CJEU: Tagu C-583/24 EAW Disproportionate Sentence Not Automatic Refusal

• The CJEU ruled on November 3, 2026, in Tagu (C-583/24) concerning European Arrest Warrant refusals.
• An EAW cannot be refused solely due to an alleged disproportionate sentence.
• Refusal is only permissible if the penalty is so excessive it breaches Article 49(3) of the EU Charter and satisfies the "two-step test".
• This CJEU Tagu ruling expands exceptions to mutual trust but sets a very high bar for refusing EAW execution.

Lawyers advising on European Arrest Warrants must note that the CJEU's Tagu ruling sets a high bar for refusing surrender based on a disproportionate sentence, demanding careful analysis of potential challenges to EAW execution.

On November 3, 2026, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a pivotal ruling in the case designated Tagu (C-583/24). This decision stemmed from a preliminary reference submitted by the District Court of Amsterdam, which sought clarity on a critical aspect of European Arrest Warrant (EAW) execution. The Dutch court specifically inquired whether an executing judicial authority could legitimately refuse to surrender an individual if the sentence they were expected to serve was deemed disproportionate to the offense, thereby potentially contravening Article 49(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The CJEU's judgment clarified that the mere assertion of a disproportionate sentence is not, by itself, sufficient justification to decline the execution of an EAW. The Court established a demanding criterion: refusal is only permissible if the penalty is so exceptionally excessive that it would unequivocally breach Article 49(3) of the Charter. Furthermore, this extreme disproportionality must also satisfy the well-established "two-step test," a mechanism derived from previous CJEU case law.

The ruling in Tagu (C-583/24) provides crucial guidance on the interplay between the principle of mutual recognition in EAWs and the protection of fundamental rights, particularly concerning the proportionality of criminal sentences. Article 49(3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights explicitly mandates that the severity of penalties must not be disproportionate to the criminal offence. The CJEU's interpretation underscores that this principle, while fundamental, does not automatically override the obligation to execute an EAW unless the breach is of an extreme nature.

Central to the Court's decision is the requirement to satisfy the "two-step test," a rigorous framework developed in earlier jurisprudence to assess fundamental rights concerns in cross-border judicial cooperation. This test typically involves an initial assessment of a general risk of fundamental rights violation in the issuing state, followed by a specific and individualized assessment of whether the requested person would face a real risk of such a violation. The CJEU's insistence on meeting both the "so excessive" standard for Article 49(3) and the established two-step test sets a high bar for any European arrest warrant refusal based on sentence proportionality.

The CJEU's Tagu ruling (C-583/24) has significant implications for legal practitioners and judicial authorities involved in European Arrest Warrants, particularly regarding challenges based on sentence disproportionality. While the judgment acknowledges that such disproportionality can, in extreme cases, justify a refusal, it simultaneously reinforces the robust nature of the EAW system and the principle of mutual trust among Member States. This decision, therefore, expands the theoretical grounds for exceptions to mutual trust within the EAW framework, yet it practically limits their application due to the stringent conditions imposed.

The requirement that a penalty be "so excessive" as to breach Article 49(3) of the EU Charter, combined with the necessity of satisfying the rigid two-step test, means that successfully challenging EAW execution on these specific grounds will be exceptionally difficult. This outcome suggests that the balance between facilitating cross-border criminal justice cooperation and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights remains largely weighted towards the former. Lawyers advising on European Arrest Warrants must note that the CJEU's Tagu ruling sets a high bar for refusing surrender based on a disproportionate sentence, demanding careful analysis of potential challenges to EAW execution.

Lawyers advising on European Arrest Warrants must note that the CJEU's Tagu ruling sets a high bar for refusing surrender based on a disproportionate sentence. Refusal is only permissible if the penalty is so excessive as to breach Article 49(3) of the EU Charter and the established 'two-step test' is satisfied, requiring careful analysis of potential challenges to EAW execution.

Source: Original reporting via Brunel University of London analysis.