CJEU Reinforces EAW Execution Rules: No Broader Refusal Grounds - C-481/23

On 10 April 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered an important judgment in Case C-481/23 (Sangas) that clarifies how narrowly the optional non-execution grounds in Articles 4(4) and 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (the European Arrest Warrant, or EAW, Framework Decision) must be applied. The case arose from a dispute between Spain and Romania over whether Romania could refuse to execute an EAW issued by Spain for the prosecution of a Spanish national residing in Romania, based on claims of statute-barred offences and long-term residence.

The decision has consequences for judicial cooperation in criminal matters across the European Union. It reinforces the principle that Member States may not extend the grounds for refusing an EAW beyond those expressly provided in the Framework Decision. It also illustrates the Court’s insistence on respecting the cumulative conditions set out in the relevant provisions, closing the door on attempts to use national law as a basis for broader refusal powers.

Background and facts

The case centered on a Spanish national, referred to in the judgment as JMTB, who had been living lawfully and continuously in Romania for more than five years. In February 2022, the Audiencia Nacional (Spain’s National High Court) convicted him in first instance as a co-perpetrator of three serious tax offences and one offence of money laundering. Each of the tax offences carried a two-year prison sentence and a substantial fine: €23 million for the 2011 financial year, €135 million for 2012, and €140 million for 2013. The money laundering offence was punished with six years of imprisonment and a fine of €54 million.

The offences related to an elaborate VAT fraud scheme involving the creation of several Spanish companies and the appointment of fictitious directors. The scheme was designed to avoid the payment of VAT on hydrocarbon sales in Spain during the financial years 2011 to 2013, resulting in losses to the Spanish Treasury exceeding €100 million.

Following the conviction, the defendant appealed to the Spanish Supreme Court on a point of law. Because the appeal was pending, the conviction was not yet final. In the meantime, the Spanish court had imposed preventive measures, including a prohibition on leaving Spanish territory. Nonetheless, JMTB was later intercepted at the Croatian border, heading towards Romania.

On 6 April 2022, the Audiencia Nacional issued a national decision to arrest and detain him, accompanied by both an international arrest warrant and a European Arrest Warrant. The EAW was aimed at securing his presence for the continuation of the criminal proceedings in Spain.

Romanian authorities, however, refused to execute the EAW. In a decision of the Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia), they relied on two optional non-execution grounds under Romanian law: first, that the individual had been a lawful resident in Romania for more than five years and had expressed his opposition to surrender; and second, that under Romanian criminal law the offences were statute-barred, with the limitation period for such offences expiring ten years after the last criminal act, which in this case would have been no later than 31 December 2013.

Legal framework

The European Arrest Warrant system, established by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, is built on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions between Member States. Under Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision, an EAW can be issued either for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or for executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

The Framework Decision sets out both mandatory and optional grounds for refusing to execute an EAW. Article 3 lists the mandatory grounds, while Article 4 contains optional grounds, including:

· Article 4(4), which allows refusal where prosecution or punishment is statute-barred under the law of the executing Member State and the acts fall within its jurisdiction under its own criminal law.

· Article 4(6), which allows refusal where the EAW has been issued for executing a custodial sentence or detention order, if the requested person is staying in, or is a national or resident of, the executing Member State, and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order itself.

Romanian law implements these provisions through Law No 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In particular, Article 99(2)(c) of that law allows refusal where the requested person is a Romanian citizen or resident for at least five years, has expressed opposition to surrender, and the EAW is for the execution of a custodial sentence. Article 99(2)(g) allows refusal if the offence is statute-barred under Romanian law and falls within the jurisdiction of the Romanian authorities.

Positions of the parties

The Spanish authorities argued that the Romanian refusal was unlawful under the Framework Decision. In their view, Article 4(6) was inapplicable because the EAW was issued for the purposes of prosecution, not for executing a sentence. Moreover, Article 4(4) could not be relied upon because the offences fell entirely within Spanish jurisdiction. They emphasised the Court’s earlier case law, notably Puig Gordi and Others (C-158/21), which held that Member States cannot introduce additional non-execution grounds beyond those set out in the Framework Decision.

The Romanian court maintained that the refusal was consistent with its national law, pointing to the long-term residence of the individual and his objection to being surrendered, as well as the fact that the limitation period under Romanian law had expired.

The European Commission and the Spanish Government both supported Spain’s interpretation, insisting that the optional grounds under Articles 4(4) and 4(6) must be applied strictly and cumulatively, without national extensions.

The questions referred

Faced with this conflict, the Audiencia Nacional stayed the proceedings and referred two questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:

1. Can Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision be applied where the EAW is issued for prosecution rather than execution of a sentence, and can it be applied without the executing State undertaking to enforce the sentence domestically?

2. Can Article 4(4) be applied where the acts in question do not fall within the jurisdiction of the executing Member State, even if they would be statute-barred under its national law?

The Court’s analysis

On the first question, the Court emphasized that Article 4(6) is explicitly limited to cases where the EAW is issued “for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order.” This condition is not a mere formality but an essential part of the provision’s scope. The logic of Article 4(6) is that if the executing State is willing to enforce the sentence itself, surrender may be refused in the interest of the social reintegration of the convicted person. This rationale does not apply where the EAW is for prosecution, because no final sentence yet exists to enforce.

In the present case, the EAW was clearly issued for prosecution. Although there was a first-instance conviction, it was under appeal and not enforceable under Spanish law. The decision of 6 April 2022 was aimed at securing the accused’s presence at trial, not executing a sentence. Furthermore, Romania had not undertaken to execute any eventual sentence domestically. The cumulative conditions of Article 4(6) were therefore not met, and the Court held that this provision could not justify the refusal.

On the second question, the Court examined Article 4(4), which allows refusal where prosecution or punishment is statute-barred “and” the acts fall within the jurisdiction of the executing Member State. The Court stressed the cumulative nature of these conditions: both must be satisfied for the ground to apply. If the acts do not fall within the executing State’s jurisdiction, the ground is inapplicable, even if national law would consider the offence time-barred.

In this case, the offences were committed entirely in Spain, involved Spanish companies and affected the Spanish VAT system. Romania had no jurisdiction over the acts. The second condition of Article 4(4) was therefore not met, making it irrelevant whether Romanian limitation periods had expired.

The CJEU’s answers were unequivocal:

· Article 4(6) does not allow refusal of an EAW issued for prosecution, even if the person resides in the executing State, and cannot be applied without that State’s undertaking to execute the sentence.

· Article 4(4) does not allow refusal if the acts do not fall within the jurisdiction of the executing State, regardless of whether they would be statute-barred under its national law.

Implications for practice

This judgment reinforces the strict interpretation of optional non-execution grounds in the EAW Framework Decision. For practitioners, it means there is no room to invoke Article 4(6) in prosecution cases, nor to apply Article 4(4) in the absence of jurisdiction, even if domestic law might support such a refusal.

The decision aligns with the Court’s broader approach in Puig Gordi and Others, closing the door to national laws that seek to add extra grounds for refusing EAW execution. It also sends a clear message to defense lawyers and prosecutors alike: in cross-border fraud, VAT evasion, and similar cases, the scope for avoiding surrender on the basis of residence or limitation periods is extremely narrow.

For Member States, the ruling underscores the importance of aligning national implementing legislation with the precise wording of the Framework Decision. Divergences or expansions at national level risk being struck down when tested against EU law.

Conclusion

Case C-481/23 (Sangas) is a reminder that the European Arrest Warrant system operates on mutual trust and mutual recognition, with only limited and clearly defined exceptions. The CJEU’s insistence on a literal and cumulative reading of Articles 4(4) and 4(6) means that Member States cannot use residence or limitation periods as a backdoor to refuse surrender unless every condition set out in the Framework Decision is met.

By rejecting Romania’s reliance on its own law to broaden refusal powers, the Court has reaffirmed the uniform application of the EAW regime. For cross-border VAT and financial crime cases, this strengthens the ability of issuing States to secure the return of suspects and defendants, ensuring that procedural and substantive justice can be pursued where the crimes were committed.