In 2024, 971 Eurojust cases (including 452 new and 529 ongoing ones from previous years) involved European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). The overall number of cases involving EAWs handled by the Agency in 2024 was approximately 20% lower than in the previous year.

In 2024, Eurojust continued to provide support and advice to national authorities throughout the life cycle of the EAW. Practitioners mostly approached the Agency when requests for additional information were urgent in view of upcoming court hearings. In 2024, Eurojust’s support was sought for additional information, particularly in relation to prison conditions, in absentia judgements, and the surrender of nationals or residents. The Agency also provided support to national authorities on issues related to return guarantees, prescription of an offence, available medical treatment and competing EAWs.

Concerning prison conditions, questions arose regarding various aspects, including the available space, sanitary facilities, the heating system, access to food, water and health care. Despite the extensive case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on this matter, there were often different views on what type of information the executing authority could request and what the issuing authority should provide. On other occasions, issuing and executing authorities disagreed on the formulation of assurances and debated whether they were sufficiently clear and up to date.

In relation to in absentia judgements, practitioners continued to face challenges with questions concerning a trial that resulted in the decision or a person waiving his or her right to attend trial. Additional challenges arose with questions concerning the unconditional nature of retrials, cumulative sentences, the examination (or lack thereof) of the merits of the case or the justification for substituting a probation measure with a custodial sentence. In many cases, the executing authority considered the information included in the EAW form to be insufficient.

In cases where an EAW was refused because the requested person was a national or resident, questions arose regarding the application of the Framework Decision on the transfer of sentenced persons. In some of these cases, the executing authority agreed to enforce the sentence. However, issues arose when the sentence was executed without a certificate related to the transfer of the sentence or when the executing authority modified the nature of the sentence without consulting the issuing authority.

In the post-surrender phase, Eurojust identified problems with the application of the speciality rule. National authorities approached Eurojust when they encountered problems in obtaining consent to prosecute the surrendered person for other offences or for a subsequent surrender following a case of competing EAWs. Sometimes, the authorities did not receive a reply to their requests for consent. In other cases, questions were raised about the format to be used, the information to be provided (e.g. underlying national arrest warrant) or the existence of a prior (implicit) consent.

As in previous years, the chart below confirms that a very small number of Member States notify Eurojust of cases where they cannot observe the time limits and the reasons for this non-observance (Article 17 EAW Framework Decision). The chart also shows that the number of cases concerning competing EAWs for which Eurojust’s support is requested (Article 16(2) EAW Framework Decision) remains limited.