In the present article, judgments of the European Court of Justice, together with the case of Aranyosi and Căldăraru, are put under the academic microscope. The analysis is conducted through the lenses of domestic judges. It starts by drawing a broader picture of the challenges that the domestic judiciary faces when it comes to EU criminal law, in particular the mutual recognition instruments. It argues that judges are faced not only with the legal framework of sometimes questionable quality but also with potential conﬂicts of loyalty resulting from the multiplicity and occasional inconsistency of applicable legal regimes. In turn, the analysis moves to the exegesis of the Aranyosi and Căldăraru line of jurisprudence, in particular to the already mentioned security vs justice conundrum, which domestic judges sometimes face. The article ends with conclusions looking into the current state of affairs, and suggestions are made regarding the way forward.