significantly cumbersome for the requested State and politically controversial.132 However, recently there have been an increasing number of cases refusing surrender due to prison conditions violating Article 3 ECHR and on other human rights grounds, as will be outlined in further detail. While the below section cannot be considered to constitute an exhaustive overview of all existing national jurisprudence in this matter across the EU, it nevertheless demonstrates that there is an increasing tendency to refuse surrender within EU Member States on human rights grounds. In accordance with the focus of the Study, the cases outlined below centre on the issue of inadequate detention conditions and violations of Article3 ECHR resulting from a surrender. Germany The case of Aranyosi/Căldăraru – A refusal to surrender on Art. 3 ECHR / Art 4 CFREU grounds Following on from the 5th April 2016 decision of the CJEU in Aranyosi/Căldăraru, the Higher Regional Court in Bremen (Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht) applied the decision and on the 30th June the Court handed down a ruling refusing to surrender Mr Căldăraru to Romania. In doing so the Court noted that there had been communications received from Romania indicating that they could not provide details of the exact prison that he would be sent to, but that most likely it would be one near to where he resides, which has a capacity of 330, and the current occupancy level is at 659, which led to approximately 2 square metres available per person. The General Prosecutors Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft) withdrew their application to execute the warrant, and applied to vacate the previous order of the 11th November 2015 seeking to surrender Mr Căldăraru to Romania. The Court in refusing the surrender, referred to the general duty to surrender, but the obligation to ensure that Mr Căldăraru would not be exposed to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. In relation to the case of Mr Aranyosi, the Court lodged a further preliminary reference on the 16th September 2016 with the CJEU, following on from the decision of the 5th April 2016, looking for further clarity on whether the Court should receive information also on pre-trial detention conditions, and whether they should also know of the prison conditions that the individual could be subjected to on foot of any subsequent conviction. A further case also before the Higher Regional Court in Bremen, dealt with a request for surrender to Latvia133 of an individual pertaining to alleged driving offences. In that case the Court referred to the Aranyosi and Căldăraru decision of the 5th April 2016, as well as the German Constitutional Court decision of the 15th December 2015 which refused to execute the European Arrest Warrant in circumstances where the extradition would risk the violation of European Union fundamental rights. In doing so the Court stated the principles of mutual trust can be ‘shaken’, and that it was not without its limits, and that the minimum guarantees of the rights of an accused person must be respected.134 Relying on these decisions, the Court refused to surrender the individual to Latvia, but on the basis that it was only as a result of reports pertaining to the instant case before the Higher Regional Court, and would not serve as an automatic basis for refusal for all requests seeking surrender to Latvia. 132 Sanger (2010) p. 24. 133 OLG München Beschluss: 27 October 2015 - 1 AR 392/15 available at http://www.gesetze-bayern.de/Content/Document/Y-300-Z-BECKRS-B-2015-N-18224?hl=true. 134 See the Press Release of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court available at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2016/bvg16-004.html. 36