Article 9(1)(d) and Article 25 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, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,

must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for an obligation or an option for the competent authority of a Member State to rely on Article 9(1)(d) in order to refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the sentence imposed in another Member State on the ground that they relate to acts which would not constitute an offence under the law of the first Member State, where,

– in the first place, the executing judicial authority of that Member State previously decided to execute the European arrest warrant which gave rise to that judgment and that sentence,

– (i) by waiving the right to rely on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(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 Framework Decision 2009/299, which is also based on the absence of double criminality, for an offence covered by Article 2(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended, and,

– (ii) by making the surrender of the person concerned, in accordance with Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him or her in the issuing Member State, and

– in the second place, no change in circumstances has occurred after the surrender of the person concerned, subject to a guarantee of return, which would justify not giving effect to that guarantee.

Article 4a(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 concept of 'trial resulting in the decision', within the meaning of that provision, covers proceedings at the end of which a national court may order, on account of breach of the conditions attached to a sentence of police supervision previously imposed on the person concerned in addition to a custodial sentence, the conversion of the unserved term of that additional sentence into a custodial sentence, whereby two days of police supervision are to count as one day of deprivation of liberty.

Article 8(1) and Article 17(1) 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, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009,

must be interpreted as precluding, where the competent judicial authority of the executing State has refused, under 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, to execute a European arrest warrant issued by the competent judicial authority of the issuing State for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence and the competent judicial authority of the executing State has undertaken to enforce that sentence, another competent judicial authority of the executing State from subsequently suspending, under its national law, the enforcement of that sentence.

1. 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 and Articles 4, 22 and 25 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

– first, the refusal by the executing judicial authority, based on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584, to surrender a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of enforcing a custodial sentence presupposes that that judicial authority has complied with the conditions and the procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909 as regards the recognition of the judgment in respect of that sentence and the assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of that sentence and,

– second, the issuing State retains the right to enforce that sentence and therefore to maintain the European arrest warrant in circumstances where the executing judicial authority, without having complied with the conditions and the procedure laid down in Framework Decision 2008/909 as regards the recognition of that judgment and that assumption of responsibility, has refused, on the basis of that ground, to execute that European arrest warrant.

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.

1. 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,

must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority executing a European arrest warrant cannot refuse to execute that arrest warrant on the basis of that provision where that arrest warrant has not been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order.

2. Article 4(4) 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 cannot refuse to execute that arrest warrant on the basis of that provision where the acts do not fall within the jurisdiction of the executing Member State under its own criminal law, even though the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested person would have been statute-barred if the law of that Member State had been applicable.

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.

1. Article 4a(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 concept of 'trial resulting in the decision', in that provision, encompasses proceedings which led to a judgment imposing a cumulative sentence, by the subsequent aggregation of sentences previously handed down, where, in the context of those proceedings, the authority which delivered that cumulative judgment may neither review the finding of guilt of the person concerned nor amend those previous sentences, but does have a margin of discretion in determining the level of that cumulative sentence.

2. Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, transposing that provision, which generally precludes an executing judicial authority from executing a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence, where the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision concerned, is contrary to that provision of EU law. A national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of its domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law, to interpret that national legislation, to the greatest extent possible, in the light of the text and the purpose of that framework decision.

1. Article 4a(1)(a)(i) 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 a summons to appear is served on the person concerned by handing it over to an adult member of his or her household, it is for the issuing judicial authority concerned to provide proof that the person concerned actually received that summons.

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

must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a 'trial resulting in the decision', in that provision, relates to appeal proceedings which gave rise to a judgment confirming the decision handed down at first instance and therefore finally disposing of the case. The fact that those appeal proceedings took place without the merits of the case being examined therein is irrelevant in that regard.

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

must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, transposing that provision, which generally precludes an executing judicial authority from executing a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence, where the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision concerned, is contrary to that provision of EU law. A national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of its domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law, to interpret that national legislation, to the greatest extent possible, in the light of the text and the purpose of that framework decision.

1. Article 4a(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 appeal proceedings which gave rise to a judgment varying the decision delivered at first instance and thereby finally disposing of the case fall within the concept of 'trial resulting in the decision', within the meaning of that provision.

2. Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation, transposing that provision, which generally precludes an executing judicial authority from executing a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of executing a sentence, where the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision concerned, is contrary to that provision of EU law. A national court is required, taking into consideration the whole body of its domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law, to interpret that national legislation, to the greatest extent possible, in the light of the text and the purpose of that framework decision.

1. 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, read in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law, enshrined in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as precluding a law of a Member State transposing that Article 4(6), which excludes, absolutely and automatically, any third-country national staying or resident in the territory of that Member State from benefiting from the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision, without the executing judicial authority being able to assess the connections that that national has with that Member State.

2. Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584

must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to assess whether it is appropriate to refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued against a third-country national who is staying or resident in the territory of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of all the specific elements that characterise that national's situation which are capable of showing that there are, between that person and the executing Member State, connections demonstrating that he or she is sufficiently integrated into that State such that the execution in that Member State of the custodial sentence or detention order pronounced against that person in the issuing Member State will contribute to increasing the chances of social rehabilitation after that sentence or detention order has been executed. Those elements include the family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic links that the third-country national has with the executing Member State as well as the nature, duration and conditions of his or her stay in that Member State.

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. Article 4a(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, read in the light of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as meaning that where the suspension of a custodial sentence is revoked, on account of a new criminal conviction, and a European arrest warrant, for the purpose of serving that sentence, is issued, that criminal conviction, handed down in absentia, constitutes a 'decision' within the meaning of that provision. That is not the case for the decision revoking the suspension of that sentence.

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

must be interpreted as authorising the executing judicial authority to refuse to surrender the requested person to the issuing Member State where it is apparent that the proceedings resulting in a second criminal conviction of that person, which was decisive for the issue of the European arrest warrant, took place in absentia, unless the European arrest warrant contains, in respect of those proceedings, one of the statements referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of that provision.

A subscriber's personal data may be included in publicly available telephone directories and directory enquiry services published by providers other than the subscriber's telephone operator only if that subscriber has given GDPR consent within the meaning of Article 4(11). That consent may be given either to the operator or to one of those providers.

1. Articles 2(4) and 4(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 condition of double criminality of the act laid down in those provisions is met where a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence handed down for acts which relate, in the issuing Member State, to an offence requiring that those acts impair a legal interest protected in that Member State when such acts also constitute a criminal offence, under the law of the executing Member State, of which the impairment of that protected legal interest is not a constituent element.

2. Articles 2(4) and 4(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that the executing judicial authority may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of enforcing a custodial sentence where that sentence was imposed in the issuing Member State for the commission, by the requested person, of a single offence consisting of multiple acts, only some of which constitute a criminal offence in the executing Member State.

1. Article 4(5) 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 a Member State chooses to transpose that provision into its domestic law, the executing judicial authority must have a margin of discretion in order to determine whether or not it is appropriate to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant on the ground referred to in that provision.

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.

3. Article 4(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, which makes the application of the ground for optional non-execution laid down in that provision subject to the condition that, where there has been a sentence, the sentence has been served, is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country, must be interpreted as meaning that that condition is satisfied where the requested person has been finally sentenced, for the same acts, to a term of imprisonment, of which part has been served in the third State in which the sentence was handed down, whilst the remainder of that sentence has been remitted by a non-judicial authority of that State, as part of a general leniency measure that also applies to persons convicted of serious acts and is not based on objective criminal policy considerations. It is for the executing judicial authority, when exercising the discretion it enjoys, to strike a balance between, on the one hand, preventing impunity and combating crime and, on the other, ensuring legal certainty for the person concerned.

2. Article 4(7)(b) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a judicial decision of the issuing Member State allowing execution in that Member State of a sentence imposed by a court of a third State, where the offence concerned was committed in the territory of the latter State, the question whether that offence was committed 'outside the territory of the issuing Member State ' must be resolved by taking into consideration the criminal jurisdiction of that third State – in this instance, the Kingdom of Norway – which allowed prosecution of that offence, and not that of the issuing Member State.

Bonichot

Bay Larsen

Toader

Safjan

Jääskinen

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 March 2021.

A. Calot Escobar

Registrar

J.-C. Bonichot

President of the First Chamber

1. Article 4 (in particular Article 4(3)), Article 6(2) and Article 7(1) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the rights referred to therein do not apply to persons who are arrested for the purposes of the execution of a European arrest warrant.

Article 4a 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 judicial authority may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, where the person concerned has prevented the service of a summons on him in person and did not appear in person at the trial because he had absconded to the executing Member State, on the sole ground that that authority has not been given the assurance that, if the person is surrendered to the issuing Member State, the right to a new trial, as defined in Articles 8 and 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, will be respected.

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.

National legislation cannot allow a State authority to require providers of electronic communications services to make a general and indiscriminate transmission of traffic and location data to the security and intelligence agencies, even for safeguarding national security.

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.

Consent to the storage of information, or access to information already stored, on a website user's device by cookies is not valid if it is given through a pre-checked box that the user must deselect to refuse consent.

The rules on consent to cookies do not differ according to whether the information stored or accessed on a website user's device is personal data.

An executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued to enforce a custodial sentence, for reasons of the requested person’s social rehabilitation, where that person resides in the executing Member State and has family, social and working ties there. It may do so even if the underlying offence is punishable under that Member State’s law only by a fine — provided that this does not prevent the custodial sentence from actually being enforced there, which is for the referring court to ascertain.

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.

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.

A later decision revoking a partial suspension of a custodial sentence for breach of probation conditions is not part of the "trial resulting in the decision" in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, where the person appeared in person at the original proceedings that definitively found him guilty and imposed that sentence. This is so provided that the revocation decision does not change the nature or level of the sentence initially imposed.

In criminal proceedings with several levels of jurisdiction, the "trial resulting in the decision" in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 means only the stage ending in the decision that finally rules on the person's guilt and imposes a penalty, such as a custodial sentence, after a fresh examination, in fact and in law, of the merits of the case. An appeal proceeding in principle falls within that concept, but the referring court must verify that it has those characteristics.

The "trial resulting in the decision" in Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 covers not only appeal proceedings that, after a fresh examination of the case on the merits, finally determined the person's guilt, but also later proceedings that led to a cumulative sentence judgment, at the end of which the level of the original sentence was finally changed — provided that the authority making that later decision had a certain discretion.

The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant where the person concerned did not appear in person in the relevant proceeding or proceedings for the purposes of Article 4a(1), and neither the standard European arrest warrant form nor the information obtained under Article 15(2) provides sufficient evidence that one of the situations in Article 4a(1)(a) to (d) exists. Even then, Framework Decision 2002/584 does not prevent that authority from taking account of all the circumstances of the case to ensure that the person's rights of defence were respected during the relevant proceeding or proceedings.

Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 bars national legislation that, where another Member State seeks the surrender of a foreign national holding an indefinite residence permit in order to enforce a final custodial sentence, both refuses surrender and merely requires the judicial authorities of the first Member State to tell the judicial authorities of the second Member State that they are willing to take over enforcement — where, on the date of the refusal, enforcement has not in fact been taken over and, if taking over enforcement later proves impossible, that refusal cannot be challenged.

Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 does not allow a Member State to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the surrender of a person who has been finally judged and given a custodial sentence solely because that Member State intends to prosecute that person for the same acts.

In Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the expressions 'summoned in person' and 'by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial' are autonomous concepts of EU law and must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union.

A summons does not, by itself, satisfy Article 4a(1)(a)(i) of Framework Decision 2002/584 where it was not served directly on the person concerned but was given, at that person's address, to an adult in the household who undertook to pass it on, and the European arrest warrant does not make it possible to ascertain whether, and if so when, that adult actually passed it on to the person concerned.

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.

The national court must, so far as possible, interpret domestic law in the light of the wording and purpose of Framework Decision 2002/584, taking into account the whole body of domestic law and applying the interpretative methods recognised by that law, so as to ensure that the Framework Decision is fully effective and achieves its objective.

A European arrest warrant issued to enforce a sentence imposed in absentia within the meaning of Article 5(1) may, where the executing Member State has implemented Articles 5(1) and 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 in national law, be made subject to the condition that the person—if a national or resident of the executing Member State—is returned to that State so that, as the case may be, the sentence passed after a new trial held in that person’s presence in the issuing Member State is served there.

For a Union citizen, an executing Member State cannot make the optional non-execution ground in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584 subject, beyond a condition on length of residence in that State, to extra administrative requirements such as holding a residence permit of indefinite duration.

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.

Under Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, a requested person is "resident" in the executing Member State if that State is the person's actual place of residence. Under Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, a requested person is "staying" in the executing Member State if, after a stable period of presence there, the person has acquired connections with that State comparable to those resulting from residence. To decide whether a requested person is "staying" in the executing Member State within the meaning of Article 4(6), the executing judicial authority must make an overall assessment of objective factors, in particular the length, nature and conditions of the person's presence and the person's family and economic connections with that State.