10.5.2021

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/8

(Case C-488/19)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Scope - Article 8(1)(c) - Concept of ‘enforceable judgment’ - Offence giving rise to a conviction by a court of a third State - Kingdom of Norway - Judgment recognised and enforced by the issuing State by virtue of a bilateral agreement - Article 4(7)(b) - Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Extra-territorial offence)

(2021/C 182/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

1.Article 1(1) and Article 8(1)(c) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a European arrest warrant may be issued on the basis of a judicial decision of the issuing Member State ordering the execution, in that Member State, of a sentence imposed by a court of a third State where, pursuant to a bilateral agreement between those States, the judgment in question has been recognised by a decision of a court of the issuing Member State. However, the issuing of the European arrest warrant is subject to the condition, first, that a custodial sentence of at least four months has been imposed on the requested person and, second, that the procedure leading to the adoption in the third State of the judgment recognised subsequently in the issuing Member State has complied with fundamental rights and, in particular, the obligations arising under Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

2.Article 4(7)(b) of Framework Decision 2002/584, as amended by Framework Decision 2009/299, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a European arrest warrant issued on the basis of a judicial decision of the issuing Member State allowing execution in that Member State of a sentence imposed by a court of a third State, where the offence concerned was committed in the territory of the latter State, the question whether that offence was committed ‘outside the territory of the issuing Member State’ must be resolved by taking into consideration the criminal jurisdiction of that third State — in this instance, the Kingdom of Norway — which allowed prosecution of that offence, and not that of the issuing Member State.

(1) OJ C 337, 7.10.2019.