Article 48 - Presumption of innocence and right of defence
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Article 4a – Surrender procedure between Member States – Grounds for optional non-execution – Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Rights of the defence – Directive 2012/13/EU – Article 6 – Right to information in criminal proceedings – Directive 2013/48/EU – Article 3 – Right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings – Decision rendered following a trial at which the accused person neither appeared nor was represented by a lawyer – National legislation not permitting refusal to surrender the person concerned – Compliance with EU law
Outcome of the case:
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 4a 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, read in the light of Article 6 TEU and Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation that does not allow the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the person concerned, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence imposed on that person in the issuing State, if that person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision and was not represented by a lawyer appointed by him or her or by a lawyer appointed by the court, and if the conditions laid down in Article 4a(1)(d) are fulfilled.
36) By its sole question, the referring court is essentially seeking to ascertain whether Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 6 TEU, Article 48(2) and Article 52(3) and (4) of the Charter, Article 6(3)(c) ECHR, Article 1(3) of that framework decision, Article 6 of Directive 2012/13 and Article 3 of Directive 2013/48 should be interpreted as precluding national legislation that does not allow the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the person concerned, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence imposed on that person in the issuing State, if that person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision and was not represented by a lawyer appointed by him or her or appointed by the court and, in any event, in the absence of an effective defence, in a situation in which, after that surrender, the same person is served with the judgment rendered in absentia and may lodge an objection to, or appeal against, that judgment.
...
56) In the fourth place, Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584 must also be interpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the second and third paragraphs of Article 47 and with Article 48 of the Charter, which, as stated in the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), correspond to Article 6 ECHR. The Court must, accordingly, ensure that its interpretation of the second and third paragraphs of Article 47 and of Article 48 of the Charter ensures a level of protection which does not disregard that guaranteed by Article 6 ECHR, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (judgment of 23 March 2023, Minister for Justice and Equality (Lifting of the suspension), C‑514/21 and C‑515/21, EU:C:2023:235, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
57) In accordance with that case-law, the Court of Justice has already ruled that, in each of the circumstances referred to in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the execution of the European arrest warrant does not infringe the rights of the defence of the person concerned or the right to an effective judicial remedy and to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraphs 47 to 54, and of 23 March 2023, Minister for Justice and Equality (Lifting of the suspension), C‑514/21 and C‑515/21, EU:C:2023:235, paragraph 73 and the case-law cited).
60) Lastly, in so far as the referring court appears to take the view that Italian law ensures a higher standard of protection of the rights of the defence, and in particular the right to be assisted by a lawyer, than that deriving from the fundamental rights defined by EU law, in particular Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter, it should be borne in mind that an executing judicial authority may make the surrender of the person concerned by a European arrest warrant to the issuing judicial authority subject only to compliance with the requirements arising from those latter provisions and not to compliance with those arising from its national law. Indeed, the opposite solution would, by casting doubt on the uniformity of the standard of protection of fundamental rights as defined by EU law, undermine the principles of mutual trust and recognition which Framework Decision 2002/584 is intended to uphold and would, therefore, compromise the efficacy of that framework decision (see, to that effect, judgments of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C‑399/11, EU:C:2013:107, paragraph 63, and of 15 October 2019, Dorobantu, C‑128/18, EU:C:2019:857, paragraph 79).
61) In the light of all of the reasons set out above, the answer to the question referred is that Article 4a of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 6 TEU and Article 47 and Article 48(2) of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national legislation that does not allow the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the person concerned, pursuant to a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence imposed on that person in the issuing State, if that person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision and was not represented by a lawyer appointed by him or her or by a lawyer appointed by the court, and if the conditions laid down in Article 4a(1)(d) are fulfilled.
