EU court explains sentence proportionality in European arrest warrants
The Tagu judgment, the two-stage fundamental-rights test and the national court’s role.
On 3 November 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union reported its judgment in Case C-583/24, Tagu. The Court's press release says a sentence that appears disproportionate to the offence is not, by itself, a reason to refuse execution of a European arrest warrant. The case concerned a Romanian sentence and a requested surrender from the Netherlands. The name Tagu is fictitious, according to the Court.
Why does comparison alone not settle the issue?
European arrest warrants operate on mutual recognition and trust between EU Member States. The Court says execution is the rule and refusal is exceptional. Significant differences between national penalties do not by themselves establish the deficiencies necessary for a fundamental-rights objection. Otherwise, the executing court would effectively conduct a general review of another Member State's criminal judgments merely because its own law is more lenient.
What must the executing court examine?
The Court describes two successive stages. First, the executing authority needs objective, reliable, specific and current information showing systemic or general deficiencies, or deficiencies affecting an objectively identifiable group. Only if that condition is established does it examine whether the particular person faces a real risk of a fundamental-rights violation. A serious and manifest breach of sentencing proportionality combined with no effective remedy may establish a deficiency; the press release gives inhuman or degrading punishment and rules that prevent assessment of offence seriousness and individual circumstances as examples.
The case and practical limits
The Court concluded that the Romanian legislation at issue did not reveal deficiencies justifying refusal. It noted that Romanian law permitted some individualisation and that the person had access to appeals. This preliminary ruling does not itself decide the national surrender dispute; that remains for the national court. For anyone facing a warrant, the evidence, available remedies and individual risk matter; the judgment does not create an automatic bar whenever a foreign sentence is longer.
Legal check date
Sources checked on 3 November 2026; subsequent changes are not reflected automatically.
Official sources
NoticeThis publication is for general information and is not individual legal advice.