The European Arrest Warrant: Mutual Recognition vs. Fundamental Rights.

The EAW was introduced by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, with the goal of simplifying extradition procedures and ensuring that individuals wanted for prosecution or to serve a sentence can be swiftly transferred across EU borders. The mechanism requires that the Issuing State (the country requesting the surrender) send a judicial order to the Executing State (the country where the individual is located) requesting the arrest and surrender of the person.

The EAW system was established to create a common EU-wide framework that would eliminate the need for lengthy extradition procedures and allow Member States to trust each other’s judicial systems. The EAW was designed to prioritize mutual recognition of arrest warrants, ensuring that a judicial decision made in one Member State would be automatically accepted by others. This has streamlined the extradition process, ensuring that individuals accused of serious crimes can be quickly transferred to face justice.

However, the rapid pace and broad scope of the system have highlighted the need for safeguards to prevent abuses that might result in violations of fundamental rights.While the EAW system has significantly streamlined the extradition process within the EU, it has raised important questions about the protection of fundamental rights. These concerns became especially relevant when human rights violations during detention, lack of judicial independence, and unfair trial risks were identified in some Member States.

The Court now acknowledges that in certain circumstances, Member States are permitted—or even obligated—to decline execution of an EAW when the surrender would result in serious breaches of fundamental rights. This judicial development is built around four central concerns:

1. An EAW may be refused if the person, once surrendered, would be held in prison conditions that breach human rights standards, particularly the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

2. Where the courts in the Issuing State lack independence or impartiality, the right to a fair trial may be at risk, justifying the refusal to execute the EAW.

3. If the individual suffers from serious medical conditions.

4. The best interests of any affected children and considerations of family life can also be valid reasons to refusal, especially if it would cause disproportionate harm to minors or family relationships.

The European Arrest Warrant remains a pivotal instrument for cross-border judicial cooperation within the EU. However, its implementation must be balanced with a careful consideration of the fundamental rights of the individuals involved. Given the absence of explicit safeguards in the legislative text, the CJEU has taken on a key role in shaping legal protections through its case law. This jurisprudential shift marks a significant evolution in ensuring that cooperation does not come at the cost of core human rights.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and does not constitute legal advice. For legal support or advice, please contact JS LAW at Stylianou@lawyer.com or +357 26 947 482.