In 2025, 1 038 Eurojust cases (including 457 new and 581 ongoing ones from previous years) involved European Arrest Warrants. The overall number of cases involving EAWs handled by the Agency in 2025 was approximately 6% higher than in the previous year.
 

Rapid surrender of high-profile murder suspect

CRIME: An American citizen is suspected of the murder of an infant girl in Rome.

ACTION: When authorities locate the person in Greece, they must ensure that the suspect is rapidly detained and surrendered to Italy.

RESULT: Rapid issuance and timely execution of an EAW leads to the suspect's arrest and ensures his surrender to Italy.

EUROJUST'S ROLE: Close and immediate cooperation between the Italian and Greek Desks at Eurojust ensures the timely and rapid execution of the EAW.

Eurojust continued to provide support and advice to national authorities throughout the life cycle of the EAW.

Eurojust can support or provide advice on:

Practitioners approached the Agency when requests for additional information were urgent (for example in view of upcoming court hearings) or when direct contact with the executing authorities had failed. Eurojust facilitated the swift transmission of the missing information relating to these EAWs.

Another important role Eurojust can play is advising on competing EAWs and supporting follow-up questions (e.g. regarding consent to subsequent surrender). In its coordination meetings, the Agency can also prevent the issuance of competing EAWs. In 2025, Eurojust issued seven formal Advices on competing EAWs in accordance with Article 16(2) EAW FD and the Eurojust Guidelines for deciding competing requests for surrender and extradition.

Eurojust continues to assist the national authorities with the correct application of the CJEU's case-law (e.g. on prison conditions or in absentia). To enable this, the Agency monitors the case-law of the CJEU and publishes a regular report that includes the latest developments.

Two judgments the CJEU delivered in 2025 resulted from cases supported by Eurojust, namely Sangas[1] on the statute-barred refusal ground and C.J.[2] on the relationship between the EAW and the Framework Decision on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. The legal questions respectively at stake in these cases reflect recurrent issues that arise in multiple Eurojust cases.

The Agency examined the speciality rule in a questionnaire to all Member States in 2025 to prepare streamlined, accessible and operational information for practitioners on how this principle is being applied in the Member States.

As in previous years, only a 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 number of cases concerning competing EAWs for which Eurojust's support is requested (Article 16(2) EAW Framework Decision) also remains limited.

[1] C-481/23

[2] C-305/22