<\/p>\n
Authorising surrender under a European Arrest Warrant does not mean that the person must necessarily remain detained until they are physically surrendered. The court must assess the specific circumstances and whether restricting liberty is necessary.<\/strong><\/p>\n This is the central conclusion of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15 October 2026 in Case C\u2011580\/24, \u201cTsachkov\u201d. It has practical importance for people subject to proceedings in Bulgaria to execute a European Arrest Warrant issued by another Member State.<\/p>\n The provision examined by the Court, Article 44(7) of Bulgaria\u2019s Extradition and European Arrest Warrant Act, provides for mandatory detention after execution of the warrant is authorised, until the requested person\u2019s actual surrender.<\/p>\n Thus, even where a person has been at liberty during proceedings, has attended court and has not been found to pose a flight risk, the surrender decision triggers mandatory detention.<\/p>\n It is precisely the lack of scope for an individual assessment that underlies the incompatibility with EU law.<\/p>\n The Court held that Article 12 and Article 23(5) of Framework Decision 2002\/584\/JHA preclude national legislation requiring a court to order detention pending surrender without being able to consider the circumstances of the particular case.<\/p>\n The decision to execute a European Arrest Warrant and the assessment of whether detention is necessary are related but distinct issues. The court must examine both.<\/p>\n Article 12 of the Framework Decision permits provisional release at any time in accordance with national law, subject to the necessary measures to prevent absconding. Detention therefore cannot follow solely from the fact that surrender has been authorised.<\/p>\n No. The judgment does not introduce automatic release or invalidate European Arrest Warrants.<\/strong><\/p>\n Where the specific circumstances justify detention, the court may order it. The difference is that necessity must be assessed, rather than detention being imposed mechanically.<\/p>\n For the defence, this means presenting specific arguments as to why the purpose of proceedings can be achieved through a less restrictive measure. Merely citing the Court\u2019s judgment does not replace evidence about the requested person\u2019s circumstances and conduct.<\/p>\n Depending on the case, relevant factors may include:<\/p>\n These are practical pointers for preparing the defence, not an exhaustive list of conditions that guarantee release. Each case requires a separate assessment.<\/p>\n The Court of Justice also considered this issue. It held that the relevant provisions of the Framework Decision do not prohibit national legislation providing for detention in prison pending surrender.<\/p>\n The necessity of detention must therefore be distinguished from the place where it is carried out. Automatic imposition of the measure is impermissible; placement in a prison was not itself declared incompatible with the provisions examined in this judgment.<\/p>\n A willingness to cooperate may be presented to the court, but the judgment does not create a general right to replace the established surrender procedure with independent travel.<\/p>\n Provisional release does not terminate proceedings or remove the obligation to comply with court orders.<\/p>\n In European Arrest Warrant proceedings, both the conditions for surrender and the grounds for detention should be assessed promptly. Where a measure has already been imposed, the applicable procedure for challenging or varying it must be examined.<\/p>\n Tomovi Law Firm in Varna provides legal assistance and representation in European Arrest Warrant proceedings.<\/p>\nWhat is the problem with automatic detention?<\/h2>\n
What did the Court of Justice rule?<\/h2>\n
Does this mean that everyone must be released?<\/h2>\n
What circumstances may the defence raise?<\/h2>\n
\n
Can detention be carried out in a prison?<\/h2>\n
Can the person travel independently to the issuing state?<\/h2>\n
Defence in European Arrest Warrant proceedings<\/h2>\n