{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-02","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:f6410a","proof":"sha256:c0625d6bde8a9558bd53773927a8d6aed9cec8f9be897789da5ba8712976a939","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:c-446-26-ppu","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":"Provisional text","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2 July 2026 ( * )","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"In Case C‑446/26 PPU [Blerens], ( i )","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17"]},{"title":"Order","paragraphs":["para_19","para_20"]},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":["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"]},{"title":"The main proceedings and the question referred","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54"]},{"title":"The request for the urgent preliminary ruling procedure to be applied","paragraphs":["para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69"]},{"title":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraphs":["para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_109"]},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraphs":["para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Provisional text","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"2 July 2026 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purp …","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"In Case C‑446/26 PPU [Blerens], ( i )","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands), made by decision of 6 May 2026, received at the Court on 6 May 2026, in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"RI,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"other party:","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Openbaar Ministerie,","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"having regard to the referring court’s request of 6 May 2026, received at the Court on the same day, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure, pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"having regard to the decision of 21 May 2026 of the Fifth Chamber to grant that request,","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"makes the following","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Order","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"1         This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) 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), read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"2         The request has been made in criminal proceedings concerning the execution, in the Netherlands, of a European arrest warrant issued by the competent Greek authority in respect of RI, a Greek national who resides in the Netherlands, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and executing several custodial sentences.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"3         Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides, in paragraph 3 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"‘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_23"},{"text":"4         Article 6 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Determination of the competent judicial authorities’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"‘The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.’","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"5         Article 8 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Content and form of the European arrest warrant’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"‘The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"(c)      evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2;","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"6         Article 15 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Surrender decision’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"‘If the executing judicial authority finds the information communicated by the issuing Member State to be insufficient to allow it to decide on surrender, it shall request that the necessary supplementary information, in particular with respect to Articles 3 to 5 and Article 8, be furnished as a matter of urgency and may fix a time limit for the receipt thereof, taking into account the need to observe the time limits set in Article 17.’","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"7         Article 26 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"‘The issuing Member State shall deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in the issuing Member State as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed.’","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"The main proceedings and the question referred","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"8         On 29 April 2025, the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Efeteio Thessalonikis (Court of Appeal, Thessaloniki, Greece) (‘the Greek public prosecutor’) issued a European arrest warrant in respect of RI for the purposes of, first, conducting a criminal prosecution for the offences of repeated …","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"9         In so far as it was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, that European arrest warrant is based on a national arrest warrant which was issued on 29 May 2018 by the investigating judge of the Protodikeio Katerinis (Court of First Instance, Katerini, Greece), as supplemented by the order made on 22 October 2018 by that judge and maintained in force pursuant to Decree No 26/2019 of the Misdemeanours Council of Katerini.","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"10       On 30 October 2025, the prosecutor at the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands) submitted a request to that court, which is the referring court, seeking the execution of that European arrest warrant. RI was detained, on the basis of that warrant, for the purpose of his surrender to the issuing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"11       By an interim judgment of 24 March 2026, that court held that the surrender of RI must be refused for three of the four convictions on which the European arrest warrant is based, but that, by contrast, it did not see, at that stage, any reason to refuse his surrender entirely, regardless of …","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"12       On that last point, the referring court sent a series of questions to the Greek public prosecutor, as the issuing judicial authority, seeking to establish, inter alia, first, whether at the time that the national arrest warrant was issued or at a later stage, the conditions necessary for th …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"13       By letter of 21 January 2026, the Greek public prosecutor responded to that last question stating that, first, the judicial authority authorised to issue a European arrest warrant is the prosecutor at the court of appeal with jurisdiction, which rules on compliance with the conditions for i …","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"14       After stating that, regardless of the fact that the European arrest warrant at issue in the main proceedings also covers the execution of custodial sentences, the present case is comparable to the pending Case C‑722/25, Wertergen , the referring court, reiterating the grounds set out in the …","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"15       There is therefore, according to the referring court, a doubt as regards whether, prior to his surrender to the issuing Member State, the requested person is entitled to effective judicial protection either with respect to the European arrest warrant, or with respect to the national judicial decision on which the European arrest warrant is based, namely the issue of the national arrest warrant.","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"16       In that regard, the referring court notes that, in paragraphs 47 and 48 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187), the Court held that a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution must be afforded eff …","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"17       It is true that that judgment concerned a different situation to that at issue in the main proceedings since, in the case which gave rise to that judgment, a prosecutor had issued both the European arrest warrant and the national arrest warrant.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"18       However, the referring court is not convinced that it follows from that difference that, in the present case, the requirement of effective judicial protection prior to the surrender of the requested person does not apply at one of those two levels. The Court laid down that requirement in it …","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"19       The referring court states that, in a similar previous case concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor at a Greek court of appeal, it held that the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter was not infringed, since, prio …","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"20       However, the referring court questions whether such reasoning is still valid for two reasons.","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"21       First, that reasoning assumes that, in a situation where the European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution was issued by a prosecutor, the condition linked to the requirement of effective judicial protection is already satisfied with respect to the national j …","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"22       Second, that reasoning assumes that a review by a court of the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality, carried out by a court in the issuing Member State after the surrender of the requested person to that Member State satisfies, as in the case r …","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"23       In those circumstances, the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"‘Must Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision [2002/584], read in the light of Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection to which a person against whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of criminal prosecution – and, in addition, for the purpose of the execution of custodial sentences – must enjoy are not met if:","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"–        the European arrest warrant has been issued by a public prosecutor – who can be regarded as the “issuing judicial authority” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision – whose decision to issue that European arrest warrant is not subject to judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person, whereas","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"–        that European arrest warrant, in so far as it relates to criminal proceedings, is based on a national arrest warrant issued by a judge who, when issuing that warrant, did not assess the conditions for issuing an EAW – the proportionality thereof in particular – and whose decision is not subject to such judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person?’","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"The request for the urgent preliminary ruling procedure to be applied","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"24       The referring court requested that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in Article 107(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"25       In support of that request, the referring court states that the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns an area referred to in Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty and that the requested person is in detention for the purposes of his surrender to the issuing Member State. The …","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"26       In that regard, it must be borne in mind, in the first place, that the reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, inter alia, the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, which falls within the areas covered by Title V of Part Three of the FEU Treaty, relating to the area of freedom, security and justice. That reference may therefore be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"27       In the second place, as regards the condition relating to urgency, it follows from settled case-law that that condition is satisfied where the person concerned in the main proceedings is, as at the date when the request for a preliminary ruling is made, deprived of his or her liberty and wh …","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"28       In the present case, it is apparent from the file before the Court that RI has been deprived of his liberty since 27 October 2025 for the purposes of his surrender to the competent Greek authorities and that he was in that situation on the date when consideration was given to whether the re …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"29       The question referred by that court is intended, in essence, to enable it to establish, as the executing judicial authority, whether the provisions of EU law to which that question refers justifies it refusing the execution of a European arrest warrant, in so far as it was issued for the pu …","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"30       An affirmative answer from the Court should result, in principle, in RI’s release, since his surrender for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in the issuing Member State would have to be refused and his detention was extended only for the purpose of the present request for a preliminary ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"31       It is true that, in the present case, the European arrest warrant was also issued for the purposes of the execution of four custodial sentences based on enforceable judgments handed down in the issuing Member State and the referring court has raised no doubts regarding the surrender of RI for the purposes of the execution of one of those sentences.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"32       Under Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the issuing Member State is to deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in its territory, as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"33       To that extent, the refusal to surrender a person detained for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant issued with a view to conducting a criminal prosecution, in respect of whom such a warrant has also been issued for the execution of a custodial sentence, does not necessarily lead to his or her release.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"34       That is the case where the duration of the custodial sentence to be served in the issuing Member State is sufficiently long to subsume the period of detention served in the executing Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"35       However, in the present case, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that, in the event of RI’s surrender to the issuing Member State, he faces a minimum custodial sentence of four months.","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"36       Accordingly, since the period of detention served by RI in the Netherlands has already exceeded the duration of that sentence, it must be held that the condition linked to urgency is satisfied, since the continued detention of RI in that Member State is dependent on the decision of the Court.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"37       In those circumstances, pursuant to Article 108(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the referring court’s request that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure should be granted.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Consideration of the question referred","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"38       Pursuant to Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, where the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where the answer to that question admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"39       It is appropriate to apply that provision in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"40       By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant was issued by a prosecutor who is an ‘issuing judicial authorit …","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"41       It must be recalled at the outset that both the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is itself based on the mutual trust between the latter, are, in EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an area without internal …","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"42       Nevertheless, the effectiveness and proper functioning of the simplified system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, established by Framework Decision 2002/584, are based on compliance with certain requirements laid down by that framework dec …","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"43       In the first place, under Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the ‘issuing judicial authority’ is to be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"44       According to the case-law, that concept is capable of including authorities of a Member State which, although not necessarily judges or courts, participate in the administration of criminal justice in that Member State and act independently in the execution of those of their responsibilitie …","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"45       In the present case, the participation of public prosecutors in the administration of criminal justice in the Hellenic Republic is not disputed. Those public prosecutors fall within the concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"46       In the second place, under Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the European arrest warrant must contain evidence of ‘an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect’.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"47       It is apparent from the case-law that compliance with that requirement is of particular importance since it means that, where the European arrest warrant has been issued with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person for the purposes of conducting a cr …","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"48       Given that Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584 lays down a requirement as to lawfulness which must be observed if the European arrest warrant is to be valid, failure to comply with that requirement must, in principle, result in the executing judicial authority refusing to give effect to that warrant (judgment of 1 June 2016, Bob-Dogi , C‑241/15, EU:C:2016:385, paragraph 64).","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"49       The European arrest warrant system thus entails, in view of the requirement laid down in Article 8(1)(c), a dual level of protection for procedural rights and fundamental rights which must be enjoyed by the requested person, since, in addition to the judicial protection provided at the firs …","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"50       That protection means, as regards a measure, such as the issuing of a European arrest warrant, which is capable of impinging on the right to liberty of the person concerned, that a decision meeting the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection should be adopted, at least, at one of the two levels of that protection (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"51       It follows that, where the law of the issuing Member State confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not a judge or a court, the national judicial decision, such as a nation …","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"52       Where those requirements are met, the executing judicial authority may therefore be satisfied that the decision to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution is based on a national procedure that is subject to review by a court and that the person …","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"53       In addition, the second level of protection of the rights of the person concerned requires that the ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, review observance of the conditions to be met when issuing a European arrest warrant and examine o …","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"54       It is for the ‘issuing judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of that framework decision, namely the entity which, ultimately, takes the decision to issue the European arrest warrant, to ensure that second level of protection, even where the European arrest warrant is based on a n …","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"55       In addition, where the law of the issuing Member State confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, the decision to issue such a European arrest warrant and …","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"56       Such court proceedings against a decision to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution taken by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice and having the necessary independence from the executive, does not constitute …","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"57       Accordingly, it is for the Member States to ensure that their legal orders effectively safeguard the level of judicial protection required by Framework Decision 2002/584, as interpreted by the Court’s case-law, by means of remedies which they implement and which may vary from one system to another (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"58       In that context, introducing a separate right of appeal against the decision to issue a European arrest warrant taken by a judicial authority other than a court is just one possibility in that regard (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 68 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"59       Thus, the inclusion in the national legal system of procedural rules whereby the conditions under which a European arrest warrant was issued, inter alia, its proportionality, may be subject to review by a court in the issuing Member State, before, after, or at the same time as its adoption, meets the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 69 and the case-law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"60       It follows from that case-law that, where a European arrest warrant was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution by a prosecutor who is an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, which is based on a national arrest …","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"61       In that regard, the Court has previously stated that the right to effective judicial protection, within the meaning of Article 47, does not require that that review by a court be carried out prior to the surrender of the person concerned to the competent authorities of the issuing Member St …","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"62       It is true that, as the referring court notes, in the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraphs 47 and 48), and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria (C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 49), the Court held that a …","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"63       Thus, the Court ruled that Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection that must be afforded to a person who is the subject of a European ar …","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"64       However, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph, that latter requirement applied, in the cases which gave rise to that judgment and that order, because of the lack of judicial intervention at one of the two levels of protection prior to that surrender, since both the national arrest wa …","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"65       As the Court expressly stated in paragraphs 51 to 54 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187), it follows from the judgments of 12 December 2019, Parquet général du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutors of Lyons and Tours) (C‑566/19 …","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"66       Thus, the requirement that review by a court of the conditions for issuing the European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality, must be capable of being exercised before the surrender of the requested person, set out in paragraphs 47, 48 and 60 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, P …","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"67       Consequently, it is apparent from the Court’s case-law that a national system in which a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution by a prosecutor who is an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002 …","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"68       In that latter regard, it must also be borne in mind that, in the absence of procedural rules in the issuing Member State allowing a court to review the conditions under which the European arrest warrant was issued, in particular its proportionality, the Court has, in essence, held, in para …","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"69       In the present case, it is apparent from the material in the order for reference that, according to the information provided by the Greek public prosecutor in response to the request of the referring court, the prosecutor, as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6( …","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"70       According to the assessment carried out by the referring court, it follows from that information that neither that court nor any national court reviews, before the surrender of the requested person, whether the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant comply with the principle of proportionality.","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"71       By contrast, it is not clear from the order for reference whether Greek law provides for a judicial remedy after the surrender of the requested person which enables a court to review the conditions for issuing the European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality.","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"72       It is thus apparent that such a system complies with the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection arising from Article 47 of the Charter only where such a judicial remedy is provided for in the issuing Member State, which is for the referring court to ascertain, by requesting, …","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"73       The execution of the European arrest warrant at issue in the main proceedings, in so far as it was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, should therefore be refused only where there is no such remedy.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"74       In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant was issued by a prosecutor who is an …","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"75       Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby orders:","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant was issued by a prosecutor who is an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and executing custodial sentences, the requirem …","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"*       Language of the case: Dutch.","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"i       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_115"}],"word_count":7470,"cites":["C-446/26","C-722/25","C-648/20","C-508/18","C-82/19","C-414/20","C-24/26","C-318/24","C-206/20","C-566/19","C-626/19","C-241/15","C-649/19","C-105/21","C-625/19"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"55095157bb319a3e5406cc6fdbdcf807b213e2c89f7841cf645cd0a2541c1dab","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62026CO0446","fetched_at":"2026-09-28T06:29:50.981+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-446-26-ppu","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu","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:c-446-26-ppu","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":15,"word_count":7470,"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:c0625d6bde8a9558bd53773927a8d6aed9cec8f9be897789da5ba8712976a939","version":"legal-2026-11-02","expires":"2026-11-03T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-02+legal-2026-11-02+2026-11-02T16:22:18","content_hash":"sha256:c0625d6bde8a9558bd53773927a8d6aed9cec8f9be897789da5ba8712976a939","revalidate_after":"2026-11-02T17:54:11.469Z","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:c-446-26-ppu","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-446-26-ppu"},{"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/c-446-26-ppu","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-6f0418db4bf5eeafbaaee47dbbbbf4a9","response_hash":"sha256:c0625d6bde8a9558bd53773927a8d6aed9cec8f9be897789da5ba8712976a939"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-02T16:54:12.327Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-446-26-ppu&view=full","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":11130}}