On 20 March 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a judgment under the preliminary ruling procedure in the case C-763/22 on the interpretation of Article 16 of the EAW FD where the Court thereby concluded:
Article 16(3) 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, in the event of a conflict between a European arrest warrant and an extradition request, a body of the executive may take a decision granting precedence to one of those instruments. There must be an effective judicial remedy against that decision subject to the procedural conditions that it is for the Member States to determine.
Background information on the preliminary ruling
The request for preliminary ruling was referred to the CJEU by the Tribunal judiciaire de Marseille (Court of Marseille, France), and concerned whether Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the EAW (EAW FD) precluded legislation which granted a governmental authority the power to decide, between an EAW and a concurrent extradition request from a third State, which is to be executed, without any possibility of legal remedy.
The question arose as the French authorities issued an EAW against a French national who was already in detention in Spain with a view to executing an extradition request issued by the Swiss authorities. The Spanish Law on mutual recognition provides that where such a conflict exists between an EAW and extradition request, the decision on which request takes precedence lies with the Spanish Council of Ministers, who subsequently chose to execute the request from the Swiss authorities
In its judgment, the Court interpreted Article 16(3) of EAW FD which provides that where there is a conflict between an EAW and an extradition request from a third country, the decision of which instrument takes precedence is taken by the ‘competent authority’ of the executing Member State, with due consideration of all the circumstances. This comes in contrast with Article 16(1), which confers power on the ‘executing judicial authority’ to decide between two competing EAWs. The distinction drawn between a ‘competent authority’ versus a ‘judicial authority’ is consistent with the objective of the Framework Decision, which seeks to simplify the procedures for surrender of persons within the European Union, and not to harmonise extradition procedures as a whole. The Court therefore interpreted the concept of a ‘competent authority’ to express the discretion afforded to Member States to designate the authority that must make a decision on an extradition request, this can include a body of the executive.
The second part of the reference concerned the availability of a judicial remedy against decisions pursuant to Article 16(3). Emphasising that the provision does not contain an explicit reference to remedies, the court noted that the need to account for the interests for the person concerned is implicit in the duty on the deciding authority to take account of all the circumstances. Therefore, while Member States retain discretion under the principle of procedural autonomy to establish rules governing remedies in such circumstances, those rules must not frustrate the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual concerned. In particular, the right to an effective judicial remedy guaranteed under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, requires any competent authority to state the reasons for its decision on precedence so that the person concerned can exercise his or her right to a remedy.