EU arrest warrant: a disproportionate sentence does not justify refusal

The alleged disproportion between the sentence imposed and the seriousness of the offence is not, in itself, sufficient to justify the refusal to enforce an arrest warrant. Such a refusal may, however, be justified, but only in exceptional circumstances, where the legislation of the issuing Member State permits, or even requires, prison sentences that are so disproportionate as to amount to inhuman or degrading punishments, or where that legislation fails to take account of the seriousness of the offence and does not allow for individual circumstances to be taken into consideration.

This is the conclusion reached by the European Court of Justice in Case C-583/24, in which the European judges point out that the principle of mutual trust between Member States means that the execution of a European arrest warrant constitutes the rule and that its refusal is possible only in exceptional cases, subject to the obligation to respect fundamental rights. The potentially disproportionate nature of the penalty is not, in itself, considered to be a ground for non-execution of a European arrest warrant,

In any event, where there is a risk of infringementof the fundamental rights guaranteed by EU law, a refusal by the executing Member State may, in exceptional circumstances, be justified following an examination that must be carried out in two stages.

The judicial authority responsible for enforcement must first ascertain whether, in the issuing Member State, there are systemic or generalised shortcomings, or shortcomings affecting an objectively identifiable group of persons. If such shortcomings are established, it must then determine whether, having regard to the individual’s personal circumstances, the person concerned faces a genuine and real risk of a breach of their fundamental rights.

The Court points out, however, that differences – even significant ones – between the penalties provided for under the laws of the Member States are not sufficient to demonstrate the existence of such shortcomings. In the absence of full harmonisation of criminal law, Member States’ choices regarding criminal policy may, in fact, vary considerably. Allowing the judicial authority responsible for enforcement to review the proportionality of a sentence would amount to conferring upon them a general role of overseeing criminal decisions handed down in other Member States, which would be contrary to the principles of mutual trust and recognition.