The Hungarian authorities did not have the right to not take a decision about a European arrest warrant issued by the Croatian authorities against a Hungarian with illegal activity in Croatia on the grounds that the penal procedure in Poland had ended by the time the arrest warrant was issued. The same authorities may also no longer refuse to take a decision or implement the arrest warrant when the person in question only has the status of being a witness in the Hungarian legal system but Croatia wishes to question him as a suspect.
This was the ruling issued on 25 July by the European Court of Justice in case C-268/17 about a Hungarian president of the board of a Hungarian company subject to criminal investigations in Croatia.
The individual in question is suspected of agreeing to pay a large sum of money to someone holding a high-ranking position in Croatia in exchange for an agreement between the company and the Croatian government.
After the opening of an investigation in Croatia against him for active corruption, the Croatian authorities asked on a number of occasions since 2011 for their Hungarian counterparts to provide them with antenatal legal assistance by questioning AY as a suspect and summoning him to a hearing.
The Hungarian authorities did not respond, but opened an investigation to verify whether a crime in the form of active corruption in an international framework had been committed in the meaning of the Hungarian Civil Code. The investigation ended on 20 January 2012 because the acts committed did not constitute an offence.
For Croatia, however, the Hungarian authorities’ investigation had not been opened against AY as a suspect, but only in connection with the alleged offence, AY only being questioned as a witness in this investigation.
On 1 October 2013, after Croatia joined the EU, the Croatian authorities issued a European arrest warrant against AY, which was rejected by the Hungarian authorities on the grounds that a criminal procedure had already ended in Hungary with the same facts. In December 2015, the Županijski Sud u Zagrebu (Zagrev committee tribunal, Croatia) issued a new arrest warrant.
The Hungarian authorities again refused to issue a formal decision on the grounds that it was not judicially possible, in Hungary, to arrest AY or launch a new procedure for implementation of the arrest warrant.
The Croatian court hence asks the ECJ whether the framework-decision on the European arrest warrant allows the authorities of a member state to refuse to implement such a warrant on the grounds that a criminal procedure has already ended in the other member state on the same facts, even if the person against whom the arrest warrant has been issued was only a witness and not a suspect or defendant in that procedure. It also wants to known whether a national authority is required to adopt a decision on every European arrest warrant submitted to it when they have already ruled on the same case.
On the first point, the ECJ agrees with the Croatian authorities, saying that the Hungarian authorities could not justify their refusal to implement an arrest warrant issued by Croatia on the grounds of the existence of a final ruling on the same facts in Croatia. In effect, the announcement of such a ruling presupposes the existence of former criminal proceedings in Hungary against the person in question, which did not take place because the person was only questioned s a witness and no criminal proceedings were launched against him. In these conditions, the Hungarian authorities should not have refused to carry out the arrest warrant issued by Croatia.
Resending to the second point, the ECB says that the issuing member state’s judicial authorities are required to issue a decision about every European arrest warrant sent to them, even if it has already been judged in an earlier request, but the second European arrest warrant was issued only because the person is being accused in the issuing member state. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)