Any punishment executed in another EU state requires the agreement of the issuing court. The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has decided that if a Member State refuses to execute a European arrest warrant and wants the punishment to be atoned on its territory, the courts must request the agreement of the state who issued the mandate. The European court has clarified the EU norms regarding the execution of European arrest mandates and the recognition of judgments in criminal matters.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE). Photo: Archive
According to the decision, the Member States that refuse to surrender a person on the basis of a European arrest warrant for them to execute their punishment on their territory must obtain the consent of the issuing state.
This agreement implies the transmission of the conviction decision and a related certificate. In the absence of consent, the mandate must be executed and the person delivered.
The court stresses that the objective of social reintegration is not absolute and must be balanced with the principle of compulsory execution of the European arrest warrants. At the same time Member States may invoke arguments of “Criminal policy that is their own to justify the execution on its territory of the pronounced sentence and, consequently, can refuse the transmission of the conviction and the certificate in order to execute the punishment on the territory of another Member State”, according to the press release transmitted.
If a refusal violates the procedures and conditions provided by the Union law, the mandate remains valid, and the issuing state retains the right to execute the punishment on its own territory.
The decision is in accordance with the position previously expressed by Romania in front of CJEU. Our country was represented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through the government agent for the CJEU, in collaboration with the EU litigation service, while the Ministry of Justice is the competent institution on the merits of the case.
