(AGENPARL) – Thu 04 September 2025 PRESS RELEASE No 109/25
Luxembourg, 4 September 2025
Judgment of the Court in Case C-305/22 | C.J. (Enforcement of a sentence further to an EAW)
A judicial authority cannot refuse to execute a European arrest warrant
and assume responsibility itself for the enforcement of the sentence
without the consent of the State that issued that warrant
Without that consent, the issuing State may maintain the European arrest warrant and enforce the sentence
itself on its own territory
The European arrest warrant is a simplified judicial procedure, laid down by EU law, 1 which allows for the arrest of a
person in the Member State in which he or she is located and for the surrender of that person to the Member State
that issued the warrant, so that he or she may be prosecuted there or so that the sentence imposed on him or her
may be enforced. In that respect, the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition constitute the basis for
judicial cooperation in criminal matters and give rise to an important rule, namely that the Member States are
required to execute any European arrest warrant. Non-execution of such a mandate may therefore take place only
in exceptional cases. In this judgment, the Court of Justice explains why the non-execution of European arrest
warrant, in order to enforce a sentence in the State in which the person concerned resides, is valid only if the
executing judicial authority complies with the conditions and procedure associated with the recognition of the
sentencing judgment and the assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of that sentence, laid down by other
EU legislation.
In 2017, A Romanian citizen was sentenced by the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, to a term of imprisonment, which
became final on 10 November 2020. On 25 November 2020, that court issued a European arrest warrant against
that person for the purpose of enforcing that sentence. On 29 December 2020, that person was arrested in Italy.
However, the Italian judicial authorities refused to surrender the person concerned to the Romanian authorities. By
contrast, those authorities decided to recognise the sentencing judgment of the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, and to
enforce the sentence in Italy. They considered that this would increase the chances of social rehabilitation for the
person concerned, who was legally and actually resident in Italy. Moreover, the Italian judicial authorities deducted
the periods of detention already served in Italy from the initial duration of the sentence and placed the sentenced
person under house arrest with concurrent suspension. For their part, the Romanian judicial authorities dispute
both the recognition of the sentencing judgment and its enforcement in Italy. They maintain that the European
arrest warrant issued against the Romanian citizen remains in force. Therefore, according to the Romanian
authorities, the person must be surrendered and the sentence must be enforced not in Italy but in Romania.
Hearing the case, the Court of Appeal, Bucharest, decided to refer a question to the Court of Justice, in particular
concerning whether the refusal to surrender a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued in
order to enforce a custodial sentence presupposes that the issuing State has consented to the enforcement of the
sentence in another Member State. In addition, it asks whether, where the issuing State has not given its consent to
that assumption of responsibility in accordance with the specific rules of EU law on the matter, 2 it retains the right
to enforce the sentence and therefore to maintain the European arrest warrant.
Communications Directorate
Press and Information Unit
curia.europa.eu
In its judgment, the Court recalls, first of all, that the European arrest warrant is based on the principle of mutual
trust and that refusal to execute that warrant is an exception, which must always be interpreted strictly.
Accordingly, the judicial authorities of the Member State which refuses to execute the European arrest warrant in
order for the sentence to be enforced on the territory of that State must obtain the consent of the authorities of the
issuing Member State as regards the assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of the sentence imposed in
the latter State. Such consent entails the forwarding to the executing Member State of the sentencing judgment
handed down by the issuing Member State, together with a certificate. Without that consent, the conditions for the
assumption of responsibility for that enforcement are not met and the person concerned must be surrendered. The
objective of increasing the chances of social rehabilitation, relied on by the Italian authorities, is not absolute and
must be reconciled with the rule of principle that Member States are to execute any European arrest warrant.
In view of the various functions of the sentence within society, the authorities of the Member State in which a
custodial sentence has been imposed on a person may legitimately rely on the criminal policy arguments of that
Member State in order to justify the sentence imposed being enforced on its territory and, consequently, refuse to
forward the sentencing judgment and the certificate for the purpose of enforcing the sentence in another Member
State. In any event, if the refusal to execute a European arrest warrant was made in breach of the essential
conditions and procedure laid down by EU law, that European arrest warrant remains in force and the issuing State
retains the right to enforce the sentence imposed on its own territory.
NOTE: A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of EU law or the
validity of an EU act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to
dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or
tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.
The full text and, as the case may be, the abstract of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.
Stay Connected!
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2022 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.
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.
Communications Directorate