The Joined Cases Aranyosi and Caldararu: A New Limit to the Mutual Trust Presumption in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice?

• Author: Koen Bovend'Eerdt
• Position: LL.M. Candidate, Utrecht University (the Netherlands)
• Pages: 112-121

Koen Bovend’Eerdt, ‘The Joined Cases

Aranyosi

and

Căldăraru

: A New Limit to

the Mutual Trust Presumption in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice?’

(2016) 32(83) Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 112, DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.337

UTRECHT JOURNAL OF

INTERN

ATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LA

W

CASE NOTE

The Joined Cases

Aranyosi

and

Căldăraru

: A New

Limit to the Mutual Trust Presumption in the Area

of Freedom, Security, and Justice?

Koen Bovend’Eerdt*

In this case, the CJEU answers the question whether Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision on

the European arrest warrant must be interpreted as meaning that when there are strong indica-

tions that detention conditions in the issuing Member State infringe Article 4 of the Charter,

the executing judicial authority must refuse surrender of the person against whom a European

arrest warrant is issued. The CJEU rules that if, after a two-stage assessment, the executing

judicial authority nds that there is a real risk of an Article 4 violation for the requested person

once surrendered, the execution of the arrest warrant must initially be deferred and, where

such a risk cannot be discounted, the executing judicial authority must decide whether or not

to terminate the surrender procedure. This conclusion shakes the system of mutual trust upon

which the principle of mutual recognition is built.

Keywords: Framework Decision 2002/584JHA; Grounds for non-execution; Mutual recognition;

Mutual trust; Article 4 Charter

I. Introduction

The Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member

States (FDEAW) is the first concrete measure in the field of European criminal law based on the principle

of mutual recognition.1 Mutual recognition is based on the principle of mutual trust.2 The relationship

between mutual recognition and mutual trust in the FDEAW is evident from Recital (10) which states that

the FDEAW mechanism is based on a high level of condence between Member States and that it may only be

suspended in the event of a serious and persistent breach by a Member State of Article 6(1) TEU.

Mutual trust is the notion that Member States trust that other Member States keep an equal level of

common values, based on their communal culture of rights.3 The common values and communal culture

refer to those enumerated in Article 2 TEU, particularly the respect for human dignity, freedom, democ-

racy, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. Mutual trust is grounded in these values and

culture,4 but more importantly in the protection thereof by the European Convention of Human Rights

(ECHR), amongst others.5 The European Court of Justice (CJEU) presumes that Member States provide such

* LL.M. Candidate, Utrecht University (the Netherlands).

1

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures

between Member States [2002] OJ L190/1 (FDEAW) [6].

2 Valsamis Mitsilegas, ‘The Symbiotic Relationship Between Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights in Europe’s Area of Criminal

Justice’ (2015) 4 New Journal of European Criminal Law 457.

3 Tina van den Sanden, ‘Het Principe van Wederzijds Vertrouwen in de Ruimte van Vrijheid, Veiligheid en Recht’ (2014) SEW, Tijd-

schrift voor Europees en Economisch Recht 232, 235.

4 Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters [2001] OJ C12/10.

5 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] OJ C115/13 (TEU) arts 6(1) and 6(3). See also Resolution of the

Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal

proceedings [2009] OJ C295/1 [2].