Riksdag Approves European & Nordic Arrest Warrant Overhaul (JuU2): New Transfer & Immunity Rules

On 21 October 2026, the Swedish Parliament (Riksdagen) approved Justice Committee Report Betänkande 2026/27:JuU2 (Hörande och tillfälligt överförande vid handläggning av en arresteringsorder) by acclamation, enacting sweeping procedural amendments to how Swedish courts and prosecutors handle cross-border arrest warrants across the European Union, the Nordic region, and the United Kingdom.

The legislation, which adopts Government Bill Proposition 2025/26:285 without a single dissenting parliamentary motion, enters into force on 1 December 2026. While cross-border extradition law rarely makes front-page consumer news, this reform was urgently fast-tracked through the Riksdag after the European Commission sued Sweden before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on 19 December 2025 for failing to properly transpose key articles of the EU Arrest Warrant Framework Decision.

Beyond resolving Brussels' infringement lawsuit, the new law also reverses a recent 2024 Swedish reform regarding where convicted individuals serve their prison sentences, and codifies strict rules on diplomatic and constitutional immunity. Here is our complete legal breakdown of what changes on 1 December 2026 and what it means for cross-border criminal justice, dual nationals, and international residents in Sweden.

1. The Legislative Package: Three Core Swedish Statutes Amended

Chaired by Justice Committee Chair Teresa Carvalho (S) and supported unanimously across all eight parliamentary parties (S, SD, M, V, C, MP, KD, and L), Riksdag decision 2026/27:JuU2 (formalized via Riksdagsskrivelse 2026/27:3) amends three separate pillars of Swedish international criminal cooperation law simultaneously:

1. The European Arrest Warrant Act (Lag 2003:1156 om överlämnande från Sverige enligt en europeisk arresteringsorder): The primary statute governing the arrest and surrender of suspects and convicted persons between Sweden and the other 26 EU Member States under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.
2. The Nordic Arrest Warrant Act (Lag 2011:1165 om överlämnande från Sverige enligt en nordisk arresteringsorder): The specialized fast-track extradition regime operating between Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland under the Nordic Arrest Warrant Convention (SÖ 2012:4), which Sweden, Denmark, and Finland apply in place of the standard EU rules under Article 31 of the Framework Decision.
3. The EU-UK Post-Brexit Criminal Cooperation Act (Lag 2021:709 med kompletterande bestämmelser om straffrättsligt samarbete mellan Europeiska unionen och Förenade kungariket): Commonly referred to by the Riksdag as the "Brexit Law" (brexitlagen), which supplements the surrender rules in the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) for warrants issued between Sweden and the United Kingdom.

2. Why Brussels Sued Sweden: The 19 December 2025 CJEU Infringement Action

To understand why the Swedish Government and Riksdag moved so swiftly in October 2026, waiving the standard two-business-day parliamentary tabling period so the chamber could vote on 21 October 2026, one must look at the ongoing infringement proceedings (överträdelseförfarande) launched by the European Commission against Sweden.

Since 2004, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system has replaced slow, politically sensitive diplomatic extraditions across the European Union with direct judicial-to-judicial surrender based on mutual recognition. When a prosecutor or court in one EU state issues an arrest warrant supported by a detention order or enforceable prison sentence, and registers the alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS), police and prosecutors in any other Member State where the person is located are legally bound to arrest and surrender them unless a specific ground for refusal applies under the Framework Decision.

However, following a comprehensive compliance audit of how each Member State transposed Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA into domestic law, the European Commission identified major gaps in Sweden's 2003 European Arrest Warrant Act:

• 3 October 2024 Reasoned Opinion (Article 20): The European Commission issued a formal reasoned opinion (motiverat yttrande) concluding that Sweden had failed to properly implement Article 20 governing diplomatic privileges, constitutional immunities, and time limits.
• 19 December 2025 Lawsuit at the EU Court of Justice (Articles 18 & 19): Unsatisfied with the pace of Swedish legislative updates, the European Commission filed a formal infringement action against Sweden at the CJEU (EU-domstolen) on 19 December 2025, charging that Swedish law failed to fully implement Article 18 (the legal situation of a suspect awaiting a surrender decision) and Article 19 (hearing the suspect pending a decision).

3. Reform Pillar 1: Pre-Decision Questioning or Temporary Transfer Abroad

Under Article 17 of the EAW Framework Decision, once a wanted person is apprehended in Sweden, the Swedish District Court (tingsrätt) must normally issue a final decision on surrender within 10 days if the person consents to surrender, or within 60 days if they contest it (with a possible 30-day extension in exceptional cases).

When an arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution (lagföring, as opposed to enforcing an already finalized prison sentence), waiting 60 to 90 days for a final surrender ruling can severely prejudice an active criminal investigation in the issuing country, especially where co-defendants are in custody or statutory limitation periods are approaching.

To comply fully with Articles 18 and 19 of the Framework Decision, the new rules taking effect on 1 December 2026 establish an explicit binary obligation whenever the foreign issuing authority requests access to a suspect held in Sweden prior to the final surrender ruling. Swedish authorities must grant one of two mechanisms:

1. Formal Interrogation in Sweden (Hörande i Sverige): The wanted person is questioned inside Sweden by a Swedish judicial authority (typically a prosecutor), assisted by a person designated in accordance with the law of the issuing state (such as a foreign investigating judge, prosecutor, or police investigator). The hearing is conducted under Swedish procedural law on terms mutually agreed between the Swedish and foreign authorities, ensuring full defense counsel rights.
2. Temporary Transfer to the Issuing State (Tillfälligt överförande): Alternatively, the wanted person is physically transferred on a temporary basis to the country that issued the arrest warrant so they can be questioned or participate in urgent pre-trial investigative steps there. Crucially, under Article 18.2 and 18.3, the conditions and exact duration of the temporary transfer must be agreed in writing between the two countries' judicial authorities, and the suspect must be guaranteed the right to return to Sweden to attend court hearings in their Swedish surrender proceedings.

Identical pre-decision hearing and temporary transfer mechanisms are simultaneously written into the Nordic Arrest Warrant Act (2011:1165) and extended to UK warrants via the 2021 Brexit Law.

4. Reform Pillar 2: Diplomatic Privileges, Official Immunity & Statutory Deadlines

The second major pillar of Betänkande 2026/27:JuU2 closes the statutory gap identified by the European Commission regarding suspects who hold legal immunity or privileges in Sweden.

Under Swedish constitutional and international law, several categories of individuals enjoy partial or comprehensive immunity from criminal prosecution:

• Foreign Diplomats & Consular Officials: Protected under the Vienna Conventions and the Swedish Act on Immunity and Privileges in Certain Cases (Lag 1976:661 om immunitet och privilegier i vissa fall), along with officials of certain international organizations hosted in Sweden.
• Domestic Constitutional Officeholders: Under the Swedish Instrument of Government (Regeringsformen), the Head of State (Chapter 5, Section 8) enjoys absolute criminal immunity, while Members of the Riksdag (Chapter 4, Section 12) and Cabinet Ministers (Chapter 13, Section 3) enjoy functional immunity for official acts unless waived under strict constitutional thresholds.

Previously, the European Arrest Warrant Act (2003:1156) did not explicitly state how diplomatic or official immunity interacted with the strict 10-day and 60-day decision deadlines. Starting 1 December 2026, Swedish law explicitly codifies Article 20 of the Framework Decision:

• No Coercive Measures While Immunity Applies: As long as the wanted person is protected by immunity or privileges in Sweden, no coercive police or prosecutorial measures (tvångsmedel, such as arrest, detention, or search) may be executed against them.
• Decision Clock Starts Only After Court Notification: The statutory time limits for the District Court to rule on surrender do not start running until the exact day the District Court (tingsrätten) receives formal notification that the person's privileges or immunity have ceased or been lifted.
• Prosecutor's Duty to Request Waiver: Where a Swedish authority or body has the legal competence to lift the immunity or privilege, the Swedish prosecutor (åklagaren) is now under an explicit statutory obligation to formally request that the immunity be waived without delay. Where only a foreign state or international organization can waive the immunity, it is the responsibility of the state that issued the arrest warrant to request the waiver.

5. Reform Pillar 3: Reversing the 2024 Rule on Serving Foreign Prison Sentences in Sweden

For Swedish citizens, dual nationals, and long-term expat residents living in Sweden, the most practically significant change in Betänkande 2026/27:JuU2 is the reversal of a reform that had only been in force since 1 March 2024.

When another EU or Nordic country issues an arrest warrant to enforce a prison sentence (frihetsberövande påföljd) against a person who is a Swedish citizen or permanently integrated in Sweden, Swedish courts have under certain circumstances had the option to refuse physical surrender to the foreign prison system and instead order that the prison sentence be transferred and served inside a Swedish correctional institution (Kriminalvården) to facilitate social rehabilitation.

On 1 March 2024, Sweden removed the requirement that the foreign issuing state must consent to such a takeover of sentence enforcement. However, subsequent landmark rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that under the EU Framework Decision and the framework governing the mutual recognition of custodial sentences, an executing Member State cannot unilaterally take over the enforcement of a foreign prison sentence and refuse surrender unless the issuing Member State formally agrees to the transfer of sentence execution.

Consequently, effective 1 December 2026, the Riksdag has reinstated the mandatory consent requirement (krav på samtycke): a Swedish District Court may only refuse surrender for sentence enforcement and order the sentence served in Sweden if the foreign issuing state explicitly consents.