issue, may have on the decision of whether or not to keep the accused person in pre-trial detention.
83) It follows from all those considerations that the answer to the third question is:
