Assessment and conclusions as regards the implementation of the EAW in the Member States

• Author: Ballegooij, Wouter van
• Pages: 43-67

European Arre st Warrant

43

3. Assessment and conclusions as regards the

implementation of the EAW in the Member States

The Co mmissio n's better regula tion guidelin es establish a set of evaluat ion criteria against which

EU interventio ns are to be a ssessed.336 Th e following cr iteria s et out in the accom panying better

regulation toolbox will provide the basis for the assessment undertaken here: effectiveness,

efficiency , cohere nce, relevance and EU added value.337 Effectiveness r efers to the degr ee to which

an action achieves or progresses t owards its objectives. Efficien cy cons iders the relat ionship

between the resources us ed by an intervent ion an d the changes genera ted b y the intervention.

Coherence involves looking at how well or not different actions work together. It may highlight

areas wher e there are syn ergies which improve overa ll performance, or which were perhaps not

pos sible if intro duced at n ationa l level; or it m ay point to t ensions such as objectives wh ich are

potentially contradictory or a pproach es which ar e caus ing inefficie ncies. Relevance looks at the

relations hip between the needs and pro blems in society and th e objectives of the intervention and

hence touches on aspects of design . Relevance analysis also requ ires a considera tion o f how the

objectives of an EU intervention (legis la tive o r spending measure) correspond to wider E U policy

goa ls and prior ities . EU-added value looks for changes which it can reasonably be argued are due to

the EU interv ention, over and above what could reasonably h ave been expected fr om national

actions by the Member Sta tes. In many ways, the ev aluation of EU added value brings t ogether the

findings of the other criteria, presenting the arguments on causality and drawing conclusions, based

on the eviden ce to hand, abo ut the perfo rmance of the EU intervention. 338

It should be pointed out that a comprehe nsive evalu ation of the EU ’s s ecurit y policie s is la cking,339

and there has been no separ ate evaluation of EU criminal jus tice policies. The Commiss ion did,

however, condu ct a comprehensive asses sment o n EU secu rity po licies in 2017, which may be

viewed as a positive first step.340 Figur e 5 below illustrates the five k ey evaluatio n criteria and how

they inter relate. One should however take into account the specific natu re of Eu ro pean

implementation assessments produced by EPRS. As opposed to the Commission evaluations, they

are prod uced over a s horter period of time a nd tailored to meet parliamentarians' needs, notably by

focusing on the practical application o f the EU measure.341

The temporal and substantive scope and methodology of this European implementation

assessment were discussed in section 1.2. In this regard, and given the particular impact arrest,

detention and surrender has on fundamental rights, a special question on fundamental rights was

added to t he questions posed to interv iewees repr oduced in Annex II.342 Furthermore, a question

was included on compliance with EU values in the light of CJEU case law on t he interaction between

336 European Commission, Better Regulation guidelines and toolbox;

337 Ibidem, Toolbox nr. 47 evaluation criteria and questions

338 European Commission, Better Regulation Tool #47 Evaluation criteria and questions.

339 Cf. W. van Ball egooi j, P. Bakowski , The cost of non-Europe i n the Fight against Te rrorism, EPRS, Europ ean Parl iame nt,

2018, p. 19.

340 European Commission, ‘Ninth Progr ess Report towards an Effective and Ge nuine Security Union’ COM (2017) 407 final;

European Commission Staff Working Document, ‘Compre hensi ve Asse ssment of EU Securi ty P olicy’ SWD (2017) 278

final .

341 I. Angl mayer, Evaluat ion and e x-post impac t assessment at EU level , EPRS, 2016

342 Fundamen tal ri ghts have been recognized by the European Commission as a criterion for impact assessment, but not

yet (explicitly) as a criterion for e valuation; European Commission, Better regulation guidelines and toolbox, Toolbox

nr. 28 fundament al rights & human r ights.

EPRS | European Parli amentary Re search Servic e

44

the principle of mutual recognition and mutual trust and upholding these values.343 They are

discussed bet ween the questions of effectiveness and efficiency given the close connect ion they

have with the o bjectives of the FD EAW and its efficient/proportionate use.

Figure 5: Simplified view of the intervention and the 5 key evaluation criteria

Source : European Commission, Better Re gulation Tool #4 7 Evaluation cri teria and questi ons.

In line with the methodology presented in section 1.2., this chapter builds on the quantitative and

qualit ative data presented in chapter 1 and the desk resea rch reflected in the overview of th e main

implementation challenges provided in chapter 2. T his inf orm ation is com bined wit h th e out come

of the written and oral replies provided to the questio nnair e contained in A nnex II. The replies,

received during the months of March and April 2020, have been categorised in terms of t he

international organisation (Council of Europe, Committee for the Prevention of Torture and

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)), EU instit ution (Comm issio n, Council),

agency (Eurojust and FRA), affiliation or profession of the interviewee concerned. In ter vi ewees

replied in t heir p erso nal ca pacity , where relevant referring to official document s and statements of

343 CJEU judgment of 25 July 2018 in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v LM ECLI:EU:C:2018:586