1. Article 1(3) and Article 15(1) 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that the executing authority of a Member State is not obliged to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant where the executing authority of another Member State has previously refused to execute that arrest warrant on the ground that the surrender of the person concerned may infringe the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Nevertheless, within the framework of its own examination of the existence of a ground for non-execution, that authority must give due consideration to the reasons underlying the refusal decision adopted by the first executing authority. Those provisions do not preclude, in the same circumstances, the issuing judicial authority from maintaining the European arrest warrant in question, provided that, according to its own assessment, execution of that arrest warrant should not be refused on the ground of a risk of infringement of the fundamental right to a fair trial enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that it is proportionate to maintain that warrant.

2. Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation in which a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued claims that his or her surrender to the issuing Member State would result in an infringement of his or her right to a fair trial, the existence of a decision of the Interpol Commission for the Control of Files (CCF) concerning that person's situation cannot, in itself, justify a refusal by the executing judicial authority to execute that arrest warrant. However, such a decision may be taken into account by that judicial authority in order to decide whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute that arrest warrant.

4. Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority executing a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence cannot refuse to execute that arrest warrant on the ground that the record of the oath taken by one of the judges who imposed that sentence cannot be found, or that another judge of the same formation has taken an oath only as a public prosecutor.

6. Article 1(3) and Article 15(2) and (3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of mutual trust,

must be interpreted as meaning that when examining detention conditions in the issuing Member State, the executing judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of information concerning the detention conditions in prisons in the issuing Member State which it has obtained itself, and in respect of which it has not requested supplementary information from the issuing judicial authority. The executing judicial authority cannot apply a higher standard as regards detention conditions than that guaranteed by Article 4 of the Charter.

Article 1(2) and (3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 7 and Article 24(2) and (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding the executing judicial authority from refusing to surrender the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant on the ground that that person is the mother of young children living with her, unless, first, that authority has available to it information demonstrating that there is a real risk of breach of that person's fundamental right to respect for her private and family life enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and of disregard for the best interests of her children, as protected by Article 24(2) and (3) of that charter, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies in the conditions of detention of mothers of young children and of the care of those children in the issuing Member State, and second, there are substantial grounds for believing that, in the light of their personal situation, the persons concerned will run that risk on account of those conditions.

Articles 1(3) and 23(4) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, read in the light of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

– where there are substantial grounds to believe that the surrender of a requested person in execution of a European arrest warrant manifestly risks endangering his or her health, the executing judicial authority may, exceptionally, postpone that surrender temporarily;

– where the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a requested person who is seriously ill in execution of a European arrest warrant concludes that there are substantial and established grounds for believing that that surrender would expose that person to a real risk of a significant reduction in his or her life expectancy or of a rapid, significant and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health, it must postpone that surrender and ask the issuing judicial authority to provide all information relating to the conditions under which it intends to prosecute or detain that person and to the possibility of adapting those conditions to his or her state of health in order to prevent such a risk from materialising;

– if, in the light of the information provided by the issuing judicial authority and all the other information available to the executing judicial authority, it appears that that risk cannot be ruled out within a reasonable period of time, the executing judicial authority must refuse to execute the European arrest warrant. On the other hand, if that risk can be ruled out within such a period of time, a new surrender date must be agreed with the issuing judicial authority.

1. 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that an executing judicial authority does not have the power to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the basis of a ground for non-execution which arises not from Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, but solely from the law of the executing Member State. However, that judicial authority may apply a national provision which provides that the execution of a European arrest warrant is to be refused where that execution would lead to an infringement of a fundamental right enshrined in EU law, provided that the scope of that provision does not go beyond the scope of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

2. Article 1(1) and (2) and Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority may not verify whether a European arrest warrant has been issued by a judicial authority which had jurisdiction for that purpose and refuse to execute that European arrest warrant where it considers that that is not the case.

3. Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued may not refuse to execute that warrant on the ground that that person is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court which lacks jurisdiction for that purpose unless,

– first, that judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing that there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of the issuing Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which the person concerned belongs, in the light of the requirement for a tribunal established by law, which mean that the individuals concerned are generally deprived, in that Member State, of an effective legal remedy enabling a review of the jurisdiction of the criminal court called upon to try them, and

– secondly, that judicial authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case in question, there are substantial grounds for believing that, taking into account, inter alia, the information that is provided by the person for whom that European arrest warrant has been issued and that relates to his or her personal situation, to the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, to the factual context in which that European arrest warrant was issued or to any other relevant circumstance, the court which is likely to be called upon to hear the proceedings to which that person will be subject in the issuing Member State manifestly lacks jurisdiction for that purpose.

The fact that the person concerned was able, before the courts of the issuing Member State, to rely on his or her fundamental rights in order to challenge the jurisdiction of the issuing judicial authority and the European arrest warrant issued for him or her is of no decisive importance in that regard.

4. Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights,

must be interpreted as meaning that in a situation where a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued alleges that he or she is at risk, following his or her surrender to the issuing Member State, of being tried by a court lacking jurisdiction for that purpose, the existence of a report by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention which does not directly relate to that person's situation may not, in itself, be justification for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute that European arrest warrant, but such a report may, however, be taken into account by that judicial authority, among other elements, in order to assess whether there are systemic or generalised deficiencies in the operation of the judicial system of that Member State or deficiencies affecting the judicial protection of an objectively identifiable group of persons to which that person belongs.

6. Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299,

must be interpreted as not precluding the issuing of several successive European arrest warrants against a requested person with a view to obtaining his or her surrender by a Member State after the execution of a first European arrest warrant concerning that person has been refused by that Member State, provided that the execution of a new European arrest warrant does not result in an infringement of Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and provided that the issuing of the latter European arrest warrant is proportionate.

Article 1(2) and (3) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority called upon to decide on the surrender of a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the issuing Member State, in particular as regards the procedure for the appointment of the members of the judiciary, that authority may refuse to surrender that person:

– in the context of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a custodial sentence or detention order, only if that authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that, having regard inter alia to the information provided by that person relating to the composition of the panel of judges who heard his or her criminal case or to any other circumstance relevant to the assessment of the independence and impartiality of that panel, there has been a breach of that person's fundamental right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and

– in the context of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, only if that authority finds that, in the particular circumstances of the case, there are substantial grounds for believing that, having regard inter alia to the information provided by the person concerned relating to his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence for which that person is prosecuted, the factual context surrounding that European arrest warrant or any other circumstance relevant to the assessment of the independence and impartiality of the panel of judges likely to be called upon to hear the proceedings in respect of that person, the latter, if surrendered, runs a real risk of breach of that fundamental right.

1. Article 1(1) and 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, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a European arrest warrant may be issued on the basis of a judicial decision of the issuing Member State ordering the execution, in that Member State, of a sentence imposed by a court of a third State where, pursuant to a bilateral agreement between those States, the judgment in question has been recognised by a decision of a court of the issuing Member State. However, the issuing of the European arrest warrant is subject to the condition, first, that a custodial sentence of at least four months has been imposed on the requested person and, second, that the procedure leading to the adoption in the third State of the judgment recognised subsequently in the issuing Member State has complied with fundamental rights and, in particular, the obligations arising under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Article 6(1) and Article 1(3) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, where the executing judicial authority, which is called upon to decide whether a person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant has been issued is to be surrendered, has evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the judiciary in the Member State that issues that arrest warrant which existed at the time of issue of that warrant or which arose after that issue, that authority cannot deny the status of 'issuing judicial authority' to the court which issued that arrest warrant and cannot presume that there are substantial grounds for believing that that person will, if he or she is surrendered to that Member State, run a real risk of breach of his or her fundamental right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, without carrying out a specific and precise verification which takes account of, inter alia, his or her personal situation, the nature of the offence in question and the factual context in which that warrant was issued, such as statements by public authorities which are liable to interfere with how an individual case is handled.

National legislation that lets a State authority require providers of electronic communications services to send traffic data and location data to the security and intelligence agencies for safeguarding national security falls within the scope of Directive 2002/58, read in the light of Article 4(2) TEU.

When the executing Member State makes the surrender of its national or resident for prosecution conditional on that person, after being heard, being returned to that Member State to serve there any custodial sentence or detention order imposed in the issuing Member State, it must secure that return as soon as the sentencing decision becomes final. The person may remain in the issuing Member State pending a definitive decision on a procedural step within the criminal proceedings relating to the offence underlying the European arrest warrant only if concrete grounds linked to the rights of defence or the proper administration of justice make that person’s presence there essential.

Where the executing judicial authority has objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information showing systemic or generalised deficiencies in detention conditions in the issuing Member State, it must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter in the prison where it is actually intended that person be detained. That assessment must cover all relevant physical aspects of those conditions, including personal space in the cell, sanitary conditions and the extent of the detainee’s freedom of movement within the prison. That assessment is not limited to obvious inadequacies. For that assessment, the executing judicial authority must request the information it considers necessary from the issuing judicial authority and must, in principle, rely on that authority’s assurances, unless there are specific indications that the detention conditions infringe Article 4 of the Charter. As regards personal space, and in the absence of EU minimum standards, the executing judicial authority must use the minimum requirements under Article 3 ECHR as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. In calculating that space, the area occupied by sanitary facilities must be excluded and the space occupied by furniture must be included. Detainees must still be able to move around normally within the cell. The executing judicial authority cannot rule out a real risk merely because the person has a legal remedy in the issuing Member State to challenge detention conditions or because that State has legislative or structural measures to strengthen monitoring of detention conditions. If that authority finds substantial grounds for believing that the requested person would face such a risk in the prison where it is actually intended that person be detained, it cannot balance that finding against the efficacy of judicial cooperation in criminal matters or the principles of mutual trust and recognition when deciding on surrender.

The concept of a 'European arrest warrant' referred to in Article 1(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that European arrest warrants issued by the public prosecutor's offices of a Member State fall within that concept, despite the fact that those public prosecutor's offices are exposed to the risk of being subject, directly or indirectly, to directions or instructions in a specific case from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in the context of the issue of those arrest warrants, provided that those arrest warrants are subject, in order to be transmitted by those public prosecutor's offices, to endorsement by a court which reviews independently and objectively, having access to the entire criminal file to which any specific directions or instructions from the executive are added, the conditions of issue and the proportionality of those arrest warrants, thus adopting an autonomous decision which gives them their final form.

The executing judicial authority must decide on every European arrest warrant sent to it, even where it has already ruled on an earlier warrant concerning the same person and the same acts, if the new warrant was issued only because the requested person was indicted in the issuing Member State.

When the executing judicial authority has material, including material such as a reasoned proposal by the European Commission under Article 7(1) TEU, indicating a real risk of breach of the right to a fair trial because of systemic or generalised deficiencies affecting the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, it must make a specific and precise assessment of the requested person’s individual risk. It must decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would run that risk if surrendered, having regard to that person’s personal situation, the nature of the offence, the factual context underlying the European arrest warrant, and the information supplied by the issuing Member State under Article 15(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584.

Where the executing judicial authority has information showing systemic or generalised deficiencies in detention conditions in the issuing Member State — whose accuracy the referring court must verify in the light of all available updated data — it cannot dismiss a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter merely because the requested person has a legal remedy there to challenge detention conditions, although it may take that remedy into account when deciding on surrender. It must assess only the detention conditions in the prisons where, on the information available to it, that person is likely to be detained, including on a temporary or transitional basis. It must examine only the actual and precise detention conditions relevant to deciding whether that person will face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter. It may take into account information from authorities of the issuing Member State other than the issuing judicial authority, in particular an assurance that the person will not be subjected to such treatment.

“Judicial authority” in Article 6(1) is an autonomous concept of EU law. A police service such as the Swedish National Police Board is not an “issuing judicial authority” under Article 6(1), so a European arrest warrant it issues to enforce a custodial sentence is not a “judicial decision” under Article 1(1).

“Judicial authority” in Article 6(1) is an autonomous concept of EU law. Article 6(1) excludes an executive body such as the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania from being designated an “issuing judicial authority”, so a European arrest warrant it issues to enforce a custodial sentence is not a “judicial decision” under Article 1(1).

Where objective, reliable, specific and properly updated evidence about detention conditions in the issuing Member State shows deficiencies — whether systemic or generalised, affecting certain groups of people, or affecting certain places of detention — the executing judicial authority must determine specifically and precisely whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the person concerned by the European arrest warrant will, if surrendered, face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment because of those detention conditions. For that purpose, the executing judicial authority must request supplementary information from the issuing judicial authority, and the issuing judicial authority must send that information within the time-limit set in the request after seeking, if necessary, the assistance of the central authority or one of the central authorities of the issuing Member State under Article 7. The executing judicial authority must postpone its decision on surrender until it receives supplementary information that allows it to rule out that risk. If that risk cannot be ruled out within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end.