5.1. European Arrest Warrant

The Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant was adopted just a few months after the Council established Eurojust in 2002; Eurojust has supported the use of the EAW throughout the entire history of the Agency.

Eurojust casework in the field of the EAW

Judicial authorities in EU Member States are increasingly turning to Eurojust for expertise and assistance in the execution of EAWs. Between 2017 and 2020, the number of demands more than doubled to 2 235, compared with the period from 2013 to 2016.

Many cases concerned grounds for refusal, fundamental rights and requests for additional information. Horizontal issues related to problems with direct contact, language issues or non-compliance with time limits, which had already been identified in other Eurojust reports, often created obstacles in the application of the EAW.

The report refers to recent developments in the case law of the European Court of Justice, which has been crucial in further defining the scope of the EAW Framework Decision and the rights and obligations set forth in this instrument. This case law has had a significant impact on Eurojust’s casework in relation to different aspects, including prison conditions, rule of law and in absentia judgments, as well as the interpretation of basic concepts such as issuing and executing judicial authority.

The report also highlights that the EAW and the other European legal instruments founded on the principle of mutual recognition (transfer of prisoners Framework Decision and the European Investigation Order Directive) are instrumental in shaping the EU justice system.

Based on Eurojust’s casework, the report identifies solutions and best practices for judicial practitioners, but also highlights potential challenges for authorities when using an EAW. It provides conclusions and recommendations to improve the use of EAWs, as well as examples of concrete, anonymised cases, which can help with the execution of future warrants.

Case-law by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant

Eurojust published two editions of the analysis of the case law of the CJEU in 2021, (April and December). Eurojust will continue to publish this update biannually.

The case law overview contains summaries of the CJEU’s judgments reflecting the structure of the EAW Framework Decision, with the most recent edition containing analysis of 61 judgments and 11 ongoing cases.

Requirements for Issuing and Executing Judicial Authorities in EAW proceedings pursuant to CJEU case law

As a follow-up to the specific case law of the CJEU on the notion of judicial authority in the EAW FD, Eurojust and the EJN have been working together on a compilation, providing information on the legal position of the public prosecutor within the national legal systems, as well as of the competent authorities to issue and execute EAWs. The compilation continued to be updated in 2021.

Eurojust advice for competing EAWs taken on board by court

Crime: Romania and Italy each issued EAWs against the same person, in relation to participation in a criminal organisation and other serious crimes. The purpose of the Romanian EAW was for prosecution, while the two Italian EAWs were for the execution of custodial sentences. The requested person was arrested in the Netherlands.

Eurojust's Role: In 2021, the Dutch Court of Amsterdam requested that Eurojust provide a formal opinion on the priority to be given between the Romanian and the Italian EAWs, and to clarify legal issues related to the surrender of a Romanian citizen and the possible execution of the Italian judgments in Romania. National Members of Italy, Romania and the Netherlands issued advice on the competing EAWs, recommending the execution of the EAW from Romania.

Judicial tool: Eurojust, applying its Guidelines for deciding on competing requests for surrender and extradition, considered the specifics of the case and decided, based on the priority of the EAW for prosecution purposes, the absence of any obvious risks of impunity related to the subsequent execution of the cumulative sentence included in the EAWs of Italy, and also the seriousness of the offences and the rehabilitation objective.

The Dutch court followed Eurojust’s advice to prioritise the execution of the Romanian EAW. After surrender from the Netherlands to Romania, the Italian judgements of conviction have been recognised by the Romanian courts, upon the request of the Italian judicial authorities.