The term “trial resulting in the decision”, as defined in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), should be interpreted as “ any step of the proceedings, which has the decisive influence on the deprivation of a person’s liberty.”. An arrest warrant issued for a person convicted in a trial in absentia cannot therefore, save in exceptional circumstances, be executed, the Advocate General, Tamara Ćapeta, ruled on 27 October in her Opinion to the EU Court of Justice in joined cases C-514/21 and C-515/21.
The Irish Court of Appeal had referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling, in 2021, the two cases which took place between 2012 and 2017 with similar facts concerning two arrest warrants issued by Hungarian and Polish authorities. In both cases, a person had been found guilty of committing an offence following a fair trial.
The verdict resulted in a suspended prison sentence. Subsequently, the same person was charged with a second offence during the probation period.
The second trial was held in absentia and resulted in an admission of guilt and a sentence of imprisonment. The suspension of the prison sentence for the first offence was therefore revoked. As the person concerned was abroad, a European arrest warrant was issued to execute the prison sentence for the first offence.
In both cases, the Irish court considered whether an enforcement authority could refuse to act on an EAW for the purpose of enforcing the sentence for the first offence on the grounds that the second trial had taken place in absentia. The question was how to interpret the term “trial resulting in the decision” in Article 4a(1) of the 2002 Framework Decision on the EAW.
According to this article, the executing judicial authority “may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or detention order, if the person concerned did not appear in person at the trial which resulted in the decision”. The article then provides for exceptions such as the fact that the person was summoned in person and thus informed of the date and place fixed for the trial leading to the decision or informed that a decision could be handed down in case of non-appearance.
“Provided none of the conditions under Article 4a(1) of the EAW Framework Decision is met, the referring court has the option not to surrender the appellants to Poland and Hungary respectively”, the Advocate General ruled.
In her view, since such a decision has significant effects on the person concerned, including possible deprivation of liberty, that person must be given the possibility to impact every step of the procedure that has a decisive influence on the final decision.
Read the conclusions: https://aeur.eu/f/3t9 (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)