2. Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584

must be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which the executing judicial authority has refused, on the basis of Article 4(6) of that framework decision, to surrender a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence, recognised the sentencing judgment and ordered the enforcement of that sentence in the executing State is not covered by the concept of 'finally judged ... in respect of the same acts', within the meaning of that provision.

Point 2 of Article 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 precluding the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by a Member State in a situation where the requested person has already been finally judged in another Member State and is serving a prison sentence there for the offence established in that judgment, provided that that person is being prosecuted in the issuing Member State in respect of the same acts, without it being necessary, in order to establish the existence of the 'same acts', to take account of the classification of the offences in question under the law of the executing Member State.

2. Article 3(2) and Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of 'same acts', contained in both provisions, must be interpreted uniformly.

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.

A decision of a Public Prosecutor's Office terminating an investigation opened against an unknown person cannot be used to refuse execution of a European arrest warrant under Article 3(2) or Article 4(3), where the person concerned was interviewed only as a witness, no criminal proceedings were brought against that person, and the decision was not taken in respect of that person.

The executing judicial authority must refuse to surrender under a European arrest warrant only a minor who, under the law of the executing Member State, has not yet reached the age of criminal responsibility for the acts on which the warrant is based.

To decide whether a minor under a European arrest warrant must be surrendered, the executing judicial authority need only verify whether that person has reached the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the executing Member State for the acts on which the warrant is based; it need not examine any additional conditions that the law of that Member State may impose, based on the individual circumstances, for prosecuting and convicting a minor for those acts.

For issuing and executing a European arrest warrant, the concept of "same acts" in Article 3(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584 is an autonomous concept of EU law. Where, in reply to a request under Article 15(2), the issuing judicial authority expressly states—applying its national law and complying with the requirements of that concept—that an earlier judgment in its legal system was not a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the arrest warrant and therefore did not bar the criminal proceedings referred to in that warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply the mandatory ground for non-execution in Article 3(2).

To decide whether a later charge is an "offence other" than the one for which the person was surrendered under Article 27(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584, it must be checked whether the offence’s constituent elements, as legally described by the issuing State, are those for which the person was surrendered, and whether the later procedural document sufficiently corresponds to the arrest warrant. Changes to the time or place of the offence are allowed, provided they come from evidence gathered in the issuing-State proceedings about the conduct described in the arrest warrant, do not change the nature of the offence, and do not create grounds for non-execution under Articles 3 and 4 of that Framework Decision.