The importance of mutual trust (Radu and Melloni, Opinion 2/13) In the cases of Radu and Melloni, the CJEU did not follow the reasoning contained in AG Sharpston’s Opinion and rejected complaints of a violation of the right to a fair trial in favour of the principle of mutual trust.118 In Radu a Romanian national was arrested on foot of four EAWs issued in Germany in order to prosecute an allegation of aggravated robbery. While the decision of the Court confined itself to procedural rights aspects of due process at the issuing phase of the EAW, it is worth noting the Opinion of AG Sharpston, which eloquently comments upon the tension between mutual trust and the respect of fundamental rights. In particular, the Opinion addresses the reality of any such automatic acceptance of mutual trust on the basis that ‘the record of the Member States in complying with their human rights obligations may be commendable, it is also not pristine. There can be no assumption that, simply because the transfer of the requested person is requested by another Member State, that person’s human rights will automatically be guaranteed on his arrival there. There can, however, be a presumption of compliance which is rebuttable only on the clearest possible evidence. Such evidence must be specific; propositions of a general nature, however well supported, will not suffice’119 The importance of mutual trust was again confirmed by the CJEU in its Opinion 2/13 on the EU’s accession to the ECHR. The CJEU argued that the accession to the ECHR “is liable to upset the underlying balance of the EU and undermine the autonomy of EU law.”120 Both Radu and especially Melloni, as well as Opinion 2/13 do not sit comfortably with the ECtHR’s jurisprudence, or with its own approach in mutual recognition in the context of the transfer of asylum-seekers under the Dublin Regulations following the ECtHR ruling in M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, as discussed above. Duty to defer surrender in case of a risk of inhuman detention conditions (Aranyosi and Căldăraru) The CJEU’s most recent judgment sheds some further light on the Court’s interpretation of the relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights, in particular Article 3 ECHR/Article 4 CFREU. The joined case of Aranyosi and Căldăraru121 involve a Hungarian and a Romanian national, both arrested in Germany on foot of an EAW. The case of Mr Căldăraru, which involved the breach of a suspended sentence handed down for driving without a valid licence, was dealt with under the urgent procedures mechanism on account of his being held in custody pending the surrender. The warrant in relation to Mr Aranyosi’s was issued in order to prosecute an alleged offence of burglary and theft to the value of approximately €760. A preliminary reference from a German Higher Regional Court in Bremen, raised a series of questions in particular, whether the correct interpretation of Article 1(3) of the EAW meant that extradition for the purposes of prosecution is impermissible where there are strong indications that detention conditions in the issuing State infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned and the fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 TEU. The preliminary reference also sought clarification as to whether the executing State can or must make the decision on the permissibility of extradition conditional upon an assurance that detention conditions are compliant, and whether the executing State can or must lay down specific minimum requirements applicable to the detention conditions in respect of which an assurance is sought. Clarification was sought as to whether the FD EAW should be interpreted in such a way so that the issuing judicial authority is also entitled to provide assurances that detention conditions are compliant, or whether assurances remain subject to the domestic rules of competence within the issuing 118 Case C-396/11, Radu [2013] paras. 28 et seq.; Case C-399/11, Melloni [2013] paras. 35 et seq. 119 Case C-396/11, Radu [2013] paras. 41. 120 Opinion C-2/13 [2014] para. 194. 121 Joined Cases C‑404/15, Aranyosi and C‑659/15 PPU, Caldӑrӑru [2016] 33