Where a controller uses a user’s email address to send an unsolicited communication in accordance with Article 13(2) of Directive 2002/58, read with Article 95 of Regulation 2016/679, the conditions for lawful processing in Article 6(1) of Regulation 2016/679 do not apply.

Article 27(3)(g) and (4) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a European arrest warrant on the basis of which a person has been the subject of a surrender decision has been issued by an authority which did not constitute an 'issuing judicial authority' within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, does not preclude the executing judicial authority, to which a request to that effect has been made by an issuing judicial authority within the meaning of Article 6(1), from subsequently giving its consent to that person being prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than that for which he or she was surrendered.

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.

1. Article 24(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 decision to postpone a surrender referred to in that provision constitutes a decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant which, pursuant to Article 6(2) of that framework decision, must be taken by the executing judicial authority. Where such a decision has not been taken by that authority and the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4) of that framework decision have expired, the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant must be released, in accordance with Article 23(5) of that same framework decision.

2. Article 12 and Article 24(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,

must be interpreted as:

not precluding a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant, whose surrender to the authorities of the issuing Member State has been postponed for the purposes of a criminal prosecution instituted against him or her in the executing Member State, from being kept in detention on the basis of the European arrest warrant whilst the criminal prosecution is being conducted.

1. Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the right to freedom of movement and residence and the principles of equality and mutual trust must be interpreted as meaning that the judicial authority issuing a European arrest warrant, adopted under 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, is under no obligation to forward to the person who is the subject of that arrest warrant the national decision on the arrest of that person and information on the possibilities of challenging that decision, while that person is in the Member State executing the European arrest warrant and has not been surrendered to the competent authorities of the Member State issuing that arrest warrant.

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, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court, 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 arrest warrant for the purpose of criminal prosecution are not satisfied where both the European arrest warrant and the judicial decision on which that warrant is based are issued by a public prosecutor – who may be classified as an 'issuing judicial authority ' within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision – but cannot be reviewed by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person by the executing Member State.

Bonichot

Silva de Lapuerta

Bay Larsen

Toader

Jääskinen

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 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.

2. The examination of the third and fourth questions referred for a preliminary ruling has revealed nothing that is capable of affecting the validity 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, in the light of Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

1. Article 6(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 status of 'issuing judicial authority', within the meaning of that provision, is not conditional on there being review by a court of the decision to issue the European arrest warrant and of the national decision upon which that warrant is based.

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.

1. The concept of 'executing judicial authority' within the meaning of Article 6(2) 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, constitutes an autonomous concept of EU law which must be interpreted to the effect that it covers the authorities of a Member State which, without necessarily being judges or courts, participate in the administration of criminal justice in that Member State, acting independently in the exercise of the responsibilities inherent in the execution of a European arrest warrant and which exercise their responsibilities under a procedure which complies with the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection.

2. Article 6(2) and Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the public prosecutor of a Member State who, although he or she participates in the administration of justice, may receive in exercising his or her decision-making power an instruction in a specific case from the executive, does not constitute an 'executing judicial authority' within the meaning of those provisions.

Article 6(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 public prosecutors of a Member State, who are responsible for conducting prosecutions and act under the direction and supervision of their hierarchical superiors are covered by the term 'issuing judicial authority', within the meaning of that provision, provided that their status affords them a guarantee of independence, in particular in relation to the executive, in connection with the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

Council Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection which must be afforded any person in respect of whom a European arrest warrant is issued in connection with criminal proceedings are fulfilled if, according to the law of the issuing Member State, the conditions for issuing such a warrant, and in particular its proportionality, are subject to judicial review in that Member State.

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.

Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 does not include, within the concept of an 'issuing judicial authority', a Member State public prosecutor's office that may, directly or indirectly, receive directions or instructions from the executive, such as a Minister for Justice, in a specific case when deciding whether to issue a European arrest warrant.

The concept of an 'issuing judicial authority', within the meaning of Article 6(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 including the Prosecutor General of a Member State who, whilst institutionally independent from the judiciary, is responsible for the conduct of criminal prosecutions and whose legal position, in that Member State, affords him a guarantee of independence from the executive in connection with the issuing of a European arrest warrant.

Framework Decision 2002/584 precludes a national rule that requires automatic release of a person arrested under a European arrest warrant once 90 days have passed, where there is a very serious risk of absconding and appropriate measures cannot reduce that risk to an acceptable level. Article 6 of the Charter precludes national case-law that allows a person requested under a European arrest warrant to remain in detention for more than 90 days because that period is treated as suspended when the executing judicial authority refers a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, awaits the answer to a request for a preliminary ruling made by another executing judicial authority, or postpones the surrender decision because there could be, in the issuing Member State, a real risk of inhuman or degrading detention conditions — in so far as that case-law does not ensure that the national provision is interpreted in conformity with Framework Decision 2002/584 and leads to variations that could produce different periods of continued detention.

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.

Even after the Article 17 time-limits have expired, the executing judicial authority must still decide whether to execute the European arrest warrant. Article 12, read with Article 17, does not preclude the requested person from remaining in custody under the law of the executing Member State, even if the total time in custody exceeds those time-limits — provided that the custody is not excessive in light of the characteristics of the procedure, which is for the national court to determine. If the executing judicial authority ends the requested person’s custody, it must attach to that person’s provisional release any measures it considers necessary to prevent absconding and to ensure that the conditions needed for effective surrender remain fulfilled until a final decision on execution of the European arrest warrant is taken.

A provider of public communications networks and publicly accessible electronic communications services may pass traffic data to the assignee of its claims for payment for telecommunications services so that those claims can be recovered, and the assignee may process those data — provided that the assignee acts under the provider’s authority for that processing and processes only the traffic data needed to recover the assigned claims. Whatever the classification of the assignment contract, the assignee acts under the provider’s authority within the meaning of Article 6(5) where it processes the traffic data exclusively on the provider’s instructions and under its control. In particular, their contract must guarantee the assignee’s lawful processing of the traffic data and enable the provider to ensure at all times that the assignee complies with those provisions.