Executive summary

• Author: Ballegooij, Wouter van
• Pages: 1-5

European Arre st Warrant

I

Executive summary

EU Member Stat es have been extraditing suspects and sentenced persons to each ot her for many

decades, on the basis of bilateral and multilateral conventions. Those arrangements were, however,

slow and thwarted by exceptions based on national sovereignty. As EU integration has progressed,

the Member St ates have agreed to base their cooperation on the principle of mu tual r ecog nition

of judicial decisions, moving away fro m a sys tem in which decisio ns o n extr aditio n were ult imately

taken a t governm ent level. This principle was implemented by t he Council framework deci sion on

the European Arr est Warrant and the su rrender procedur es between Member States (FD EA W)

adopt ed in 2002, on t he bas is of r apid n egot iatio ns followin g the 9/11 ter roris t attacks. This s tudy is

the second o f two publications envisaged to support an o wn-initiative im plementation report on

the FD EAW by the European Parliamen t. In Februar y 2020, a framewo rk for analys is as well as

preliminary findings on the implementation of the aforementioned legislation in pr actice was

present ed. This study presents conclusions on the implementation of the framework decision and

recommendations as to how to address the shor tcomings identified, as per t he req uest of the

rapporteur.

Key issues and challenges in the implementation of the FD EAW

Surrender procedures based on the FD EAW, im plemented s ince 2004, g enerally run smoothly.

Available data, discussed in chapter 1, show that it has led to a considerable simplification and

speeding up of handover pr ocedures. This includes so me high-profile cases o f serious crime and

terrorism. In 2017, the average time between the arrest and surr ender of people who did not

consent t o surrender was 40 days, a r emarkable reduction compared to the one-year av era ge u nder

the pre-existing extra dition regime. Not withstanding these a chievements, a nu m be r o f c h al lenges

remain. More specifically, reports by international organisations, EU instit utio ns, case law and

cont ribut ions by pr actit ioners, aca demics and n on-governmental organisations point to a number

of challenges in the is suance and execution o f EAWs. Tho se challenges relat e back to core debates

concerning judicial independence, the nature of mutual recognition and its relationship with

international norms, primary EU law and values, including fundamental rights, constitutional

principles an d (the need for) additional harm onisation measures. Thes e issu es are discus sed in

chapter 2. They concern t he following matter s:

the d efinitio n of iss uing ju dicial auth orit ies an d the ir indep endence fr om g over nment,

which excludes police officers and organs of the executive, but can include public

pro secut ors in a ccorda nce with certa in conditions (Section 2.1.1.)

the proportionality of a number of EAWs issued for 'minor crimes' and before the case

was 'tr ial ready', also in view of other po ssible judicial cooperat ion measures, where the

European Parliament's call for legislative reform has been answered through guidelines

in a Comm issio n Han dbook ( Section 2.1 .2);

the situation pending the hearing by the executing judicial authority, such as

pos sibilitie s offer ed fo r hea ring by t he iss uing jud icial aut horitie s prior to sur render and

the time limits to be respect ed, includ ing in the situation when appeals are lodged

(Section 2.2.1);

the v erifica tion o f dou ble crim inality by executin g judicia l auth orities, le ading to a lively

academic debate on the compatibility of t his requiremen t with the prin ciple of mut ual

recognition and potential further questions to be raised with the CJEU; and the lack of

approximation of certain offences for which verification is no longer allowed

(Section 2.2.2);