France / Court of Cassation / 20-87.140

Mrs M.W v. France
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Court of Cassation
Type
Decision
Decision date
12/01/2021
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:FR:CCASS:2021:CR00157
  • France / Court of Cassation / 20-87.140

    Key facts of the case: 

    Ms W. was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued on 30 December 2019 by the Polish judicial authorities for the purpose of criminal proceedings for actions involving the abandoning of her family committed between October 2008 and December 2018. She was detained on November 25, 2020. In order to oppose her being handed over to the Polish judicial authorities, Ms W. argued that the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union Commission v Poland of 24 June 2019 (C-619/18) and Commission v Poland of 5 November 2019 (C-192/18) finding against that State for failure to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the TEU gave rise to the presumption that the Zieloan Gora District Court which issued the arrest warrant, as the basis for the European arrest warrant, did not offer sufficient guarantees of independence from the executive.
    The Investigation Chamber of the Rennes Court of Appeal authorised her handing over to the Polish judicial authorities, pursuant to a European arrest warrant. It rejected Ms W.'s argument, stating that Ms W. did not put forward any argument sufficient to cast doubt on the independence of the Zieloan Gora District Court.

    Ms M. W. appealed against this ruling of 10 December 2020.  

     

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    What factors make it possible to assess whether there is a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights?

     

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Court of Cassation considered that the finding against Poland by the Court of Justice of the European Union constituted an objective, reliable, precise and duly updated factor tending to demonstrate the existence of a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter, due to systemic failings as regards the independence of the judiciary in Poland.

    It was consequently up to the Investigating Chamber to determine whether any new circumstances were such as to question this finding and, if not, to tangibly and precisely ascertain the extent to which this factor was likely to have an impact on the Polish courts having jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the wanted person will be subject. It was also up to the Investigating Chamber to determine whether, having regard to the personal circumstances, the type of offence and the factual context in which the arrest warrant was issued, and in view of any information provided by that Member State pursuant to Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, there were any serious, proven grounds for believing that Ms W. would run a real risk of infringement of her fundamental right to a fair trial if she were handed over.The Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Investigation Division of the Rennes Court of Appeal of 11 December 2020, and referred the case and the parties to the Investigation Division of the Rennes Court of Appeal, composed of different judges.
     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    18. It follows from the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ruling C-354/20 of 17 December 2020) that Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the handing over of a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant has evidence of systemic or general failings in the independence of the judiciary in the Member State issuing the arrest warrant which existed at the time the warrant was issued or which arose after the warrant was issued, that authority may not deny the "issuing judicial authority" status of the court which issued the said warrant and may not presume that there are serious, proven grounds for believing that, in the event of surrender to the said Member State, there is a real risk of infringement of that person's fundamental right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by the second subparagraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, without carrying out a tangible, precise verification which should consider, in particular, the personal circumstances of the person concerned, the type of offence involved and the factual context in which the arrest warrant was issued, such as statements by public authorities that may interfere in the way an individual case is handled.

    19. It follows that where it is argued before it that the independence of the courts of the issuing Member State is not guaranteed, it is up to the investigating chamber, firstly, to determine whether, in the light of substantiated allegations, there is any objective, reliable, precise and duly updated information tending to demonstrate the existence of a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second subparagraph of Article 47 of the Charter due to systemic or general failings in the independence of the judiciary of the issuing Member State and, secondly, to tangibly and precisely ascertain, in accordance with the above-mentioned case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the extent to which such failings are likely to have an impact on the courts of that Member State having jurisdiction over the proceedings to which the wanted person will be subject.

    (...)

    26. It follows that the aforementioned finding against Poland constituted an objective, reliable, precise and duly updated factor tending to demonstrate the existence of a real risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second subparagraph of Article 47 of the Charter, due to systemic failings as regards the independence of the judiciary in that issuing Member State.
     

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    18. Il résulte de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne (arrêt C-354/20 du 17 décembre 2020) que l'article 6, paragraphe 1, et l'article 1er, paragraphe 3, de la décision-cadre 2002/584/JAI du Conseil, du 13 juin 2002, relative au mandat d'arrêt européen et aux procédures de remise entre États membres, telle que modifiée par la décision-cadre 2009/299/JAI du Conseil, du 26 février 2009, doivent être interprétés en ce sens que, lorsque l'autorité judiciaire d'exécution appelée à décider de la remise d'une personne faisant l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêt européen dispose d'éléments témoignant de défaillances systémiques ou généralisées concernant l'indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire dans l'État membre d'émission de ce mandat d'arrêt qui existaient au moment de l'émission de celui-ci ou qui sont survenues postérieurement à cette émission, cette autorité ne peut dénier la qualité d'« autorité judiciaire d'émission » à la juridiction qui a émis ledit mandat d'arrêt et ne peut présumer qu'il existe des motifs sérieux et avérés de croire que cette personne courra, en cas de remise à ce dernier État membre, un risque réel de violation de son droit fondamental à un procès équitable, garanti par l'article 47, deuxième alinéa, de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, sans procéder à une vérification concrète et précise qui tiendra compte, notamment, de la situation personnelle de ladite personne, de la nature de l'infraction en cause ainsi que du contexte factuel dans lequel s'inscrit ladite émission, tel que des déclarations d'autorités publiques susceptibles d'interférer dans le traitement à réserver à un cas individuel.

    19. Il s'ensuit que lorsqu'il est soutenu devant elle que l'indépendance des juridictions de l'Etat membre d'émission n'est pas garantie, il appartient à la chambre de l'instruction, en premier lieu, de déterminer si, au vu d'allégations étayées, il existe des éléments objectifs, fiables, précis et dûment actualisés tendant à démontrer l'existence d'un risque réel de violation du droit fondamental à un procès équitable garanti par l'article 47, deuxième alinéa, de la Charte, en raison de défaillances systémiques ou généralisées en ce qui concerne l'indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire de l'État membre d'émission et, en second lieu, de vérifier, conformément à la jurisprudence précitée de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne, de manière concrète et précise, dans quelle mesure ces défaillances sont susceptibles d'avoir une incidence au niveau des juridictions de cet État membre compétentes pour connaître des procédures auxquelles sera soumise la personne recherchée.

    (...)

    26. Il s'ensuit que la condamnation précitée de la Pologne constituait un élément objectif, fiable, précis et dûment actualisé tendant à démontrer l'existence d'un risque réel de violation du droit fondamental à un procès équitable garanti par l'article 47, deuxième alinéa, de la Charte, en raison de défaillances systémiques en ce qui concerne l'indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire de cet État membre d'émission.