Question referred:

Must Art. 9(1)(d) and Art. 25 of Framework Decision 2008/909 be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for an obligation or an option for the competent authority of a Member State to rely on Art. 9(1)(d) in order to refuse to recognise the judgment and enforce the sentence imposed in another Member State on the ground that they relate to acts which would not constitute an offence under the law of the first Member State, where the executing judicial authority of that Member State previously decided to execute the European arrest warrant which gave rise to that judgment and that sentence:

(i) by waiving the right to rely on the ground for optional non-execution provided for in Art. 4(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, which is also based on the absence of double criminality, for an offence covered by Article 2(4) of that framework decision; and

(ii) by making the surrender of the person concerned, in accordance with Art. 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, subject to the condition that that person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him or her in the issuing Member State.

Categories