CJEU sets clear rules: EU member states can no longer block extraditions

European Union member states can no longer invoke procedural or national pretexts to refuse to surrender persons wanted under a European arrest warrant, according to the ruling delivered last Thursday by the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C 481/23 (Sangas). The CJEU decision was delivered in a case in which a court in our country refused to surrender a Spanish citizen, and Spain referred the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The CJEU's response reinforces the uniform application of the European extradition mechanism and has direct implications for Romania, which has been confronted in recent years with cases of famous fugitives taking refuge in "friendly" member states.

It all started with a case in 2022, when a Spanish court convicted a Spanish citizen, resident in Romania, of tax fraud and money laundering, with damages of over 100 million euros, damages resulting from the non-payment of VAT related to the sale of hydrocarbons. After the conviction, the defendant appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court (Audiencia Nacional) and was banned from leaving Spain. However, he was detected at the border with Croatia, on his way to Romania. As a result, the Spanish authorities issued a European arrest warrant in April 2022, with the aim of his preventive arrest and ensuring his presence at the trial.

In April 2023, the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal refused to execute the European arrest warrant, on the grounds that the person had had legal and continuous residence in Romania for over 5 years, did not want to be surrendered and would have benefited from the statute of limitations on criminal liability, if the respective case had been within the jurisdiction of the courts in our country.

The Supreme Court of Spain (Audiencia Nacional) contested the decision of the Romanian judges, and the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled: the reasons invoked by the Romanian court are not sufficient for refusing surrender if the criminal proceedings are still ongoing.

In its judgment of 10 April 2025, the CJEU rejected the arguments brought by the Romanian court and clarified two key points of Framework Decision 2002/584. The CJEU ruled that Article 4(6) - which allows for refusal if the person is resident and the executing State undertakes to enforce the sentence - is not applicable, because in the case heard by the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal the defendant was not definitively convicted (the criminal proceedings being still ongoing in Spain), the European arrest warrant was issued to ensure attendance at trial, not to enforce a definitive sentence, and the Romanian authorities did not undertake to oblige the defendant to enforce the sentence in our country.

The CJEU also ruled that, according to Article 4(4) of Framework Decision 2002/584, the limitation period can only be invoked if the acts fall within the jurisdiction of the executing State under its criminal law. However, in the present case, all the acts were committed in Spain, the damage was caused exclusively to the Spanish budget and, consequently, the Romanian authorities do not have criminal jurisdiction, so they cannot apply the limitation period.

The CJEU reiterated that the grounds for non-execution of a European arrest warrant are restrictive and cannot be extended by national interpretations. Allowing states to add new grounds for refusal would compromise the functioning of the simplified surrender system established by the European Framework Decision. The judgment delivered last Thursday by the CJEU is binding on the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal, but also on all other EU courts that will examine similar cases.

The CJEU decision also has a positive effect on similar cases pending before Romanian courts, criminal cases in which the defendants have taken refuge in other European states such as Hungary, Italy or Greece. Following the CJEU decision, these states can no longer arbitrarily refuse European arrest warrants issued by Romania, citing the fugitive's legal residence, lack of their own jurisdiction or the occurrence of statute of limitations under their own legislation.

According to the new interpretation given by the CJEU, the authorities of these states will have to surrender the persons concerned, if Romania has issued a valid warrant and its purpose is to ensure the presence at the trial or the execution of a final sentence, in the latter case except in the case where the state of residence undertakes to oblige the convicted person to serve the sentence pronounced by the Romanian courts in a prison in that country.