A judicial authority may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant and unilaterally take over the execution of the sentence without the prior consent of the state that issued the warrant
The Court of Justice ruled in its judgment in case C-305/22 of 04.09.2025 that a judicial authority of a Member State may not refuse to execute a European arrest warrant and unilaterally take over the execution of the sentence without the prior consent of the state that issued the arrest warrant.
In 2017, a Romanian citizen was legally sentenced by the Court of Appeal in Bucharest to a prison sentence, which entered into force on 10.11.2020. Subsequently, on 25.11.2020, the said court issued a European arrest warrant for the purpose of enforcing this sentence. On 29.122020, the person concerned was arrested in the territory of the Italian Republic.
However, the Italian judicial authorities refused to hand him over to the Romanian authorities. They decided to recognise the Romanian sentence and serve the sentence on their territory, arguing that the convict had a legal and effective residence in Italy, which increased his chances of reintegration. They took into account the time spent in custody in Italy and imposed house arrest with a conditional suspension of the sentence. The Romanian judicial authorities did not agree with this approach. They insisted on the validity of the European arrest warrant and requested the surrender of the convict to serve his sentence in Romania.
The Court of Appeal in Bucharest has asked the Court of Justice of the EU whether the execution of a sentence in another Member State instead of surrendering a person under a European arrest warrant requires the consent of the issuing State. It also asks whether, in the absence of such consent, the issuing State retains the right to execute the sentence and maintain the arrest warrant in force.
The Court of Justice of the EU has confirmed that the European arrest warrant is based on the principle of mutual trust and that its non-execution is an exception that must be interpreted restrictively. A Member State that wishes to enforce a sentence on its territory instead of surrendering a person must obtain the consent of the issuing State by sending the judgment and a certificate. Without this consent, the person is obliged to be surrendered. The justification of resocialisation is not sufficient for non-surrender.
The Court concluded that the Member State which imposed the sentence may, for reasons of criminal policy, refuse to enforce it in another State and not to send the judgment or the certificate. However, if the other State refuses to surrender the person in breach of Union law, the European arrest warrant remains valid and the issuing State retains the right to enforce the sentence.
