CJEU Case C-528/24 / Judgment

LQ and Others v Minister for Justice and Equality (Boothnesse)
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Third Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
23/04/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:332

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Title VI: Justice

Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence

Title VI: Justice

Article 49 - Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

Title VI: Justice

Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence

Title VII: General provisions

Article 51 - Field of application

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU Case C-528/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – 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 – Surrender of a person to the United Kingdom for the purpose of criminal prosecutions – Article 524(2) – Article 604(c) – Real risk to the protection of fundamental rights – Article 625 – Speciality rule – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to an effective remedy

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 625 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a person who is the subject of an arrest warrant, issued on the basis of that agreement for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, has been sentenced, in the issuing State, to a six-month term of imprisonment for another offence, which is regarded as being a civil offence under the law of that State and which is not therefore covered by that arrest warrant, does not permit, in itself, an executing judicial authority to refuse to execute that arrest warrant.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    44. That being said, Article 524(2) of the TCA states that no provision of Part Three of that agreement modifies the obligation to respect fundamental rights and legal principles as reflected, in particular, in the ECHR and, in the case of the European Union and its Member States, in the Charter.

    45. The obligation to comply with the Charter, recalled in Article 524(2), is binding on the Member States when they decide on the surrender of a person to the United Kingdom, given that a decision on such a surrender constitutes an implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter. The executing judicial authorities of the Member States are therefore required, when adopting that decision, to ensure respect for the fundamental rights afforded by the Charter to the person who is the subject of an arrest warrant issued on the basis of the TCA, without the fact that the Charter is not applicable to the United Kingdom being relevant in that regard (judgment of 29 July 2024, Alchaster, C‑202/24, EU:C:2024:649, paragraph 49).

    ...

    48. In that regard, it should be observed that the speciality rule is not mentioned in the Charter and cannot be regarded as flowing directly from one of the rights guaranteed by the Charter or by a general principle of EU law.

    ...

    58. In the second place, it should be noted that amongst the fundamental rights, the real risk of the breach of which requires, pursuant to Article 524(2) and Article 604(c) of the TCA, the refusal to execute an arrest warrant issued on the basis of that agreement is the right enshrined in Article 47(1) of the Charter, which provides that everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal (see, by analogy, judgment of 31 January 2023, Puig Gordiand Others, C‑158/21, EU:C:2023:57, paragraph 97).

    59. Although the requirement to comply with the speciality rule does not constitute a fundamental right, the fact remains that that rule establishes, within the limits of its scope, a procedural guarantee offered to the requested person, which that person must be able to enjoy, unless he or she has waived it, under the conditions laid down in Article 611 of the TCA, or the executing State has consented to a derogation from that rule. Article 625 of that agreement therefore establishes a ‘[right] guaranteed by the law of the Union’ within the meaning of Article 47(1) of the Charter.

    60. It follows that Article 47(1) of the Charter would be infringed if the requested person did not have, in the issuing State, any legal remedy enabling him or her to protect that right, by relying, after his or her surrender, on an alleged breach of the speciality rule, with a view to precluding him or her from being prosecuted, sentenced or deprived of his or her liberty in a situation where Article 625 of the TCA excludes such prosecution, sentencing or deprivation of liberty.

    ...

    63. The existence of such legal remedies, which it will be for the referring court to verify, would be sufficient to rule out the existence of a real risk of an infringement of Article 47(1) of the Charter in the event of surrender and, therefore, the application of Article 524(2) and Article 604(c) of the TCA.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)