{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0722","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0722)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:c601385178c0344cfc93076ec0f1d51c07105728cc1cfc4a31d6d837cdafb5b3","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:62023cj0722","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"62023CJ0722","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4 June 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"In Joined Cases C‑722/23 [Rugu]  i and C‑91/24 [Aucroix], (\n i\n )","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10"]},{"title":"Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Mons (C‑91/24)","paragraphs":["para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"1","paragraphs":["para_38"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":["para_40"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"European Union law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Framework Decision 2002/584","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":["para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55"]},{"title":"Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_61","para_62"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_64"]},{"title":"(b)","paragraphs":["para_66"]},{"title":"(c)","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":["para_75","para_76","para_77"]},{"title":"(a)","paragraphs":["para_79","para_80"]},{"title":"(c)","paragraphs":["para_82"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_84","para_85"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":["para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96"]},{"title":"Belgian law","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Article 6 of the Law of 19 December 2003 provides:","paragraphs":["para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108"]},{"title":"The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Case C‑722/23","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":["para_112"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_114"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_116"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_118"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_122"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_124"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_126"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_128"]},{"title":"21","paragraphs":["para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"Case C‑91/24","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"22","paragraphs":["para_134"]},{"title":"23","paragraphs":["para_136"]},{"title":"24","paragraphs":["para_138"]},{"title":"25","paragraphs":["para_140"]},{"title":"26","paragraphs":["para_142"]},{"title":"27","paragraphs":["para_144","para_145"]},{"title":"28","paragraphs":["para_147"]},{"title":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Preliminary observations","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"29","paragraphs":["para_151"]},{"title":"30","paragraphs":["para_153"]},{"title":"31","paragraphs":["para_155"]},{"title":"32","paragraphs":["para_157"]},{"title":"33","paragraphs":["para_159"]},{"title":"34","paragraphs":["para_161"]},{"title":"35","paragraphs":["para_163"]},{"title":"36","paragraphs":["para_165"]},{"title":"37","paragraphs":["para_167"]},{"title":"38","paragraphs":["para_169"]},{"title":"Substance","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"39","paragraphs":["para_172"]},{"title":"40","paragraphs":["para_174"]},{"title":"41","paragraphs":["para_176"]},{"title":"42","paragraphs":["para_178"]},{"title":"43","paragraphs":["para_180"]},{"title":"44","paragraphs":["para_182"]},{"title":"45","paragraphs":["para_184"]},{"title":"46","paragraphs":["para_186"]},{"title":"47","paragraphs":["para_188"]},{"title":"48","paragraphs":["para_190"]},{"title":"49","paragraphs":["para_192"]},{"title":"50","paragraphs":["para_194"]},{"title":"51","paragraphs":["para_196"]},{"title":"52","paragraphs":["para_198"]},{"title":"53","paragraphs":["para_200"]},{"title":"54","paragraphs":["para_202"]},{"title":"55","paragraphs":["para_204"]},{"title":"56","paragraphs":["para_206"]},{"title":"57","paragraphs":["para_208"]},{"title":"58","paragraphs":["para_210"]},{"title":"59","paragraphs":["para_212"]},{"title":"60","paragraphs":["para_214"]},{"title":"61","paragraphs":["para_216"]},{"title":"62","paragraphs":["para_218"]},{"title":"63","paragraphs":["para_220"]},{"title":"64","paragraphs":["para_222"]},{"title":"65","paragraphs":["para_224"]},{"title":"66","paragraphs":["para_226"]},{"title":"67","paragraphs":["para_228"]},{"title":"68","paragraphs":["para_230"]},{"title":"69","paragraphs":["para_232"]},{"title":"70","paragraphs":["para_234"]},{"title":"71","paragraphs":["para_236"]},{"title":"72","paragraphs":["para_238"]},{"title":"73","paragraphs":["para_240"]},{"title":"74","paragraphs":["para_242"]},{"title":"75","paragraphs":["para_244"]},{"title":"76","paragraphs":["para_246"]},{"title":"77","paragraphs":["para_248"]},{"title":"78","paragraphs":["para_250"]},{"title":"79","paragraphs":["para_252"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"80","paragraphs":["para_255"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"62023CJ0722","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"4 June 2026 (\n *1\n )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Grounds for refusal of execution – Risk of the requested person suffering inhuman or degrading treatment prohibited by Article 4 of the Charter …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Joined Cases C‑722/23 [Rugu]  i and C‑91/24 [Aucroix], (\n i\n )","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"TWO REQUESTS for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, Belgium), made by decisions of 22 November 2023 and of 31 January 2024, received at the Court on 28 November 2023 and on 6 February 2024, respectively, in proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"AR (C‑722/23),","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"intervening parties:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Procureur général,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"and","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Procureur général près la cour d’appel de Mons (C‑91/24)","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"HL,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"THE COURT (Grand Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"composed of K. Lenaerts, President, T. von Danwitz, Vice-President, F. Biltgen, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), L. Arastey Sahún, I. Ziemele, J. Passer and O. Spineanu‑Matei, Presidents of Chamber, S. Rodin, D. Gratsias, M. Gavalec, Z. Csehi and N. Fenger, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Advocate General: A. Rantos,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Registrar: M. Siekierzyńska, Administrator,","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 18 March 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"AR, by O. Martins, avocat,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"the Belgian Government, by M. Jacobs, C. Pochet, and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"the French Government, by R. Bénard and B. Dourthe, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"the Netherlands Government, by E. Besselink and K. Bulterman, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent,","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"the Romanian Government, by M. Chicu and E. Gane, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"the European Commission, by F. Blanc, H. Leupold and J. Vondung, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 July 2025,","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"1","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"These requests for a preliminary ruling concern the interpretation of Article 1(3) and Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States ( OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1 ), as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 ( OJ 2009 L 81, p. 24 ) (‘Framework Decision 2002/584’).","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"The requests have been made in the context of the execution, in Belgium, of two European arrest warrants issued, in the first case, by the Romanian authorities, on 1 August 2023, against AR, a Romanian national residing in Belgium, for the purposes of enforcing a four-year prison sentence for traffi …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"European Union law","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"Framework Decision 2002/584","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"‘1.   The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"2.   Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"3.   This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].’","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"‘The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"6.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law;","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"Article 3 of Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union ( OJ 2008 L 327, p. 27 ), entitled ‘Purpose and scope’, provides, in paragraph 1:","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"‘The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a view to facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, is to recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence.’","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"Article 4 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Criteria for forwarding a judgment and a certificate to another Member State’, is worded as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"‘1.   Provided that the sentenced person is in the issuing State or in the executing State, and provided that this person has given his or her consent where required under Article 6, a judgment, together with the certificate for which the standard form is given in Annex I, may be forwarded to one of the following Member States:","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"the Member State of nationality of the sentenced person in which he or she lives; or","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"(b)","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"the Member State of nationality, to which, while not being the Member State where he or she lives, the sentenced person will be deported, once he or she is released from the enforcement of the sentence …; or","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"(c)","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"any Member State other than a Member State referred to in (a) or (b), the competent authority of which consents to the forwarding of the judgment and the certificate to that Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"2.   The forwarding of the judgment and the certificate may take place where the competent authority of the issuing State, where appropriate after consultations between the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing States, is satisfied that the enforcement of the sentence by the executing State would serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"3.   Before forwarding the judgment and the certificate, the competent authority of the issuing State may consult, by any appropriate means, the competent authority of the executing State. Consultation shall be obligatory in the cases referred to in paragraph 1(c). In such cases the competent authority of the executing State shall promptly inform the issuing State of its decision whether or not to consent to the forwarding of the judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"5.   The executing State may, on its own initiative, request the issuing State to forward the judgment together with the certificate. … Requests made under this paragraph shall not create an obligation of the issuing State to forward the judgment together with the certificate.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"Article 6 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Opinion and notification of the sentenced person’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"‘1.   Without prejudice to paragraph 2, a judgment together with a certificate may be forwarded to the executing State for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement of the sentence only with the consent of the sentenced person in accordance with the law of the issuing State.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"2.   The consent of the sentenced person shall not be required where the judgment together with the certificate is forwarded:","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"(a)","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"to the Member State of nationality in which the sentenced person lives;","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"(c)","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"to the Member State to which the sentenced person has fled or otherwise returned in view of the criminal proceedings pending against him or her in the issuing State or following the conviction in that issuing State.’","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Article 25 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Enforcement of sentences following a European arrest warrant’, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"‘Without prejudice to [Framework Decision 2002/584], provisions of this Framework Decision shall apply, mutatis mutandis to the extent they are compatible with provisions under that Framework Decision, to enforcement of sentences in cases where a Member State undertakes to enforce the sentence in ca …","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Article 26 of Framework Decision 2008/909, entitled ‘Relationship with other agreements and arrangements’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"‘Without prejudice to their application between Member States and third States and their transitional application according to Article 28, this Framework Decision shall, from 5 December 2011, replace the corresponding provisions of the following conventions applicable in relations between the Member States:","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"The [Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons ( European Treaty Series No 112), signed at Strasbourg on 21 March 1983,] and the Additional Protocol thereto of 18 December 1997;","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"The European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgements[, signed at The Hague on 28 May 1970];","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Title III, Chapter 5, of the Convention [implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders ( OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19 ), signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990 and entered into force on 26 March 1995];","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"–","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"The Convention between the Member States of the European Communities on the Enforcement of Foreign Criminal Sentences[, signed at Brussels on 13 November 1991].’","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"Belgian law","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"Article 4 of the loi relative au mandat d’arrêt européen, du 19 décembre 2003 ( Moniteur belge of 22 December 2003, p. 60075) (Law of 19 December 2003 on the European Arrest Warrant) (‘the Law of 22 December 2003’) provides that:","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"‘The execution of a European arrest warrant shall be refused in the following cases:","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"5° if there are valid grounds for believing that the execution of the European arrest warrant would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the person concerned, as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].’","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"Article 6 of the Law of 19 December 2003 provides:","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"‘Execution may be refused in the following cases:","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"4° if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of enforcement of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the person concerned is Belgian or resides in Belgium and the competent Belgian authorities undertake to enforce the sentence or detention order in accordance with Belgian law;","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Case C‑722/23","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"On 1 August 2023, the Romanian judicial authorities issued a European arrest warrant against AR, a Romanian national residing in Belgium, for the purposes of enforcing, in Romania, a four-year custodial sentence for trafficking in human beings.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"By order of 22 September 2023, the chambre du conseil du tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (Investigation Chamber of the Brussels Court of First Instance (French-Speaking), Belgium) refused to execute that European arrest warrant on the basis of Article 4, 5°, of the Law of 19 D …","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"The ministère public (Public Prosecutor’s Office) appealed against that order before the chambre de mises en accusation de la cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Indictment Chamber of the Court of Appeal, Brussels, Belgium). By a judgment of 30 October 2023, the Indictment Chamber confirmed that order, but a …","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"AR brought an appeal on a point of law against that judgment before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, Belgium), which is the referring court. Before that court, AR submits that, having found that a ground for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant applied, since there were v …","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"In that regard, the referring court states that Article 4, 5°, of the Law of 19 December 2003, which transposed Framework Decision 2002/584 into Belgian law, provides that the execution of a European arrest warrant must necessarily be refused if there are valid grounds for believing that its execution would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the requested person, as enshrined in Article 6 TEU.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"The referring court cites the judgment of 17 December 2020, Openbaar Ministerie (Independence of the issuing judicial authority) ( C‑354/20 PPU and C‑412/20 PPU , EU:C:2020:1033 ), in support of the observation that the objective of the mechanism of the European arrest warrant is in particular to combat the impunity of the requested person who is present in a territory other than that in which he or she has allegedly committed an offence.","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"According to that court, it is clear from the judgment 29 June 2017, Popławski ( C‑579/15 , EU:C:2017:503 ), that it is obliged, by taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration and applying the interpretative methods recognised by it, to interpret the provisions of national law at issue, …","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"The referring court observes that, in accordance with Article 6, 4°, of the Law of 19 December 2003, which transposes into Belgian law the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the execution of a European arrest warrant may be refused if it ha …","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"Therefore, it wonders whether, in the event of a refusal to execute a European arrest warrant in application of the ground for mandatory non-execution referred to in paragraph 16 of the present judgment, Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial aut …","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"21","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"‘Where the courts of the Member State executing a European arrest warrant have found that, in the event of the surrender of the requested person to the issuing Member State, there is a risk of that person’s fundamental rights being infringed in connection with the [enforcement] of the foreign senten …","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"Case C‑91/24","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"22","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"On 9 March 2016, the Greek authorities issued a European arrest warrant against HL, a Belgian national residing in Belgium, for the purposes of enforcing, in Greece, a five-year custodial sentence.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"23","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"By judgment of 18 January 2024, the chambre de mises en accusation de la cour d’appel de Mons (Indictment Chamber of the Court of Appeal, Mons, Belgium) refused to execute that European arrest warrant on the ground that the mental deficiencies affecting HL, combined with the detention conditions in the issuing Member State, would expose him to the risk of a breach of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 5 ECHR.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"24","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"The Public Prosecutor’s Office brought an appeal on a point of law against that decision before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation), which is the referring court. It submits that, after refusing to execute that European arrest warrant on account of the conditions of enforcement of the custodi …","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"25","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"In essence, the referring court has doubts, for the same reasons as those in Case C‑722/23, as to how Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"26","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"However, in the present case, it wonders whether, in the event of a refusal to execute a European arrest warrant in application of a ground for mandatory non-execution referred to in paragraph 16 of the present judgment, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authorities of …","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"27","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"‘Where the courts of a Member State executing a European arrest warrant have found that, in the event of the surrender of the requested person to the issuing Member State, there is a risk of that person’s fundamental rights being infringed in connection with the [enforcement] of the foreign sentence …","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"28","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"By decision of the Court of 21 January 2025, Cases C‑722/23 and C‑91/24 were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"Consideration of the questions referred","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"Preliminary observations","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"29","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"It is clear from the requests for a preliminary ruling that, in the cases in the main proceedings, the competent Belgian judicial authorities refused to execute the European arrest warrants at issue on the basis of Article 4, 5°, of the Law of 19 December 2003, which transposes Article 1(3) of Frame …","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"30","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"In that regard, it should be recalled that the existence of a risk of a breach of the fundamental rights set out in Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) is capable of permitting the executing judicial authority, exceptionally and following an appropria …","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"31","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Accordingly, an executing judicial authority, which is presented with objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence of the systemic and generalised deficiencies in conditions of detention in the issuing Member State, is bound to determine, specifically and precisely, whether, in the pa …","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"32","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"An executing judicial authority which finds, under the conditions recalled in the preceding paragraph of the present judgment, that the surrender of the requested person risks leading to inhuman or degrading treatment, prohibited by Article 4 of the Charter, has an obligation to bring the surrender …","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"33","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"In the cases in the main proceedings, the competent Belgian judicial authorities, in the capacity of the executing judicial authorities of the European arrest warrants at issue, found that there was a risk of the requested persons’ fundamental rights being infringed if those persons were surrendered …","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"34","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"In their observations before the Court, the French, Netherlands and Romanian Governments disputed that conclusion. According to the French Government, there is doubt as to whether the questions referred are necessary for the resolution of the disputes in the main proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"35","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"In that regard, it should however be noted that, according to settled case-law, questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, and the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to deter …","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"36","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"In the present case, it is clear from the requests for a preliminary ruling that the question whether the conditions are met for refusing the execution of the European arrest warrants on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is not at issue in the context of the disputes before the referring court.","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"37","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"It is also clear from those requests, and from the very wording of the questions referred, that those disputes concern, in essence, solely the question whether, where the executing judicial authorities have refused, on the basis of that provision, to execute European arrest warrants and have accordi …","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"38","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"In those circumstances, it must be held that the decisions to refuse to execute the European arrest warrants at issue fall within the legal and factual framework as it has been defined by the referring court and that it is not for the Court to call that matter into question, as is clear from the case-law recalled in paragraph 35 of the present judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"Substance","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"39","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority, where it has refused on the basis of Article 1(3) of that framework decision t …","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"40","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"In order to answer that question, it is necessary to determine, as a preliminary point, whether the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant set out in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is intended to be applied, in addition, where an executing judicial authority has …","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"41","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"In that regard, first, as has been recalled in paragraphs 30 to 32 of the present judgment, the ground for non-execution of a European arrest warrant under Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is mandatory.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"42","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"That ground, which applies irrespective of the conditions of residence of the requested person, seeks to protect that person’s fundamental rights by providing, exceptionally, for the execution of a European arrest warrant to be refused in a situation where, in particular in the event of systemic and …","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"43","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Thus, where an executing judicial authority, which is seised of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, decides, as in the present case, to apply a ground for non-execution based on Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, such a decision necessarily puts an end to the surrender procedure established by that framework decision.","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"44","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"A refusal based on that ground therefore has the consequence that the requested person will not be surrendered to the judicial authorities of the issuing Member State for reasons connected with the protection of his or her fundamental rights. For those reasons, that person will thus not serve, in th …","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"45","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Secondly, the ground for non-execution set out in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is optional, and the conditions for its application and its objective are specific to it.","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"46","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"Pursuant to that provision, an executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant if that warrant has been issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or resident of, the executing Member State and that State undertakes to enforce the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law.","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"47","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"Thus, the application of that provision is subject to two conditions being met, namely, first, that the requested person is staying in the executing Member State, is a national of or resident in that Member State and, secondly, that that State undertakes to enforce, in accordance with its domestic l …","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"48","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"Where the executing judicial authority finds that both of the conditions have been satisfied, it must then ascertain whether there is a legitimate interest to justify the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State being enforced on the territory of the executing Member State. That assessment allow …","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"49","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"As regards the grounds for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4 of Framework Decision 2002/584, it should be noted that Member States which have opted to transpose one or more of those grounds cannot provide that judicial authorities are required to refuse to execute any European arrest …","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"50","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"Thus, unlike the finding made in paragraph 43 of the present judgment with regard to Article 1(3) of that framework decision, Article 4(6) of that framework decision establishes an option for the requested person not to be surrendered in execution of the European arrest warrant where the conditions referred to in paragraph 47 of the present judgment are satisfied.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"51","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"It follows from the foregoing that the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is an autonomous ground for non-execution which is not intended to apply, in addition, where the execution of a European arrest warrant has already been refused by the …","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"52","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"To apply the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 as a complement to the ground for mandatory non-execution resulting from Article 1(3) of that framework decision would result in disregarding the objectives pursued by each of those grounds as well as their respective nature.","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"53","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"Consequently, where the executing judicial authority has refused, on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, that authority cannot, in order to avoid the impunity of the requested person, apply, in addition, the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of that framework decision.","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"54","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"However, in so far as the refusal to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 means, as has been noted in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the present judgment, that that sentence will not be enforced in the issuing Member State, it must be borne in mind t …","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"55","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"That is necessarily all the more so since the mechanism of the European arrest warrant seeks to combat the impunity of a requested person who is present in a territory other than that in which he or she has committed an offence (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 April 2023, E.D.L. (Ground for ref …","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"56","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"The impunity of the requested person would be incompatible with the objective pursued both by Framework Decision 2002/584 and by Article 3(2) TEU, under which the European Union offers its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of per …","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"57","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"It follows that, where an executing judicial authority has refused to execute, on the basis of Article 1(3) of that framework decision, a European arrest warrant which has been issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, that authority is required actively to seek to ensure that the requested person does not go unpunished as a result of that refusal.","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"58","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"As regards the steps to be taken to that end, it should be borne in mind that the obligation of sincere cooperation, laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, must inform the dialogue between the executing and issuing judicial authorities in order to ensure that the operation of the E …","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"59","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"With that in mind, the issuing and executing judicial authorities must, in order to ensure effective cooperation in criminal matters, make full use of the instruments adopted by the European Union in that area in order to foster mutual trust on the basis of that cooperation (see, to that effect, jud …","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"60","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, like Framework Decision 2002/584, Framework Decision 2008/909 gives concrete expression, in the criminal field, to the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition which require, particularly as regards the area of freedom, security and justice, th …","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"61","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"According to Article 3(1), the purpose of Framework Decision 2008/909 is to establish the rules under which a Member State, with a view to facilitating that social rehabilitation, is to recognise a judgment and enforce the sentence issued by a court in another Member State. As is apparent from Artic …","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"62","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"In that context, the refusal to execute, on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of enforcing, in the issuing Member State, a custodial sentence, on the ground that the surrender of the requested person to the latter Member State …","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"63","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"As the Belgian and Romanian Governments pointed out in their observations to the Court, the application of that ground, which relates only to the conditions of detention of the sentenced person in the issuing Member State, does not affect the principle of mutual trust and mutual recognition with regard to the procedure which was lawfully conducted in the latter Member State and which led to that judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"64","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"Furthermore, even if, as has been recalled in paragraph 61 of the present judgment, the rules laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909 are essentially intended to facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, the fact remains that those rules are relevant in a situation, such as that …","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"65","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"In that regard, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that the objective of increasing the requested person’s chances of reintegrating into society when the sentence imposed on that person expires, however important it may be, is not absolute, since that objective must be reconciled with the esse …","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"66","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"In view of the consequences regarding the enforcement of the sentence, referred to in paragraph 44 of the present judgment, which arise from the refusal to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, it is in the public interest for that sentence to be enforced in the executing Member State so that the requested person does not go unpunished as a result of that refusal.","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"67","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"In such a situation, having regard to the objectives of the sentence, a complementary approach must be taken to social rehabilitation and combating impunity, in so far as the reintegration into society of a person upon whom a custodial sentence has been imposed requires that sentence actually to be enforced in the executing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"68","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Accordingly, an executing Member State which has refused, on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence is required to apply the rules laid down by Framework Decision 2008/909 in order to ob …","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"69","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"In that regard, it is apparent from Article 4(1) of that framework decision that it is, in principle, for the issuing Member State to take the initiative to forward that judgment to the executing Member State, together with the standard certificate set out in Annex I to that framework decision, with a view to the recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the executing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"70","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"However, under Article 4(5) of that framework decision, the executing Member State may, on its own initiative, request the issuing Member State to forward that judgment to it, together with that certificate.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"71","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"It follows that, where the executing Member State has exceptionally refused, on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence in the issuing Member State, the executing Member State must ensure …","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"72","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"It is true that Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2008/909 states that a request made under that provision does not create an obligation on the part of the issuing Member State to forward that judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"73","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"It should nevertheless be pointed out that it is for the latter Member State to ensure that the prerogative conferred on it by that framework decision not to forward to the executing Member State the sentencing judgment imposed by one of its courts and the certificate referred to in paragraph 69 of …","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"74","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Consequently, the issuing Member State, when considering refusing such a request from an executing Member State, must take due account of the fact that, as a result of that refusal, the sentenced person would remain unpunished, which would also be liable to compromise his or her social rehabilitation.","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"75","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"Lastly, it should be noted that, under Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2008/909, the judgment together with the certificate referred to in paragraph 69 of the present judgment may, in principle, be forwarded to the executing Member State for the purposes of the recognition of that judgment and enforcement of the sentence only with the consent of the sentenced person, in accordance with the law of the issuing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"76","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"However, it is apparent from Article 6(2)(a) and (c) of that framework decision that that consent is not required either where the sentenced person is a national of the executing Member State and also lives in its territory, or where he or she has fled or returned to the latter Member State, in particular following his or her conviction in the issuing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"77","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"In the present case, it is apparent, first, from the case file before the Court in Case C‑91/24 that, under Article 6(2)(a) of Framework Decision 2008/909, HL’s consent might not be required, in so far as he is a Belgian national residing in Belgium, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"78","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"Secondly, as regards the case file before the Court in Case C‑722/23, it is apparent that AR is a Romanian national residing in Belgium. It is therefore also for that court to ascertain, in the light of the information available to it, whether the exception provided for in Article 6(2)(c) of that fr …","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"79","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority, where it has refused to execute, on the basis of Article 1(3) of that framework decision, a …","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"80","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"Article 4(6) 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,","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority, where it has refused to execute, on the basis of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, cannot, in order to avoid the impunity o …","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"(\n *1\n ) Language of the case: French.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"(\n i\n ) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_261"}],"word_count":8220,"cites":["C-722/23","C-91/24","C-354/20","C-412/20","C-579/15","C-404/15","C-659/15","C-158/21","C-128/18","C-300/01","C-569/20","C-305/22","C-665/20","C-562/21","C-563/21","C-699/21","C-573/17","C-318/24"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"2ecdcf59e4cf9b082fd3d471c0a23297c996b9562c92f2aca4737c8c8c9471ba","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62023CJ0722.ENG.xhtml.ECR_62023CJ0722_EN_01.html","fetched_at":"2026-10-01T21:49:43.272+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/62023cj0722","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62023cj0722","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62023cj0722","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62023cj0722","verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:eu:62023cj0722","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":18,"word_count":8220,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:c601385178c0344cfc93076ec0f1d51c07105728cc1cfc4a31d6d837cdafb5b3","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-04T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:c601385178c0344cfc93076ec0f1d51c07105728cc1cfc4a31d6d837cdafb5b3","revalidate_after":"2026-11-03T06:53:42.339Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:62023cj0722","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:62023cj0722"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:62023cj0722"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:62023cj0722"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/62023cj0722","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-f4a664c9693f0f84b934920fc6836910","response_hash":"sha256:c601385178c0344cfc93076ec0f1d51c07105728cc1cfc4a31d6d837cdafb5b3"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:53:43.194Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3A62023cj0722&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":17328}}