Background
The case arose from a request for a preliminary ruling by the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands) concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by Romania against DZ. DZ had been sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by the Curtea de Apel Constanța (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania) on 20 December 2023 for importing three grams of cannabis and four MDMA pills into Romania. The EAW was issued on 9 January 2024, and the Dutch prosecutor applied for its examination on 7 May 2024.
The referring court noted that Romanian law required a minimum seven-year sentence for importing high-risk drugs, with limited possibilities for reduction or suspension. DZ argued that the sentence was disproportionate under Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which requires that penalties not be disproportionate to the offence. The referring court asked whether Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, read with Article 49(3), permits an executing judicial authority to refuse surrender on grounds of disproportionality, and if so, under what conditions.
The Court’s Holding
The Court held that execution of an EAW is the rule and refusal an exception to be interpreted strictly. While Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 permits an executing authority, exceptionally, to refuse surrender where it finds a real risk of breach of Article 49(3), such a finding requires a two-step examination. First, the authority must determine whether objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information demonstrates a real risk of infringement due to systemic or generalised deficiencies, or deficiencies affecting an objectively identifiable group to which the person belongs. Second, it must determine specifically and precisely whether those deficiencies are liable to affect that person and whether, having regard to the personal situation, there are substantial grounds for believing that surrender would create a real risk of breach.
The Court emphasized that deficiencies can only be established where the issuing State’s legislation or judicial practice constitutes a “manifest and serious breach” of Article 49(3) and there is no effective judicial remedy in that State to redress the breach. It identified two routes for establishing such seriousness: legislation providing for the possibility or obligation to impose sentences so disproportionate as to be equivalent to inhuman or degrading punishment; and legislation that both fails to take account of the seriousness of the offence in setting penalties and prevents the national court from considering individual circumstances when adjusting the sentence, using available reductions, or reclassifying the offence.
Applying this framework, the Court found that Romania’s seven-year minimum sentence for importing high-risk drugs “cannot be regarded as imposing inhuman or degrading punishment” and that the legislation allows for individualisation of the sentence. It also noted that “there is nothing in the documents before the Court to suggest that there are no legal remedies in Romania sufficient to ensure effective legal protection for the accused person,” and that DZ had used remedies to challenge his sentence on appeal and on a further appeal on a point of law. Because the first-step deficiencies were not established, the Court found no need to examine the second-step criteria or answer whether a guarantee from the issuing Member State could eliminate a real risk or what form such a guarantee might take.
Key Takeaways
- Execution of a European arrest warrant is the rule; refusal is an exception interpreted strictly and only where specific conditions are met.
- Refusal based on disproportionality of a sentence requires objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information demonstrating a real risk from systemic or generalised deficiencies, or deficiencies affecting an objectively identifiable group.
- Such deficiencies must constitute a manifest and serious breach of Article 49(3) of the Charter, and there must be no effective judicial remedy in the issuing State to redress the breach.
- Differences, even significant ones, between national penalty regimes do not by themselves establish the required risk or deficiencies; the assessment must use the EU fundamental-rights standard, not the executing State’s national-law standard.
Why It Matters
This judgment clarifies the high threshold for refusing to execute a European arrest warrant on grounds of disproportionate sentencing. It reinforces the principles of mutual trust and mutual recognition underpinning the EAW system, while acknowledging that fundamental rights may, in exceptional cases, justify refusal. The ruling ensures that executing authorities do not engage in a general review of substantive judicial decisions from issuing States, thereby preserving the effectiveness of judicial cooperation in criminal matters across the EU.
By distinguishing between general legal framework and case-specific outcomes, the Court provides guidance for future cases involving allegations of disproportionate sentences, emphasizing that such claims must be supported by concrete evidence of systemic or generalised deficiencies and the absence of effective remedies.