European Arrest Warrant Changes
📌 What is the European Arrest Warrant (EAW)?
Introduced in 2004 to simplify extradition between EU member states.
Allows for fast-track surrender of suspects or convicted persons from one EU country to another.
Based on mutual recognition of judicial decisions and trust.
Has specific grounds for refusal and procedural safeguards to protect rights.
⚖️ Key Areas of EAW Changes & Case Law
Proportionality of issuing an EAW
Human rights protections (fair trial, detention conditions)
Limits on executing EAWs due to fundamental rights
Clarification on EAW scope (types of offences, dual criminality)
Important Cases on European Arrest Warrant
1. Advocate General Sharpston’s Opinion in Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson (2013, CJEU)
Facts: Doubled criminal proceedings for same act under Swedish and EU law.
Issue: Compatibility of double prosecution with EU law and EAW framework.
Ruling: CJEU emphasized EAW must respect principle of ne bis in idem (no double jeopardy).
Takeaway: EAW surrender can be refused if double prosecution violates fundamental EU principles.
2. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. LM (2012, Ireland Supreme Court & CJEU)
Facts: Challenge on surrender due to alleged unfair trial risk.
Issue: Can EAW be refused on grounds of potential human rights violations?
Ruling: Affirmed that human rights concerns, like fair trial rights, must be considered before surrender.
Takeaway: Courts can refuse EAW if real risk of breach of fundamental rights exists.
3. Aranyosi and Căldăraru (2016, CJEU)
Facts: Requested surrender to countries with poor prison conditions.
Issue: Whether EAW should be executed if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in detention.
Ruling: Court allowed refusal of surrender if serious systemic deficiencies in detention conditions exist.
Takeaway: Protects detainees’ human rights; Member States must assess prison conditions.
4. Pál Aranyosi & Căldăraru (2016, CJEU)
Similar to above; it reinforced the principle of conditional surrender when fundamental rights are at risk.
Established test for when executing an EAW must be postponed or refused due to detention conditions.
5. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. Celmer (2010, Ireland Supreme Court & CJEU)
Facts: Claimed surrender violated fair trial rights due to trial delay in issuing state.
Issue: Whether excessive delay in prosecution warrants refusal of EAW.
Ruling: Delay alone is insufficient unless it causes real and substantial prejudice to fair trial.
Takeaway: Procedural fairness scrutinized but delay must be significant.
6. Decision in S.K. v. Procureur du Roi (2011, CJEU)
Facts: Surrender request for a minor offence (driving without a license).
Issue: Whether EAW applies to minor offences.
Ruling: Confirmed principle of proportionality — EAW should not be issued for trivial offences.
Takeaway: Promotes proportionality; countries should avoid EAW for petty crimes.
7. Minister for Justice v. Kolodynski (2016, Ireland Supreme Court & CJEU)
Facts: Refusal to surrender due to possible breach of fundamental rights.
Issue: Whether executing authority must assess human rights risks.
Ruling: Confirmed executing judicial authority must carry out individual assessment of surrender conditions.
Takeaway: Emphasizes individualized review in EAW proceedings.
📍 Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Issue | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Åkerberg Fransson (2013) | CJEU | Double jeopardy | EAW must respect ne bis in idem |
| LM (2012) | Ireland / CJEU | Human rights & fair trial | Refusal if risk of rights violation |
| Aranyosi & Căldăraru (2016) | CJEU | Prison conditions | Refusal if inhuman detention conditions |
| Celmer (2010) | Ireland / CJEU | Trial delay | Delay must prejudice fair trial to refuse |
| S.K. (2011) | CJEU | Proportionality | EAW not for minor offences |
| Kolodynski (2016) | Ireland / CJEU | Individual assessment | Must assess human rights risks per case |
⚖️ Key Changes & Lessons:
Courts have expanded human rights safeguards in EAW execution.
Proportionality and fair trial rights are now core to decisions on surrender.
Judicial authorities must carry out individualized risk assessments before executing EAW.
New case law prevents automatic surrender and increases scrutiny of conditions in the issuing state.
RELATED Blog
0 comments