Who qualifies as the ‘executing judicial authority’ in the context of actual surrender/extradition? A review of the ECJ versus ECtHR approaches and the new Dutch law

The term ‘executing judicial authority’ (Article 6(2) FD EAW) responsible for deciding on the execution of EAWs, once the final decision to surrender is reached, has recently sparked a discussion. This particularly pertains to the determination of (exceptional) circumstances for temporary postponement of surrender – force majeure, serious humanitarian reasons and the postponement of surrender for criminal prosecution/execution of a sentence (Articles 23(3) and (4) and 24(1) FD EAW). This article unpacks the meaning of these circumstances and analyses the ECJ’s requirement for ‘necessary independence vis-à-vis the executive’, clarifying who qualifies as an ‘executing judicial authority’. The findings illustrate the difficulty in meeting the requirement by bodies other than a judge/court. Its impact on the Dutch system, leading to a new amendment to the surrender law, is demonstrated. The FD establishes a higher standard than the extradition regime (European Convention on Extradition), which does not necessarily require intervention by a ‘judicial authority’. Nonetheless, it is argued that the ECJ’s stringent criteria for an ‘executing judicial authority’ in decisions on actual surrender ensure a consistent interpretation of the FD EAW and maintain a balance between safeguarding (fundamental) rights and the need for efficiency in the EAW system.