Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 October 2026.#Sofiyska gradska prokuratura v LY.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski gradski sad.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 12 – Keeping the requested person in detention – Article 23 – Time limit for the surrender of that person – National legislation which lays down an obligation to detain the requested person in a prison until his or her surrender to the issuing Member State – Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to liberty and security.#Case C-580/24.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

15 October 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 12 – Keeping the requested person in detention – Article 23 – Time limit for the surrender of that person – National legislation which lays down an obligation to detain the requested person in a prison until his or her surrender to the issuing Member State – Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to liberty and security )

In Case C‑580/24 [Tsachkov], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), made by decision of 5 September 2024, received at the Court on 5 September 2024, in the proceedings relating to the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against

LY

Other party:

Sofiyska gradska prokuratura

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, B. Smulders, E. Regan (Rapporteur), J. Passer and D. Gratsias, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Spielmann,

Registrar: R. Stefanova-Kamisheva, Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 October 2025,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the Bulgarian Government, by R. Stoyanov and T. Tsingileva, acting as Agents,

–        the Czech Government, by T. Paroulková, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents,

–        the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér and R. Kissné Berta, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by H. Leupold, J. Vondung and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 18 December 2025,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

2        The request has been made in proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against LY for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution.

 Legal context

 European Union law

 The Charter

3        Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), which is entitled ‘Right to liberty and security’, provides:

‘Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.’

 Framework Decision 2002/584

4        Recital 5 of Framework Decision 2002/584 is worded as follows:

‘The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.’

5        Article 1 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it’, provides, in paragraph 3 thereof:

‘This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 [TEU].’

6        Article 2 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Scope of the European arrest warrant’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.’

7        Chapter 2 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Surrender procedure’, includes Articles 9 to 25.

8        Under Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Keeping the person in detention’:

‘When a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention, in accordance with the law of the executing Member State. The person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent authority of the said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding.’

9        Article 15 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Surrender decision’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The executing judicial authority shall decide, within the time limits and under the conditions defined in this Framework Decision, whether the person is to be surrendered.’

10      Article 17 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Time limits and procedures for the decision to execute the European arrest warrant’, provides:

‘1.      A European arrest warrant shall be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency.

2.      In cases where the requested person consents to his surrender, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given.

3.      In other cases, the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within a period of 60 days after the arrest of the requested person.

4.      Where in specific cases the European arrest warrant cannot be executed within the time limits laid down in paragraphs 2 or 3, the executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority thereof, giving the reasons for the delay. In such case, the time limits may be extended by a further 30 days.

…’

11      Article 23 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Time limits for surrender of the person’, reads as follows:

‘1.      The person requested shall be surrendered as soon as possible on a date agreed between the authorities concerned.

2.      He or she shall be surrendered no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant.

3.      If the surrender of the requested person within the period laid down in paragraph 2 is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of the Member States, the executing and issuing judicial authorities shall immediately contact each other and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed.

4.      The surrender may exceptionally be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons, for example if there are substantial grounds for believing that it would manifestly endanger the requested person’s life or health. The execution of the European arrest warrant shall take place as soon as these grounds have ceased to exist. The executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10 days of the new date thus agreed.

5.      Upon expiry of the time limits referred to in paragraphs 2 to 4, if the person is still being held in custody he shall be released.’

12      Article 24 of Framework Decision 2002/584, entitled ‘Postponed or conditional surrender’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The executing judicial authority may, after deciding to execute the European arrest warrant, postpone the surrender of the requested person so that he or she may be prosecuted in the executing Member State or, if he or she has already been sentenced, so that he or she may serve, in its territory, a sentence passed for an act other than that referred to in the European arrest warrant.’

13      Article 26 of that framework decision, entitled ‘Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘The issuing Member State shall deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in the issuing Member State as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed.’

 Directive 2008/115/EC

14      Article 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98), entitled ‘Conditions of detention’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof:

‘Detention shall take place as a rule in specialised detention facilities. Where a Member State cannot provide accommodation in a specialised detention facility and is obliged to resort to prison accommodation, the third-country nationals in detention shall be kept separated from ordinary prisoners.’

 Bulgarian law

15      The zakon za ekstraditsiata i evropeyskata zapoved za arest (Law on extradition and the European arrest warrant, DV No 46 of 2005), in the version applicable to the main proceedings, (‘the ZEEZA’) transposes Framework Decision 2002/584 into Bulgarian law. Article 42(1) and (2) of the ZEEZA provides that, on actual receipt of a European arrest warrant, the requested person is to be placed in custody for a period of up to 72 hours, provided that the European arrest warrant is formally in order.

16      In accordance with Article 43(1) and (2) of the ZEEZA, the court must decide at the very beginning of the proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant whether the requested person is to remain in detention. There is no need for the person sought to be mandatorily kept in detention during those proceedings.

17      Article 43(3) of the ZEEZA provides that the court is to decide whether the requested person is to be detained in accordance with the general provisions of national law, which do not provide for mandatory detention in any cases of pending criminal proceedings.

18      According to Article 43(7) of the ZEEZA, if a requested person has been detained, he or she may apply for release, so long as the proceedings for recognition of the European arrest warrant are still pending. That application must be granted if it transpires that his or her detention is not necessary.

19      The second sentence of Article 44(7) of the ZEEZA is worded as follows:

‘In all cases in which the court authorises the execution of the European arrest warrant, it shall order that the requested person be remanded in custody until such time as he or she is actually surrendered to the issuing State.’

20      Under Article 54(1) of the ZEEZA, surrender must take place within 10 days of the date on which the surrender decision becomes final. Under Article 54(2) of the ZEEZA, that time limit may be extended if there is an objective obstacle to surrender. The person sought may be released from detention only if he or she cannot be surrendered.

21      Under Article 260 of the zakon za izpalnenie na nakazaniyata i zadarzhaneto pod strazha (Law on the execution of sentences and pre-trial detention, DV No 25 of 3 April 2009), in the version applicable to the main proceedings:

‘1.      Prisons shall also accommodate persons detained at the request of a foreign State with a view to being surrendered …

2.      Until such time as the decision to surrender to the foreign State is executed, … the persons referred to in the first paragraph shall have the rights enjoyed by accused persons and defendants pursuant to the present law.’

 The main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

22      On 4 July 2024, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eisenstadt (Austria) issued a European arrest warrant against LY, a Bulgarian national permanently resident in Bulgaria, for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution for the burglary of 61 tyre-and-wheel assemblies worth EUR 150 990.

23      On 26 July 2024, in the proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority issued an arrest warrant against LY, which led to his arrest on 4 August 2024.

24      On 7 August 2024, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court, Bulgaria), which is the referring court, decided to release LY on bail, finding that there was no risk of him absconding.

25      LY appeared, with his lawyer, at the hearings held on 9 and 30 August 2024. He stated that he consented to an immediate surrender to the Austrian judicial authorities, while disputing that there was a need to detain him, for a potentially significant period, until his surrender. LY asked to be allowed to travel on his own to the Republic of Austria, where he had instructed an Austrian lawyer, and to present himself to the Austrian judicial authorities with the assistance of that lawyer.

26      The referring court notes that that request is at odds with the very nature of the judicial cooperation mechanism established in Framework Decision 2002/584, according to which, after the adoption of the decision to execute the European arrest warrant, the requested person is to be surrendered to the competent authorities of the issuing Member State.

27      However, the referring court is of the view that detaining LY immediately after that decision is handed down is not necessary for the purpose of his effective surrender to the issuing Member State. That detention in a prison may be for a few days, a week or even longer and therefore appears to be excessive and unnecessary.

28      Bulgarian law requires the requested person to be detained in a prison when the decision to surrender that person to the issuing Member State has been taken. The referring court therefore has doubts as to whether that form of execution complies with Framework Decision 2002/584.

29      In the first place, as regards the mandatory detention of the requested person, the referring court states that the execution of the European arrest warrant presupposes, by its very nature, that the requested person is arrested, at the very least, at the time of the surrender. However, that framework decision contains no provision requiring that that arrest must take place at a stage in the proceedings prior to the surrender of that person to the issuing Member State.

30      First, Article 12 of that framework decision establishes as a general rule the possibility of detention or of release from detention, the choice of the appropriate coercive measure depending on the particularities of the situation in question. Consequently, detention is possible but not mandatory.

31      Second, the expression ‘the person may be released provisionally at any time in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State’, contained in Article 12, means that the national transposing law must provide for the possibility for release ‘at any time’.

32      Third, the phrase ‘if the person is still being held in custody’ in Article 23(5) of that framework decision, concerning the period following the handing down of a final decision on the surrender of the requested person to the issuing Member State until the actual surrender of that person, means that it is possible during that period that the requested person is not being held in custody.

33      For those reasons, and in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice arising, inter alia, from the judgments of 16 July 2015, Lanigan (C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474), and of 25 January 2017, Vilkas (C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39), the referring court is of the view that the second sentence of Article 44(7) of the ZEEZA is contrary to Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584, since those latter provisions preclude mandatory detention of the requested person in the period between the handing down of the decision to surrender that person to the issuing Member State and his or her physical surrender, where there is no risk of that person absconding and, consequently, no risk that his or her surrender will prove impossible. In such a case, the restriction of that person’s liberty is objectively necessary only at the time of surrender.

34      In the second place, the referring court states that, in accordance with Bulgarian law, if it orders the requested person to be detained, that person is necessarily detained in prison until his or her surrender to the issuing Member State. In its case-law on Article 5(1)(c) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), the European Court of Human Rights has held that, in the event of extradition, detention must take place under conditions which guarantee protection against arbitrariness. That includes, inter alia, the obligation to ensure that the place and conditions of detention are appropriate, although that court did not specify what constitutes such appropriateness.

35      Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, the referring court considers that there are also arguments which support the view that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings is compatible with Framework Decision 2002/584.

36      It could thus be found that mandatory detention of the requested person where there is a decision to execute the European arrest warrant constitutes the execution of the detention ordered by the issuing judicial authority by means of the national arrest warrant and for the purpose of criminal proceedings in the issuing State.

37      Furthermore, Framework Decision 2002/584 creates a procedure for the surrender of requested persons for the purposes of conducting criminal proceedings which is different to that of classic extradition, because it is based on mutual trust and the mutual recognition, within the European Union, of arrest warrants issued by a national court. That situation gives rise to the principle set out in Article 1(2) of that framework decision under which any European arrest warrant must be executed, unless there are grounds – corresponding to limited cases which must be interpreted strictly – that preclude it.

38      Following the adoption of the decision of the executing judicial authority ordering the surrender of the requested person, the mandatory detaining of that person in prison is therefore normal and logical.

39      In those circumstances, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is a national law which provides that, when the executing judicial authority adopts a decision to recognise a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of criminal proceedings and to surrender the [requested person], it must also [order] the arrest of that person, following which the [requested person] will remain detained in prison until such time as he or she is surrendered, consistent with Article 12 and Article 23(5) of [Framework Decision 2002/584]?’

 The question referred for a preliminary ruling

40      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which requires the executing judicial authority, when it adopts a decision to surrender the requested person in execution of the European arrest warrant to which that person is subject, to order that that person be detained in prison until he or she is surrendered to the issuing Member State, without that authority being able to take account of the relevant factors of the situation in question.

41      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider the wording of that provision, the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 15 January 2026, Openbaar Ministerie and Others, C‑641/23, EU:C:2026:3, paragraph 47 and the case-law cited).

42      As regards, in the first place, the general and unconditional obligation to order the detention of the requested person as soon as a decision to execute the European arrest warrant to which he or she is subject is adopted, it should be recalled, first, that, under the first sentence of Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584, where a person is arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority is to take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention in accordance with the law of the executing Member State.

43      It is clear from the wording of that provision and, more specifically, from the use of the phrase ‘shall take a decision’ directly associated with ‘the executing judicial authority’, that it is for the latter to decide on the continued detention of that person and that it has a broad discretion in that regard (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 December 2022, CJ (Decision to postpone surrender due to criminal prosecution), C‑492/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:964, paragraph 86).

44      In addition, the second sentence of Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 provides that the person may be released provisionally ‘at any time’ in conformity with the domestic law of the executing Member State, provided that the competent authority of that Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person absconding. However, that possibility of release is precluded where national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, requires, from the adoption of a decision to execute the European arrest warrant by the executing judicial authority, the obligatory detention of the person who is subject to that arrest warrant, irrespective of the relevant factors of the situation in question.

45      As the Advocate General noted, in essence, in points 45 and 46 of his Opinion, it is true that the expression ‘in accordance with the law of the executing Member State’ in Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 implies that, where it adopts a decision on the continued detention of the person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority is to take a decision in accordance with the conditions and procedures laid down by the law of that Member State. However, it cannot be inferred from this that that framework decision confers on the Member States the discretion to provide, by means of general legislation, that such detention must be ordered solely because that authority has decided to execute the European arrest warrant. Such an interpretation would render meaningless the phrase ‘shall take a decision’, which precedes the words ‘in accordance with the law of the executing Member State’, from which it follows, as is apparent from paragraph 43 above, that the assessment of the necessity of detention is a matter for the executing judicial authority alone.

46      As regards Article 23 of Framework Decision 2002/584, relating to the time limit for surrender of the requested person, paragraph 5 thereof provides that, upon expiry of the time limits referred to in Article 23(2) to (4), if that person is still being held in custody he or she is to be released. It therefore follows from those provisions of Article 23 that the Member States have no possibility whatsoever to keep that person in detention beyond those time limits, even if the mere expiry of those time limits does not relieve the executing Member State of its obligation to carry on with the procedure and to surrender the requested person (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39, paragraphs 72 and 73 and the case-law cited, and of 28 April 2022, C and CD (Legal obstacles to the execution of a decision on surrender), C‑804/21 PPU, EU:C:2022:307, paragraphs 71 and 75).

47      Next, as the Advocate General observed, in essence, in point 48 of his Opinion, the fact that, in accordance with Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584, the involvement of the executing judicial authority remains, in any event, essential for the purposes of assessing the need to keep the requested person in detention when the decision to execute the European arrest warrant is adopted is confirmed by the context in which Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/584 occur.

48      Chapter 2 of that framework decision relates to, in accordance with its title, the ‘surrender procedure’ and includes, inter alia, Articles 12, 15, 17 and 23 concerning, respectively, keeping the person arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant in detention, the decision on that person’s surrender, the time limits and procedures for the decision to execute the European arrest warrant and the time limit for the surrender of that person.

49      It follows from the general scheme of Chapter 2 that Article 12 covers the entire course of the surrender procedure, since no provision of that framework decision suggests that the application of that provision could be limited to a specific stage of that procedure.

50      That interpretation is confirmed by the Court’s case-law on the continued detention of the requested person where the authorities concerned agreed a new date for surrender under Article 23(3) of that framework decision and in case of postponed surrender referred to in Article 24 of that framework decision, from which it is apparent that Article 12 applies not only during the phase of the procedure which precedes the adoption of the decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant, but also in the situations envisaged in the first two provisions, which occur after that decision (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 January 2017, Vilkas, C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39, paragraphs 42 and 43 and the case-law cited, and of 8 December 2022, CJ (Decision to postpone surrender due to criminal prosecution), C‑492/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:964, paragraphs 60 and 73).

51      As regards the phase of the procedure before the execution of the European arrest warrant and, in particular, situations where the extension of the duration of the detention exceeds the time limits set out in Article 17 of Framework Decision 2002/584 for the adoption of a final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant, the Court also held that, in such situations, the executing judicial authority must assess whether the total duration of the custody is excessive in the light of, inter alia, the possible failure to act on the part of the authorities of the Member States concerned, any contribution of the requested person to that duration, the sentence potentially faced by the requested person and the potential risk of that person absconding (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015, Lanigan, C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, paragraphs 58 and 59).

52      Similarly, as regards the execution phase of the European arrest warrant and if the time limit for surrender provided for in Article 23(2) of that framework decision is exceeded, the Court set out, in paragraphs 38 to 43 of the judgment of 25 January 2017, Vilkas (C‑640/15, EU:C:2017:39), the relevant factors of the situation in question which must be taken into account by the executing judicial authority to verify that the duration of the detention of the requested person is not excessive and thus to ensure that the extension of that detention is compatible with the right to liberty enshrined in Article 6 of the Charter.

53      It follows from paragraphs 48 to 52 above that where the executing judicial authority adopts a decision to execute a European arrest warrant, it is for that authority, in accordance with Article 12 of that framework decision, to decide on the continued detention of the requested person by taking into account the relevant factors of the situation in question.

54      Lastly, that interpretation of Article 12 of Framework Decision 2002/584 is compatible with the objectives pursued by that framework decision.

55      It is true that that framework decision seeks, as is apparent, in particular, from recital 5 thereof, by the establishment of a new simplified and more effective system for the surrender of persons convicted or suspected of having infringed criminal law, to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation with a view to contributing to the objective set for the European Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice, founded on the high level of confidence which must exist between the Member States (see, in particular, judgment of 4 September 2025, C.J. (Enforcement of a sentence further to an EAW), C‑305/22, EU:C:2025:665, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).

56      According to the Bulgarian government, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings contributes to that objective in so far as it ensures the effective execution of a European arrest warrant and the effective surrender of the requested person, by preventing the risk of that person absconding. That government notes, in that regard, that it cannot be assumed that that person’s conduct during the execution phase of the European arrest warrant will be comparable to the conduct of that person during the judicial examination phase of that warrant.

57      However, Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584 provides that the framework decision is not to have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 TEU. Those rights include the right to liberty, set out in Article 6 of the Charter, in accordance with which Article 12 of the framework decision must therefore be interpreted (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015, Lanigan, C‑237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, paragraphs 53 and 54).

58      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that Article 52(1) of the Charter accepts that limitations may be imposed on the exercise of rights such as those enshrined in Article 6 thereof, as long as those limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and freedoms and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (judgment of 8 December 2022, CJ (Decision to postpone surrender due to criminal prosecution), C‑492/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:964, paragraph 78 and the case-law cited).

59      Moreover, according to Article 52(3) of the Charter, in so far as it contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the ECHR, the meaning and scope of those rights are to be the same as those laid down by the Convention. Article 53 of the Charter further states that nothing in the Charter is to be interpreted as restricting or adversely affecting the rights recognised, inter alia, by the ECHR (judgment of 8 December 2022, CJ (Decision to postpone surrender due to criminal prosecution), C‑492/22 PPU, EU:C:2022:964, paragraph 79 and the case-law cited).

60      By the adoption of Framework Decision 2002/584, the EU legislature set out detailed rules governing the surrender procedure of a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant in order to simplify and accelerate that procedure, while conferring on the executing judicial authority the power to verify, in each specific case, that the restriction to the right to liberty which the continued detention of the requested person entails for the purposes of his or her surrender to the issuing Member State is proportionate to the objectives pursued.

61      As regards, in the second place, the fact that the requested person will be, according to the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, held in a prison while awaiting surrender to the issuing Member State, it should be pointed out that the wording of Article 12 and Article 23(5) of that framework decision uses the terms ‘detention’ and ‘the person may be released’ and ‘shall be released’. The Court has previously held that the terms ‘detention’ and ‘deprivation of liberty’ are used interchangeably in the various language versions of Article 26(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, and correspond to similar concepts, the ordinary meaning of which evokes a situation of confinement or imprisonment, and not merely a restriction of the freedom of movement (judgment of 28 July 2016, JZ, C‑294/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:610, paragraph 40).

62      No provision of that framework decision provides that detention for the purposes of executing a European arrest warrant must take place in a type of facility other than a prison, unlike the provisions of other secondary EU legislation, such as Article 16(1) of Directive 2008/115.

63      It should be noted, in that regard, that, in accordance with Article 26(1) of that framework decision, the issuing Member State is to deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a European arrest warrant from the total period of detention to be served in the issuing Member State as a result of a custodial sentence or detention order being passed. As the Advocate General stated in point 78 of his Opinion, it follows that detention of the requested person in the executing Member State for the purposes of executing a European arrest warrant is comparable to detention in a prison in the issuing Member State for the purpose of the enforcement of a custodial sentence.

64      In addition, in accordance with Article 2(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584, a European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.

65      Consequently, it should be pointed out that neither the wording of that framework decision, nor the criminal status of persons who are the subject of a European arrest warrant – who, as is apparent from the preceding paragraph, are suspected of having committed a criminal offence of a certain gravity or are found guilty of the commission of such an offence – supports a finding that detaining those persons in prison for the purposes of executing that arrest warrant is contrary to the requirements arising from that framework decision.

66      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002/12 must be interpreted as:

–        precluding national legislation which requires the executing judicial authority, when it adopts a decision to surrender the requested person in execution of the European arrest warrant to which that person is subject, to order that that person be detained until he or she is surrendered to the issuing Member State, without that authority being able to take account of the relevant factors of the situation in question;

–        not precluding national legislation which provides that the detention of that person, pending their surrender to the issuing Member State, is to take place in a prison.

 Costs

67      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

must be interpreted as:

–        precluding national legislation which requires the executing judicial authority, when it adopts a decision to surrender the requested person in execution of the European arrest warrant to which that person is subject, to order that that person be detained until he or she is surrendered to the issuing Member State, without that authority being able to take account of the relevant factors of the situation in question;

–        not precluding national legislation which provides that the detention of that person, pending their surrender to the issuing Member State, is to take place in a prison.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Bulgarian.

---

iThe name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.