C-446/26

Provisional text

ORDER OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

2 July 2026 ( * )

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing custodial sentences – Article 6(1) – Issuing judicial authority – Article 8(1)(c) – European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office on the basis of a national arrest warrant issued by a court – No judicial review concerning the issue of the European arrest warrant – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Effective judicial protection )

In Case C‑446/26 PPU [Blerens], ( i )

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands), made by decision of 6 May 2026, received at the Court on 6 May 2026, in proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued in respect of

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the referring court’s request of 6 May 2026, received at the Court on the same day, that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent procedure, pursuant to Article 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

having regard to the decision of 21 May 2026 of the Fifth Chamber to grant that request,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Order

‘The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.’

5 Article 8 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Content and form of the European arrest warrant’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The European arrest warrant shall contain the following information set out in accordance with the form contained in the Annex:

…

(c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable judicial decision having the same effect, coming within the scope of Articles 1 and 2;

…’

9 In so far as it was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, that European arrest warrant is based on a national arrest warrant which was issued on 29 May 2018 by the investigating judge of the Protodikeio Katerinis (Court of First Instance, Katerini, Greece), as supplemented by the order made on 22 October 2018 by that judge and maintained in force pursuant to Decree No 26/2019 of the Misdemeanours Council of Katerini.

10 On 30 October 2025, the prosecutor at the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam, Netherlands) submitted a request to that court, which is the referring court, seeking the execution of that European arrest warrant. RI was detained, on the basis of that warrant, for the purpose of his surrender to the issuing Member State.

11 By an interim judgment of 24 March 2026, that court held that the surrender of RI must be refused for three of the four convictions on which the European arrest warrant is based, but that, by contrast, it did not see, at that stage, any reason to refuse his surrender entirely, regardless of whether the decision of the Greek public prosecutor to issue a European arrest warrant, in so far as it refers to conducting a criminal prosecution, may be the subject of court proceedings which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection.

12 On that last point, the referring court sent a series of questions to the Greek public prosecutor, as the issuing judicial authority, seeking to establish, inter alia, first, whether at the time that the national arrest warrant was issued or at a later stage, the conditions necessary for the issue of the European arrest warrant, for the part relating to conducting a criminal prosecution, and in particular its proportionality, had also been examined by a court in the issuing Member State and, second, if not, whether it is possible to have the proportionality assessed by such a court before the effective surrender of the requested person.

14 After stating that, regardless of the fact that the European arrest warrant at issue in the main proceedings also covers the execution of custodial sentences, the present case is comparable to the pending Case C‑722/25, Wertergen , the referring court, reiterating the grounds set out in the reference for a preliminary ruling which gave rise to that latter case found, on the basis of the information provided by the issuing judicial authority, that, in the issuing Member State, the decision of a prosecutor to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution may not be subject to review by a court prior to the surrender of the requested person. Furthermore, that information does not enable that court to establish either whether the competent court of the issuing Member State, where it issues a national arrest warrant, has carried out or may carry out a review of the conditions necessary to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, in particular its proportionality, or whether the decision to issue a national arrest warrant may, before the surrender of the requested person, be subject to a review by a court. It is irrelevant in that regard that, in the light of their nature and the penalty that they may attract, the acts of which that person is suspected in Greece constitute serious offences and that that person lives outside of Greek territory.

15 There is therefore, according to the referring court, a doubt as regards whether, prior to his surrender to the issuing Member State, the requested person is entitled to effective judicial protection either with respect to the European arrest warrant, or with respect to the national judicial decision on which the European arrest warrant is based, namely the issue of the national arrest warrant.

18 However, the referring court is not convinced that it follows from that difference that, in the present case, the requirement of effective judicial protection prior to the surrender of the requested person does not apply at one of those two levels. The Court laid down that requirement in its earlier case-law concerning the two levels of protection, inter alia, in the judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI (Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck and in Zwickau) (C‑508/18 and C‑82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456), to which it refers in paragraphs 43 to 47 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187). As in the present case, in the case which gave rise to the first of those judgments, a prosecutor had issued the European arrest warrant, whereas a court had issued the national arrest warrant. It is therefore unlikely that the requirement of effective judicial protection set out in the latter judgment does not apply in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

19 The referring court states that, in a similar previous case concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by a prosecutor at a Greek court of appeal, it held that the right to effective judicial protection guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter was not infringed, since, prior to the surrender of the requested person, the national arrest warrant was issued by a court and that, after the surrender of that person, the legality of the European arrest warrant must, if necessary, in accordance with the case-law resulting from the judgment of 13 January 2021, MM (C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraphs 72 and 73), be able to be assessed indirectly by the criminal court with jurisdiction to rule on the facts on which that warrant is based.

23 In those circumstances, the rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision [2002/584], read in the light of Article 47 of the [Charter], be interpreted as meaning that the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection to which a person against whom a European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of criminal prosecution – and, in addition, for the purpose of the execution of custodial sentences – must enjoy are not met if:

– the European arrest warrant has been issued by a public prosecutor – who can be regarded as the “issuing judicial authority” within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision – whose decision to issue that European arrest warrant is not subject to judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person, whereas

– that European arrest warrant, in so far as it relates to criminal proceedings, is based on a national arrest warrant issued by a judge who, when issuing that warrant, did not assess the conditions for issuing an EAW – the proportionality thereof in particular – and whose decision is not subject to such judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of the requested person?’

The request for the urgent preliminary ruling procedure to be applied

24 The referring court requested that the present reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under the urgent preliminary ruling procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and in Article 107(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

28 In the present case, it is apparent from the file before the Court that RI has been deprived of his liberty since 27 October 2025 for the purposes of his surrender to the competent Greek authorities and that he was in that situation on the date when consideration was given to whether the reference for a preliminary ruling should be dealt with under the urgent procedure, the referring court having also made clear, in the request for a preliminary ruling, that that request has the effect of extending RI’s detention for the purposes of his surrender to the issuing Member State by 60 days.

29 The question referred by that court is intended, in essence, to enable it to establish, as the executing judicial authority, whether the provisions of EU law to which that question refers justifies it refusing the execution of a European arrest warrant, in so far as it was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection which the requested person must be afforded.

30 An affirmative answer from the Court should result, in principle, in RI’s release, since his surrender for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution in the issuing Member State would have to be refused and his detention was extended only for the purpose of the present request for a preliminary ruling.

31 It is true that, in the present case, the European arrest warrant was also issued for the purposes of the execution of four custodial sentences based on enforceable judgments handed down in the issuing Member State and the referring court has raised no doubts regarding the surrender of RI for the purposes of the execution of one of those sentences.

Consideration of the question referred

38 Pursuant to Article 99 of its Rules of Procedure, where the reply to a question referred for a preliminary ruling may be clearly deduced from existing case-law or where the answer to that question admits of no reasonable doubt, the Court may at any time, on a proposal from the Judge-Rapporteur and after hearing the Advocate General, decide to rule by reasoned order.

39 It is appropriate to apply that provision in the context of the present reference for a preliminary ruling.

42 Nevertheless, the effectiveness and proper functioning of the simplified system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, established by Framework Decision 2002/584, are based on compliance with certain requirements laid down by that framework decision, the scope of which has been established by the case-law of the Court (judgment of 10 March 2021, PI , C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraph 36, and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria , C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 40).

43 In the first place, under Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the ‘issuing judicial authority’ is to be the judicial authority of the issuing Member State which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that State.

44 According to the case-law, that concept is capable of including authorities of a Member State which, although not necessarily judges or courts, participate in the administration of criminal justice in that Member State and act independently in the execution of those of their responsibilities which are inherent in the issuing of a European arrest warrant, that independence requiring that there are statutory rules and an institutional framework capable of guaranteeing that the issuing judicial authority is not exposed, when adopting a decision to issue such an arrest warrant, to any risk of being subject, inter alia, to an instruction in a specific case from the executive (judgment of 12 December 2019, Parquet général du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutors of Lyons and Tours) , C‑566/19 PPU and C‑626/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1077, paragraph 52 and the case-law cited).

49 The European arrest warrant system thus entails, in view of the requirement laid down in Article 8(1)(c), a dual level of protection for procedural rights and fundamental rights which must be enjoyed by the requested person, since, in addition to the judicial protection provided at the first level, at which a national judicial decision, such as a national arrest warrant, is adopted, is the protection that must be afforded at the second level, at which a European arrest warrant is issued, which may occur, depending on the circumstances, shortly after the adoption of the national judicial decision (judgment of 10 March 2021, PI , C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited, and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria , C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 44).

50 That protection means, as regards a measure, such as the issuing of a European arrest warrant, which is capable of impinging on the right to liberty of the person concerned, that a decision meeting the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection should be adopted, at least, at one of the two levels of that protection (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 63 and the case-law cited).

51 It follows that, where the law of the issuing Member State confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not a judge or a court, the national judicial decision, such as a national arrest warrant, on which the European arrest warrant is based, must, itself, meet those requirements (judgment of 10 March 2021, PI , C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited, and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria , C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 46).

54 It is for the ‘issuing judicial authority’, referred to in Article 6(1) of that framework decision, namely the entity which, ultimately, takes the decision to issue the European arrest warrant, to ensure that second level of protection, even where the European arrest warrant is based on a national decision delivered by a judge or a court (judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI (Public Prosecutor’s Office in Lübeck and in Zwickau) , C‑508/18 and C‑82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456, paragraph 72).

55 In addition, where the law of the issuing Member State confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, the decision to issue such a European arrest warrant and, inter alia, the proportionality of such a decision, must be capable of being the subject, in the Member State, of court proceedings which meet in full the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection (judgment of 10 March 2021, PI , C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited, and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria , C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 48).

56 Such court proceedings against a decision to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution taken by an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice and having the necessary independence from the executive, does not constitute a court serve to ensure that the review by a court of that decision and of the conditions to be met when issuing that warrant and, in particular, the proportionality of such a warrant complies with the requirements inherent in effective judicial protection (judgment of 13 January 2021, MM , C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4, paragraph 66 and the case-law cited).

61 In that regard, the Court has previously stated that the right to effective judicial protection, within the meaning of Article 47, does not require that that review by a court be carried out prior to the surrender of the person concerned to the competent authorities of the issuing Member State (see judgments of 28 January 2021, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Letter of rights) , C‑649/19, EU:C:2021:75, paragraphs 79 and 80 and the case-law cited, and of 30 June 2022, Spetsializirana prokuratura (Information on the national arrest decision) , C‑105/21, EU:C:2022:511, paragraph 44).

62 It is true that, as the referring court notes, in the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187, paragraphs 47 and 48), and order of 22 June 2021, Prosecutor of the regional prosecutor’s office in Ruse, Bulgaria (C‑206/20, EU:C:2021:509, paragraph 49), the Court held that a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution must be afforded effective judicial protection before being surrendered to the issuing Member State, at least at one of the two levels of protection required by that case-law, which assumes therefore that a review by a court may be carried out either in respect of the European arrest warrant or in respect of the judicial decision on which that warrant is based, before the execution of that warrant.

65 As the Court expressly stated in paragraphs 51 to 54 of the judgment of 10 March 2021, PI (C‑648/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:187), it follows from the judgments of 12 December 2019, Parquet général du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecutors of Lyons and Tours) (C‑566/19 PPU and C‑626/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1077, paragraphs 67 to 71), and of 12 December 2019, Openbaar Ministerie (Swedish Public Prosecutor’s Office) (C‑625/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:1078, paragraphs 46 to 53), that review by a court of the proportionality of the decision of the public prosecutor to issue a European arrest warrant may take place not only before but also after the surrender of the requested person, where there exists a set of national procedural provisions guaranteeing the involvement of a court as soon as the national arrest warrant was issued against that person and, therefore, before his or her surrender, and especially where that court carries out, in addition, an assessment of the necessary conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality.

68 In that latter regard, it must also be borne in mind that, in the absence of procedural rules in the issuing Member State allowing a court to review the conditions under which the European arrest warrant was issued, in particular its proportionality, the Court has, in essence, held, in paragraph 72 of the judgment of 13 January 2021, MM (C‑414/20 PPU, EU:C:2021:4), that EU law confers jurisdiction on a court of that Member State to review indirectly the validity of the European arrest warrant.

69 In the present case, it is apparent from the material in the order for reference that, according to the information provided by the Greek public prosecutor in response to the request of the referring court, the prosecutor, as an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, reviews compliance with the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality, and that the court that issued the national arrest warrant on which that European arrest warrant is based does not carry out such a review of the European arrest warrant, but verifies only whether the national arrest warrant satisfies the conditions for issuing that national warrant, in particular its proportionality.

70 According to the assessment carried out by the referring court, it follows from that information that neither that court nor any national court reviews, before the surrender of the requested person, whether the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant comply with the principle of proportionality.

74 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 8(1)(c) of Framework Decision 2002/584, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a European arrest warrant was issued by a prosecutor who is an ‘issuing judicial authority’, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of that framework decision, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution and executing custodial sentences, the requirements inherent in the effective judicial protection which the requested person must be afforded are satisfied, even though, first, the decision of that prosecutor to issue that European arrest warrant is not subject to review by a court in the issuing Member State prior to the surrender of that person and, second, that European arrest warrant is based, in so far as it was issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution, on a national arrest warrant issued by a court which did not carry out a review of the conditions for issuing a European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality, and whose decision is also not subject to review by a court prior to that surrender, provided that, after that surrender, a judicial remedy guaranteeing a review of the conditions for issuing the European arrest warrant, in particular its proportionality, is available in the issuing Member State.

Costs

75 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.