Discutiile din ultimele zile despre relatia Romania–Italia in materie de extradare si executare de pedepse au capatat o noua turnura dupa hotararea Marii Camere a CJUE din 4 septembrie 2025, cauza C-305/22. Decizia doreste sa clarifice raportul dintre mandatul european de arestare si mecanismul de recunoastere a pedepselor, stabilind ca executarea intr-un alt stat membru presupune, in esenta, acordul statului emitent, iar fara acest consimtamant autoritatea de executare nu poate merge mai departe.

Lumea Justitiei a consultat doi practicieni ai extradarilor: av. dr. Amedeo Barletta (foto 2 dreapta) – avocat penalist italian de top, vice-presedinte al European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA), doctor in drept penal european si fost secretar al avocatului general in cadrul CJUE – si av. drd. Adrian Sandru (foto 1) – avocat roman, membru al boardului ECBA si coordonator al grupului de lucru privind EPPO, specializat in extradari, care colaboreaza impreuna pe diferite tipuri de spete

Avocatul Barletta subliniaza, intr-o analiza transmisa in limba engleza, ca hotararea CJUE din 4 septembrie 2025 confirma ca executarea unei pedepse intr-un alt stat membru depinde de consimtamantul statului emitent, reafirmand astfel suveranitatea statelor in materia executarii hotararilor penale. Curtea se distanteaza de ideea unui „spatiu judiciar european” centrat pe drepturile individuale si plaseaza in prim-plan rolul statelor. Totusi, decizia pastreaza garantii minime: proportionalitatea, dreptul la reintegrare sociala, deducerea timpului executat in statul de executare si securitatea juridica odata ce executarea a inceput. Concluzia lui Barletta este ca hotararea marcheaza un pas inapoi fata de tendintele de „europeizare” a executarii pedepselor, consolidand o viziune centrata pe stat, dar cu un nucleu minim de protectie pentru persoana condamnata.

Din perspectiva dreptului romanesc, avocatul Adrian Sandru aminteste ca in practica instantelor din Romania s-a retinut deja existenta unui impediment la executare atunci cand pedeapsa a inceput sa fie executata intr-un alt stat membru. Aceasta este opinia mai multor Curti de Apel din tara care au admis mai multe contestatii la executare cu acest obiect. Articolul 22 din Decizia-cadru 2008/909, transpus prin Legea nr. 302/2004, prevede ca statul emitent nu mai poate continua executarea decat in situatii expres limitate, precum evadarea. De asemenea, legislatia permite emitentului sa retraga certificatul inainte de inceperea executarii, dar in lipsa unei retrageri se poate considera ca a existat un consimtamant tacit pentru executare in statul de executare.

Concluzia este ca hotararea CJUE lasa Romaniei deschisa posibilitatea de a incerca din nou pe calea unui mandat european de arestare, insa spatiul de manevra este mai restrans daca executarea a inceput deja in Italia si certificatul nu a fost retras la timp. In aceste situatii, impresia pe care o lasa avocatii este ca Romania va intampina dificultati reale in a mai pune in executare unele mandate europene de arestare.

Cazurile de acest tip arata clar ca numai prin sprijinul unor avocati cu experienta in extradari si prin colaborarea unor echipe transfrontaliere pot fi evitate riscurile majore: de la dubla executare a unei pedepse pana la blocarea procedurala completa a procedurii.

Iata explicatiile integrale ale avocatului dr. Amedeo Barletta, in traducerea noastra:

„Hotararea pronuntata de Marea Camera a Curtii de Justitie la 4 septembrie 2023 reprezinta o evolutie semnificativa in domeniul cooperarii judiciare in materie penala. In esenta, hotararea subliniaza primatul suveranitatii statelor membre in executarea hotararilor penale, relegand rolul persoanelor fizice si drepturile lor fundamentale pe un plan secundar.

1.⁠ ⁠Logica cooperarii judiciare in materie penala

Rationamentul Curtii confirma o caracteristica structurala a dreptului penal al UE: cooperarea are ca scop principal consolidarea capacitatii statelor membre de a aplica legislatia penala, mai degraba decat crearea unui spatiu judiciar comun axat pe drepturile individuale. In acest sens, Curtea se distanteaza de interpretarile care ar fi plasat cetateanul european in centrul cooperarii judiciare si adopta in schimb un model care protejeaza prerogativele suverane ale statelor.

2.⁠ ⁠Cazul si principalele sale concluzii

In cauza C-305/22, Curtea a fost solicitata sa clarifice relatia dintre doua decizii-cadru esentiale:

Decizia-cadru din 2002 privind mandatul european de arestare (MEA), care consacra principiul recunoasterii reciproce in dreptul penal; si

Decizia-cadru din 2008/2009 privind transferul si recunoasterea pedepselor privative de libertate.

Problema centrala se referea la masura in care statul de executare poate sa-si asume responsabilitatea pentru executarea unei pedepse privative de libertate pronuntate de un alt stat membru. Curtea a statuat ca aceasta executare este conditionata de consimtamantul statului emitent. Fara acest consimtamant, statul de executare nu poate proceda la recunoasterea sau executarea hotararii straine, chiar daca ar avea motive sa o faca.

3.⁠ ⁠Reafirmarea suveranitatii nationale

Prin aceasta interpretare, Curtea reafirma ca statele membre raman ‘stapani’ asupra competentelor lor in materie de executare penala. Executarea hotararilor penale ramane in esenta o chestiune nationala, rolul celorlalte state membre limitandu-se la asigurarea eficientei si recunoasterii, dar intotdeauna in limitele stabilite de statul emitent.

Aceasta abordare marcheaza o indepartare de tendintele anterioare, in care considerentele legate de cetatenia sau resedinta persoanei condamnate incurajau solutii mai flexibile, permitand transferul pedepselor si facilitand executarea transfrontaliera. Astfel de practici au favorizat o forma de ‘europenizare’ a executarii pedepselor penale, permitand circulatia mai libera a hotararilor in cadrul Uniunii. Prezenta decizie limiteaza efectiv aceasta evolutie, readucand balanta in favoarea suveranitatii nationale.

4.⁠ ⁠‘Constiinta incarcata’ a Curtii

In ciuda accentului ferm pus pe prerogativele statului, hotararea nu este lipsita de referiri la garantiile individuale. In ceea ce ar putea fi descris ca ‘constiinta incarcata’ a Curtii, hotararea subliniaza in repetate randuri importanta reintegrarii sociale a infractorului si functia de reabilitare a pedepselor privative de libertate. Curtea reaminteste ca scopul incarcerarii in ordinea juridica europeana nu este doar punitiv, ci vizeaza si reinsertia individului in societate.

5.⁠ ⁠Garantii mentinute in cadrul cooperarii

Desi balanta inclina decisiv in favoarea suveranitatii, Curtea pastreaza un set minim, dar esential, de garantii:

Reabilitarea ca principiu director: posibilitatea executarii unei pedepse intr-un alt stat membru trebuie intotdeauna evaluata in vederea promovarii reintegrarii sociale a infractorului.

Proportionalitatea: deciziile statelor in acest domeniu trebuie sa respecte principiul proportionalitatii. Aceasta inseamna ca obiectiile impotriva executarii in strainatate trebuie sa fie justificate si supuse controlului judiciar.

Deducerea timpului petrecut in detentie: perioadele de detentie deja executate in statul de executare trebuie creditate din pedeapsa care trebuie executata in statul de emitere, asigurandu-se ca nicio persoana nu executa o pedeapsa mai mare decat cea impusa.

Securitatea juridica si asteptarile legitime: in cazul in care o pedeapsa a inceput deja sa fie executata intr-un stat, efectele unei astfel de executari nu pot fi anulate retroactiv sau refuzate recunoasterea.

6.⁠ ⁠Un pas inapoi de la un spatiu judiciar european

Avand in vedere aceste considerente, hotararea semnaleaza o retragere de la proiectul unui spatiu judiciar european unificat, bazat pe recunoasterea reciproca si libera circulatie a hotararilor judecatoresti. In schimb, aceasta reafirma un model in care suveranitatea nationala este primordiala, iar cooperarea este conceputa ca un mecanism de sprijinire a aplicarii legii de catre stat, mai degraba decat ca o structura de protectie a drepturilor individuale.

7.⁠ ⁠Concluzie

Decizia in cauza C-305/22 consolideaza astfel o viziune centrata pe stat a cooperarii judiciare in materie penala. Desi Curtea recunoaste anumite garantii – reabilitarea, proportionalitatea, creditarea timpului petrecut in detentie –, aceste garantii functioneaza mai degraba ca masuri corective in cadrul unui model bazat pe suveranitate decat ca fundament al unui sistem european orientat catre drepturi.

Hotararea evidentiaza o tensiune persistenta in dreptul penal al UE: intre aspiratia de a crea un spatiu european autentic de justitie, libertate si securitate si realitatea durabila a suveranitatii penale nationale. Hotararea Curtii privilegiaza in mod neechivoc cea din urma, lasand doar un rol minim drepturilor individuale in cadrul cooperarii”.

Redam textul avocatului Barletta in limba engleza:

„The judgment delivered by the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice on 4 September 2023 represents a significant development in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. At its core, the ruling underscores the primacy of Member State sovereignty in the execution of criminal judgments, relegating the role of individuals and their fundamental rights to a secondary plane. 

1.⁠ ⁠The logic of criminal judicial cooperation 

The Court’s reasoning confirms a structural feature of EU criminal law: cooperation is primarily designed to enhance the capacity of Member States to enforce their criminal laws, rather than to construct a common judicial area focused on individual rights. In this respect, the Court distances itself from interpretations that would have placed the European citizen at the centre of judicial cooperation, and instead embraces a model that safeguards the sovereign prerogatives of States. 

2.⁠ ⁠The case and its main holding 

In Case C-305/22, the Court was called upon to clarify the relationship between two key Framework Decisions: 

- the 2002 Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which embodies the principle of mutual recognition in criminal law; and 

- the 2008/2009 Framework Decision on the transfer and recognition of custodial sentences. 

The central issue concerned the extent to which the executing State may assume responsibility for the enforcement of a custodial sentence imposed by another Member State. The Court held that such enforcement is conditional upon the consent of the issuing State. Without that consent, the executing State may not proceed with the recognition or execution of the foreign judgment, even if it would otherwise have grounds for doing so. 

3.⁠ ⁠Reassertion of national sovereignty 

Through this interpretation, the Court reaffirms that Member States remain ‘masters’ of their penal enforcement powers. Execution of criminal judgments remains essentially a national matter, with the role of other Member States limited to ensuring effectiveness and recognition, but always within the boundaries established by the issuing State. 

This approach marks a departure from previous tendencies, where considerations of citizenship or residence of the convicted person had encouraged more flexible solutions, allowing the transfer of sentences and facilitating cross-border enforcement. Such practices had fostered a form of ‘Europeanisation’ of criminal enforcement, enabling judgments to circulate more freely within the Union. The present decision effectively curtails that development, bringing the pendulum back towards national sovereignty. 

4.⁠ ⁠The Court’s ‘bad conscience’ 

Despite this firm emphasis on State prerogatives, the judgment is not devoid of references to individual guarantees. In what might be described as the Court’s ‘bad conscience,’ the ruling repeatedly stresses the importance of the social reintegration of the offender and the rehabilitative function of custodial sentences. The Court recalls that the purpose of imprisonment in the European legal order is not solely punitive, but also aimed at the reinsertion of the individual into society. 

5.⁠ ⁠Guarantees retained within the cooperative framework 

While the balance tilts decisively towards sovereignty, the Court preserves a minimal but essential set of guarantees: 

Rehabilitation as a guiding principle: the possibility of executing a sentence in another Member State must always be assessed with a view to promoting the offender’s social reintegration. 

Proportionality: State decisions in this field must comply with the principle of proportionality. This means that objections to execution abroad must be justified and subject to judicial scrutiny. 

Deduction of time served: periods of detention already undergone in the executing State must be credited against the sentence to be completed in the issuing State, ensuring that no individual serves more than the punishment imposed. 

Legal certainty and legitimate expectations: where a sentence has already begun to be executed in one State, the effects of such execution cannot be retroactively undone or denied recognition. 

6.⁠ ⁠A step back from a European judicial space 

In light of these considerations, the judgment signals a retreat from the project of a unified European judicial space based on mutual recognition and the free circulation of judgments. Instead, it reaffirms a model in which national sovereignty is paramount, and cooperation is framed as a mechanism to support State enforcement rather than as a structure for the protection of individual rights. 

7.⁠ ⁠Conclusion 

The decision in Case C-305/22 thus consolidates a State-centred vision of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. While the Court acknowledges certain guarantees — rehabilitation, proportionality, crediting of time served — these safeguards function more as correctives within a sovereignty-based model than as the foundation of a rights-oriented European system. 

The ruling highlights a persistent tension in EU criminal law: between the aspiration to create a genuine European area of justice, freedom and security, and the enduring reality of national penal sovereignty. The Court’s judgment unequivocally privileges the latter, leaving only a minimal role for individual rights within the cooperative framework”.