Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-481/23, Sangas

The Member State in which a requested person resides cannot refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued in order to ensure the continued presence of that person at a criminal trial.

The execution may not be refused even if the acts constituting the offence committed by the requested person do not fall under the criminal jurisdiction of that Member State according to its national law.

In 2022, the Spanish Central Court convicted a Spanish national, residing in Romania, as a co-author of a VAT fraud offence concerning the sale of hydrocarbons worth over 100 million euros. The individual was sentenced to several prison terms and was also fined significant amounts.

After the defendant announced his intention to appeal the conviction before the Spanish Supreme Court, he was denied authorization to return to his country of residence. Despite this travel restriction, the defendant was located at the Croatian border while traveling to Romania. Consequently, in April 2022, the Spanish Central Court issued a European Arrest Warrant seeking his search, arrest, and detention.

In April 2023, a Romanian court refused to execute the warrant. It held that the defendant, who had demonstrated continuous and lawful residence in Romania, did not consent to surrender to the Spanish judicial authorities. Moreover, it ruled that the criminal proceedings were time-barred under Romanian law.

However, the Spanish Central Court considered that the conditions required to invoke these optional grounds for non-execution of the EAW were not fulfilled and referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for an interpretation of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant.

In its ruling, the CJEU confirmed the position of the Spanish Central Court.

According to the Framework Decision, the judicial authority of the executing Member State may refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant issued for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence or detention order. However, such a refusal is conditional upon the requested person being a resident of the executing Member State, and the latter undertaking to enforce the sentence or measure in accordance with its own national law.

In this case, however, the European Arrest Warrant was not issued for that purpose, but rather to ensure the continued presence of the defendant in ongoing criminal proceedings before the Spanish courts.

Regarding the alleged statute of limitations under Romanian law, the Court notes that this ground for refusal may only be invoked if the acts fall within the criminal jurisdiction of the executing Member State under its national law — which does not appear to be the case here. The Spanish Central Court indicated that all the acts were committed in Spain and constituted tax evasion offences affecting the economic interests of that Member State.

Source: https://www.juridice.ro/778630/cjue-c-481-23-sangas-statul-membru-in-care-isi-are-resedinta-o-persoana-cautata-nu-poate-refuza-executarea-unui-mea-prin-care-se-urmareste-sa-se-asigure-prezenta-in-continuare-a-acestei-persoane-l.html