JUSTICE FOR ALL fundamental rights violations for both its recitals and the common provision on Art 6 TEU. However, it is the only framework decision which includes no provisions relevant to the situation of persons with psychosocial and/ or intellectual disabilities. As seen, the 2013 Recommendation acts as a complementary document to protect individuals in situations of vulnerability, but remains a non-binding text. The EAW FD is also the only one of the four FDs which was adjudicated on by the CJEU in a case involving a person with intellectual and/or psychosocial disabilities, namely, the E.D.L preliminary ruling. Nature of decision - Preliminary Ruling requested by Italy Date - 18 April 2023 Jurisdiction - CJEU Question to the CJEU - “Must Article 1(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584, examined in the light of Articles 3, 4 and 35 of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that, where it considers that the surrender of a person suffering from a serious chronic and potentially irreversible disease may expose that person to the risk of suffering serious harm to his or her health, the executing judicial authority must request that the issuing judicial authority provide information allowing the existence of such a risk to be ruled out, and must refuse to surrender the person in question if it does not obtain assurances to that effect within a reasonable period of time?” Among the several decisions issued by the CJEU on the EAW FD in respect of fundamental rights violations, the E.D.L. case represents a landmark (along with the Aranyosi and Caldararu case). The requesting national jurisdiction (Italy) asked the CJEU in a preliminary ruling whether the Arrest Warrant Framework Decision Art 1(3) could be interpreted in light of the Charter Art 3 (right to integrity of the person), Art 4 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) and Art 35 (right to health care). The result would lead to the possibility for the executing state to refuse the extradition of an arrested person in the case where the individual suffers from a serious illness. The Court, in its preliminary ruling, first re-affirmed the principle of mutual trust, stating that Member States must presume that health checks and health services will be provided in any EU country in the case the arrested individual needs it.326 The Court then added a caveat to this principle by evoking Art 23(4) of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision, which states that, if the arrested person were to be endangered by the extradition process, the state could choose to temporarily suspend it. For this decision to be valid, the executing state needs to check whether there are substantial grounds to believe that, based on objective elements such as medical certificates or expert reports, the execution of the arrest warrant might put at risk the health of the arrested person. Such risk must be evident. This request follows Art 15(2) of the EAW FD which states that “if the executing judicial authority finds the information communicated by the issuing Member State to be insufficient to allow it to decide on surrender, it shall request that the necessary supplementary information (...) be furnished as a matter of urgency.”327 The Court then recalled that such assessment must be interpreted in the light of Art 4 of the Charter.328 The ruling subsequently stated that there could be a possibility whereby the mere transportation of an arrested individual from a Member State to another could constitute a potential violation of Art 4 of the Charter. For this to happen, the executing judicial authority must have found that: “(...) in the light of the objective material before it, substantial and established grounds for believing that the surrender of the requested person, who is seriously ill, would expose him or her to a real risk of a significant reduction in his or her life expectancy or of a rapid, significant and irreversible deterioration in his or her state of health.”329 85