European Arrest Warrant, Dual Criminality and the Bulgarian National's Surrender
A German court issued a European arrest warrant on 12 January for Dimitar Ivanov, a Bulgarian national, for fraud causing loss of 35,000 EUR. The conduct is also an offence in Bulgaria (document fraud) punishable by up to five years. Ivanov lives in Sofia with his family and has no previous convictions. On 3 February the Sofia city court admitted the warrant. Ivanov opposes surrender, arguing he is a Bulgarian national and should serve any sentence in Bulgaria. He also says the German file has not been translated and he cannot prepare his defence.
1. Must the Bulgarian court refuse surrender because Ivanov is a Bulgarian national? Analyse the Framework Decision and the national implementing rules.
Read the worked answer
Nationality is not an automatic bar. Under the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, nationality is a ground for refusal that Member States may choose to implement, not a mandatory one. Bulgaria's implementing law permits refusal where the person is a Bulgarian national and the requesting state agrees to return him to serve the sentence in Bulgaria.
Conditional surrender. The court should first consider a conditional surrender: surrender on condition that Ivanov be returned to Bulgaria to serve any custodial sentence. This reconciles the mutual-recognition duty with the reintegration interest.
Proportionality. The offence is serious (35,000 EUR loss) and the warrant is within the Framework Decision's scope. A fraud offence of this gravity justifies surrender unless a mandatory ground applies.
Conclusion. The court is not obliged to refuse; it should examine the return guarantee. If Germany gives the guarantee, surrender is lawful. If not, the court may still order surrender, since nationality is discretionary, but must give reasons balancing the seriousness of the offence against family ties.
2. What are the consequences of the untranslated file, and what procedural rights must the court secure before ruling?
Read the worked answer
Right to interpretation and translation. Under EU law on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, a person subject to an EAW is entitled to translation of the warrant and of the essential documents needed to understand the case, in a language he understands. The EAW itself must be translated; the underlying file is not automatically required in full.
What is 'essential'. The court should identify the documents indispensable to challenge the warrant - the warrant, the description of the offence, the applicable penalty. If those are translated, the absence of the full German file is not fatal; the EAW procedure is not a trial on the merits.
Hearing rights. The court must hold a hearing, inform Ivanov of the warrant and its content, allow him to be assisted by counsel, and give him the opportunity to consent or oppose. It must rule within the statutory time limits and state reasons.
Remedy. If essential documents are untranslated, the court should adjourn and order translation rather than rule on an uninformed basis. A ruling that deprives him of the ability to oppose is a breach of the fair-trial guarantee and is appealable.