TRIIAL CASE
Romania, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber), C-396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu (European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States), ECLI:EU:C:2013:39, in connection with Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania), request for a preliminary ruling made by decision of 18 May 2011, received at the Court on 27 July 2011
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): The Judgment of the Court in case C-396/11 Ciprian Vasile Radu represents the response to the request made by a national ordinary court, Curtea de Apel Constanța (Court of Appeal, Constanța, Romania). Law no. 300 of November 15, 2013, published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 772 of 11 December 2013 provides multiple changes of the European arrest warrant: issuing authority and procedure, transmission for execution and translation of the European arrest warrant; additional information and guarantees; temporary surrender or hearing of the requested person during the European Arrest Warrant surrender procedure; refusal of surrender; procedure on arrest of the requested person – hearing of the requested person; postponed surrender.Decision of the Constitutional Court no. 712 of December 4, 2014, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 33 of January 15, 2015 qualified as unconstitutional Articles 211-217 of Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure, articles relevant for the application of Article 104 of the Law no. 302 of 2004 on judicial cooperation in criminal matters: “If the requested person is set at liberty, the court orders against him the measure of judicial control, judicial control on bail or house arrest, the provisions of Art. 211-222 of the Criminal Procedure Code) applying accordingly. In this case, in the situation where, subsequently, the court orders the execution of the European arrest warrant, through the surrender decision, the arrest of the requested person is also ordered to surrender to the issuing judicial authority.”
ECtHR jurisprudence: Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (indicated in the request for a preliminary ruling)Chahal v. United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, Ismoilov v. Russia, no. 2947/06, § 135, 24 April 2008, and Lokpo and Toure v. Hungary, no. 10816/10, § 16, 20 September 2011, A. and Others v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 164, ECHR 2009, Saadi v. Italy [GC], no 37201/06, §§ 128 and 129. Bernard v. France, § 37, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-II, joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan in the Court of Human Rights judgment in Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, § 14; Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3096/10, § 89