Carles Puigdemont and Toni Comín. (Photo: Archive)

soyeb19

As can be seen from Considering 75 of the STJUE, adding other obstacles other than those agreed upon by the Member States when the DM was enacted would mean nullifying one of the main principles on which the common space of freedom, security and justice is based:


“ Accepting that each Member State can add to these reasons other reasons that allow the executing judicial authority not to proceed with a European arrest warrant could, on the one hand, undermine the uniform application of Framework Decision 2002/584, making Whatsapp Database its application to rules of National Law and, on the other hand, deprive of effectiveness the obligation to execute European arrest warrants established in Article 1, paragraph 2, of said Framework Decision, allowing, in practice, each Member State to determine freely the scope of said obligation for its executing judicial authorities .”

Consequently, in the case of the referral of a judicial resolution (the order granting national detention and the OEDE), procedural communications must be made between judicial authorities exclusively , as provided for in the eighth recital and the sixth article of the DM. If we were faced with an extradition request, this would be made before the central bodies of the Executive (respective Ministries of Justice). We find ourselves in a procedural dialogue between two judicial authorities with a view to making effective a request for cooperation in criminal matters (the delivery of a series of defendants who are removed from the action of the Spanish Justice).



On what should be understood by judicial authority, both for issuing and receiving an EAW, the CJEU has already ruled by virtue of rulings of December 12, 2019, Case C-625/19 PPU, of December 17, 2020, Openbaar Ministerie, Matters C-354/20 PPU and C-412/20 PPU: the one that can verify compliance with the requirements for the issuance of an EAW without interference from other powers existing in the Member State, must have full independence in the exercise of the jurisdictional function in criminal proceedings. Beyond verifying by the Judicial Execution Authority that the person issuing the EAW is a judicial authority that complies with the previous requirements, " it cannot, however, verify , by virtue of said provision, that the issuing judicial authority is competent." , in accordance with the rules of the law of the issuing Member State, to issue a European arrest warrant” (Recital 85 STJEU). In this sense, it is the Court itself that proceeds with the investigation of the criminal case, as well as the prosecution, which must justify ab initio its jurisdiction, under penalty of incurring nullity of the proceedings (ex. art. 238.1º LOPJ) .