Abstract | The joint case of Aranyosi and Căldăraru is – without doubt – a turning point. Prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice, several national courts refused to surrender individuals on human rights grounds. Furthermore, the German Constitutional Court conducted its Constitutional identity review, whereby it sent strong signals into the legal stratosphere. For the domestic courts the judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru very much offers an overdue clarification on how the national judges should proceed when faced with argumentation and evidence, proving that at the receiving end the person being subject to a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) may be exposed to inhuman treatment at detention facility(ies). The Court has ruled that even though the system is based on presumption of mutual trust and mutual recognition, in extraordinary circumstances, and subject to a number of preliminary procedural steps, a domestic court may decide to bring the surrender procedure to an end. This is not, however, a straightforward affair by any stretch of the imagination. Inevitably, the matter in question has eventually reached the Court of Justice qua the preliminary ruling procedure. As it is frequently the case with landmark and groundbreaking judgments of the Court, further references from national courts have followed. Cases LM6 and ML7 are presented in turn. |
---|