Daniel Adam Poplawski

On the 15th February 2017, AG Bot delivered his Opinion on the Case C-579/15 Openbaar Ministerie v Daniel Adam Poplawski. The latter was subject to an EAW issued by the Polish Regional Court of Poznan, but the Dutch Rechtbank Amsterdam was in doubt about whether to execute it since Mr Polawski resided in the Netherlands for more than five consecutive years. Therefore, it referred a series of questions before the CJEU regarding the application of the optional grounds of refusal to execute a EAW as enshrined in Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

AG Bot found that:

1. Article 4(6) of the EAW FD as amended by FD 2009/299/JHA must be interpreted as precluding a Member State to apply the ground for refusal enshrined in Article 4(6) in such a way that:

a) the judicial authority is obliged to refuse the execution of the EAW issued against a person residing in that Member State or is a national of the Member State without having the opportunity to examine, depending on the personal circumstances of the person in question, the extent to which the execution of the sentence in that Member State will facilitate their integration in society.

b) the refusal to execute the EAW entails only that that Member State declares its availability to execute the sentence without tis declaration signifying a commitment to execute the sentence.

c) the judicial authority refuses the execution of the EW but on the one hand, the decision of undertaking the execution of the sentence, which is taken after the decision to refuse the exection of the EAW, is conditional upon the existence and the enforcement of an existing convention betwen the issuing MS and the executing MS as well as upon the cooperation with the issuing MS and on the other hand, the refusal to execute the EAW cannot be overturned in case of inability to undertake the execution of the penalty if the conditions are not met.

2. Article 4(6) do not have direct effect. However, it is for the national judge to interpet the national provisions to the extent possible in line with EU law and in case such interpretation is proven impossible to dissaply those national provisions as contrary to Article 4(6).