Germany / Federal Constitutional Court / 2 BvR 2009/22

Iraqi national arrested on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Federal Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
15/02/2023
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2023:rk20230215.2bvr200922
  • Germany / Federal Constitutional Court / 2 BvR 2009/22

    Key facts of the case:

    The complainant was arrested on 16 August 2022 on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued by a Belgian court. He complained that the warrant did not contain a specific description of the circumstances in which the offences with which he was charged with were alleged to have been committed, and in particular no description of his involvement in the offence. He further argued that the warrant did not indicate which specific offences he was accused of. On 30 August 2022, the Higher Regional Court ordered the complainant to be held in custody pending extradition holding that the European Arrest Warrant met the formal requirements of § 83a(1) Nos. 3 and 5 of the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die international Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen – IRG) as well as Art. 8 No. 1 letters d and e of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (Rahmenbeschluss des Rates vom 13. Juni 2002 über den Europäischen Haftbefehl und die Übergabeverfahren zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten - RbEuHb). The Court noted that the specification of the charges in the extradition request enabled a sufficient conclusion to be drawn about the events of which the complainant was accused. In an order of 28 October 2022, the Higher Regional Court therefore declared the extradition admissible and ordered the continuation of the extradition custody. By order of 7 November 2022, the Düsseldorf General Public Prosecutor's Office granted the extradition for the purpose of criminal prosecution. The complainant filed a constitutional complaint against these two orders.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The key legal question is whether the Higher Regional Court violated the complainant's right to effective judicial protection under Art. 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by insufficiently examining the compliance with the mandatory minimum information in the European Arrest Warrant.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Constitutional Court held that the challenged decision of the Higher Regional Court of 28 October 2022 violated the complainant's fundamental right under Art. 47(1) of the EU Charter by not verifying compliance with the mandatory minimum information in the European Arrest Warrant with regard to the alleged criminal offences and the description of the circumstances underlying these criminal offences. The Constitutional Court noted that the procedure of surrender within the scope of application of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States had been entirely determined by Union law. In the application of regulations that are completely unified under Union law, it is not the German fundamental rights that are decisive, but the fundamental rights of the Union. In European mutual legal assistance, the principles of mutual trust and recognition apply. They are based on the premise that the European Arrest Warrant in question has been issued in accordance with the minimum requirements on which its validity depends. According to Art. 8 No. 1 letters d and e of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, the warrant must therefore contain at least the nature and legal assessment of the offence as well as the description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time of the offence, the place of the offence and the nature of the involvement of the requested person. Although an examination of the suspicion is generally omitted in extradition proceedings, this does not release the court from the obligation to examine compliance with the minimum information on the basis of the right to effective judicial protection under Art. 47(1) of the Charter.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    16. The admissible constitutional complaint is obviously well-founded (cf. § 93c(1) sentence 1 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz – BVerfGG)). The impugned decision of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court of 28 October 2022 violates the complainant's fundamental right under Article 47(1) of the Charter.

    17. (a) The procedure of surrender within the scope of of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States is completely determined by Union law ... This also applies to optional obstacles to authorisation which are conclusively regulated in Article 4 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. In the application of regulations that are completely harmonised under Union law, it is in principle not the German fundamental rights that are decisive but the fundamental rights of the Union .... The object of the constitutional complaint is the review of the decision of a specialised court as to whether, in the application of Union law incumbent upon it, it has complied with the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be observed in this respect ....

    18. (b) The Federal Constitutional Court ensures the protection of fundamental rights in close cooperation with the Court of Justice of the European Union ..., the European Court of Human Rights and the constitutional and supreme courts of the other Member States .... The review of decisions of the specialised courts by the Federal Constitutional Court on the basis of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter comes into consideration in particular if the Court of Justice of the European Union has already clarified their interpretation or if the principles of interpretation to be applied are obvious in themselves - for example on the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, which in individual cases also determines the content of the Charter (cf. Art. 52(3) of the Charter), or with reference to the case-law of constitutional and supreme courts of the Member States on fundamental rights which result from the common constitutional traditions and correspond to the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Charter (cf. Art. 52(4) of the Charter). Otherwise, questions on the interpretation of Charter rights must be referred to the Court of Justice under Article 267(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ....

    20. (d) According to Article 47(1) of the Charter, any person whose rights or freedoms guaranteed by Union law have been infringed shall have the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. In order to ensure respect for this fundamental right in the Union, Article 19(1)(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) requires Member States to provide the necessary legal remedies to ensure effective judicial protection in the areas covered by Union law ....

    27. e) According to these standards, the impugned order of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court of 28 October 2022 does not withstand fundamental rights scrutiny. By insufficiently reviewing compliance with the mandatory minimum information in the European Arrest Warrant with regard to the alleged offences, the description of the circumstances underlying these offences and, in particular, the complainant's involvement, the Higher Regional Court violated the complainant's right to effective legal protection under Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    33. (4) In this context, it can be left open whether the lowering of the requirements concerning the description of the circumstances in which the offence is said to have been committed in the case of organisational and serial offences - which is not provided for in the wording of Article 8(1) letter e of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States and § 83a(1) No. 5 of the Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters - assumed by the Higher Regional Court with reference to commentary literature - is still compatible with the effective legal protection to be granted by the court of the executing Member State in the admissibility decision under Article 47(1) of the Charter.

    35. 3. As the constitutional complaint already succeeds on the basis of the violation of Article 47(1) of the Charter it is not necessary to decide whether the challenged order also violates other fundamental Union rights of the complainant.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    „Die zulässige Verfassungsbeschwerde ist offensichtlich begründet (vgl. § 93c Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG). Die angegriffene Entscheidung des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf vom 28. Oktober 2022 verletzt den Beschwerdeführer in seinem Grundrecht aus Art. 47 Abs. 1 GRCh.“ (Rn. 16)

    „a) Das Verfahren der Überstellung im Anwendungsbereich des Rahmenbeschlusses über den Europäischen Haftbefehl (RbEuHb) ist vollständig unionsrechtlich determiniert (…). Das gilt auch für fakultative Bewilligungshindernisse, die in Art. 4 RbEuHb abschließend geregelt sind. Bei der Anwendung unionsrechtlich vollständig vereinheitlichter Regelungen sind grundsätzlich nicht die deutschen Grundrechte, sondern die Unionsgrundrechte maßgeblich (…). Gegenstand der Verfassungsbeschwerde ist die Kontrolle der Entscheidung eines Fachgerichts daraufhin, ob es bei der ihm obliegenden Anwendung des Unionsrechts den hierbei zu beachtenden Anforderungen der Grundrechtecharta der Europäischen Union Genüge getan hat (…).“ (Rn. 17)

    „b) Das Bundesverfassungsgericht gewährleistet den Grundrechtsschutz in enger Kooperation mit dem Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (…), dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte und den Verfassungs- und Höchstgerichten der anderen Mitgliedstaaten (…). Die Überprüfung fachgerichtlicher Entscheidungen am Maßstab der in der Charta gewährleisteten Grundrechte durch das Bundesverfassungsgericht kommt insbesondere dann in Betracht, wenn der Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union deren Auslegung bereits geklärt hat oder die anzuwendenden Auslegungsgrundsätze aus sich heraus offenkundig sind – etwa auf der Grundlage der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte, die im Einzelfall auch den Inhalt der Charta bestimmt (vgl. Art. 52 Abs. 3 GRCh), oder unter Heranziehung der Rechtsprechung mitgliedstaatlicher Verfassungs- und Höchstgerichte zu Grundrechten, die sich aus den gemeinsamen Verfassungsüberlieferungen ergeben und den in der Charta gewährleisteten Grundrechten entsprechen (vgl. Art. 52 Abs. 4 GRCh). Andernfalls müssen Fragen zur Auslegung der Rechte der Charta dem Gerichtshof gemäß Art. 267 Abs. 3 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEUV) vorgelegt werden (…).“ (Rn. 18)

    „d) Nach Art. 47 Abs. 1 GRCh hat jede Person, deren durch das Unionsrecht garantierte Rechte oder Freiheiten verletzt worden sind, das Recht, bei einem Gericht einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf einzulegen. Um die Wahrung dieses Grundrechts in der Union zu gewährleisten, verpflichtet Art. 19 Abs. 1 UAbs. 2 des Vertrags über die Europäische Union (EUV) die Mitgliedstaaten, die erforderlichen Rechtsbehelfe zu schaffen, damit ein wirksamer Rechtsschutz in den vom Unionsrecht erfassten Bereichen gewährleistet ist (…).“ (Rn. 20)

    „e) Nach diesen Maßstäben hält der angegriffene Beschluss des Oberlandesgerichts Düsseldorf vom 28. Oktober 2022 einer grundrechtlichen Prüfung nicht stand. Durch die unzureichende Überprüfung der Einhaltung der zwingenden Mindestangaben im Europäischen Haftbefehl hinsichtlich der vorgeworfenen Straftaten, der Beschreibung der diesen Straftaten zugrundeliegenden Umstände und insbesondere der Beteiligung des Beschwerdeführers hat das Oberlandesgericht dessen Recht auf effektiven Rechtsschutz nach Art. 47 Abs. 1 GRCh verletzt.“ (Rn. 27)

    „(4) Dabei kann dahinstehen, ob die vom Oberlandesgericht unter Bezugnahme auf Kommentarliteratur angenommene – nicht im Wortlaut des Art. 8 Abs. 1 Buchstabe e RbEuHb und § 83a Abs. 1 Nr. 5 IRG vorgesehene – Absenkung der Anforderungen betreffend die Beschreibung der Umstände, unter denen die Straftat begangen worden sei soll, bei Organisations- und Seriendelikten mit dem vom Gericht des vollstreckenden Mitgliedstaats bei der Zulässigkeitsentscheidung nach Art. 47 Abs. 1 GRCh zu gewährenden effektiven Rechtsschutz noch vereinbar ist.“ (Rn. 33)

    „3. Da die Verfassungsbeschwerde bereits wegen der Verletzung von Art. 47 Abs. 1 GRCh Erfolg hat, bedarf es keiner Entscheidung, ob der angegriffene Beschluss auch andere Unionsgrundrechte des Beschwerdeführers verletzt.“ (Rn. 35)