Mod8 v3 en

MODULE 8 THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURE VERSION 3.
(logo of the training organiser)
Training organised by
(name of training organiser)
on (date) at (place)
Based on
the standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal
matters
within the European Union
Module 8
THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND
THE SURRENDER PROCEDURE
Version: 3.0
Last updated: 31.10.2012
The European Judicial

training network
With the support of the European Union
MODULE 8 THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURE VERSION 3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This module is part of a standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters
within the European Union (EU-Copen Training Programme).
The programme as a whole is an educational training tool designed to facilitate the training of
judicial authorities in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European
Union. The tool is primarily aimed at any national authority responsible for judicial training, for the
purpose of developing specific training courses on the subject, as well as to any stakeholder
involved in judicial cooperation as part of their day-to-day professional practice. It may also be
used by anyone interested in this field.
The methodological approach of the standard programme aims to provide authoritative
information while also focusing on the practical aspects of the mechanisms of judicial
cooperation.
This tool was originally developed based on two projects run in 2005-2006, and subsequently in
2009, by the Institute for European Studies (Free University of Brussels) and ECLAN (European
Criminal Law Academic Network) with funding from the European Commission (under the AGIS
programme and subsequently the 'Criminal Justice' programme) of the Ministry of Justice of the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the International University Institute of Luxembourg.
In 2012, the European Judicial Training Network, which has been involved in the Copen Training
programme since it began, took over the projects management and coordination. Version 3 (3.0)
of the Copen Training tool is therefore the property of the European Judicial Training Network.
Any comments regarding its content and any requests for information about Copen Training
should be sent to ejtn@ejtn.eu, quoting Copen Training.
The main authors of version 3.0 are: Serge de Biolley, Gisle Vernimmen and Anne
Weyembergh. Veronica Santamara and Laura Surano contributed to the previous versions.
How to use this document:
The 'standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters' training tool and all
parts thereof are the property of the European Judicial Training Network. Its use is subject to the
following conditions:
1. Its content and layout cannot be altered in any way, except:
- where space is explicitly provided for the insertion of data relating to training organised on the
basis of this standard programme (organisers logo, date, place etc.)
- where space is explicitly provided for the insertion of data relating to the national situation of
the Member State concerned

2. If the user feels that corrections or additions need to be made to the content of the tool or
parts thereof, provided each of the following criteria is met:
- the additions or amendments must be accompanied by a foreword indicating the origin of these
amendments or additions
- these additions and amendments must be notified to the projects development team
ejtn@ejtn.eu, quoting Copen Training.
3. No section of the tool or its parts may be copied or separated from the tool as a whole without
the express permission of the Institute for European Studies and of its authors.
WHATS NEW IN THIS VERSION?
In particular, this new version (3.0) takes into account:

- the Revised version of the European handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant
(Council of the EU, doc. 17195/1/10 REV 1 of 17 December 2010);
- Report on the 4th round of mutual evaluations (Council of the EU, doc. 8302/2/REV 4 of
28/5/2009) and follow-up to the recommendations (Council of the EU, doc. 8436/2/10 REV 2
of 28/5/2010, and doc. 15815/11 of 28/10/2011);
- the final report from the Commission on the implementation of FD of 13/6/2002 (COM(2011)
175 and SEC(2011) 430)
- the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the European Court of
Human Rights on the European arrest warrant.
AIMS OF THIS MODULE
Module 8 describes how cooperation during and after sentencing operates, as established by
the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures.
It looks at the background and general objectives of the new system, the concept of the
European arrest warrant, how the European arrest warrant is processed by the issuing
authority and by the executing authority, the effects of surrender, how it relates to other legal
instruments and the application of the European arrest warrant over time, its transposition and
practical implementation, as well as the relevant case-law of the Court of Justice of the
European Union. It concludes with some practical tips aimed at issuing and executing
authorities, together with selected case studies.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
-
European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 Compendium A.2.1.; its two

additional protocols of 15 October 1975 Compendium A.2.2.; and its 2nd additional
protocol of 17 March 1978 Compendium A.2.3.
European Convention on extradition of 10 March 1995 Compendium B.4.1.
European Convention on extradition of 27 September 1996 Compendium B.4.2.

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and
surrender procedures between Member States Compendium B.4.3.
Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions
2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby
enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of
mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial
Compendium B.5.8.
FD 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures
involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU
Compendium B.5.5.
Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ
L 142 of 1/6/2012 Compendium B.6a.1
Directive 2010/64/EU of 20/10/2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal
proceedings OJ L 280 of 26/10/2010 Compendium B. 6a.2.
For further information => see the following websites:

the website of the European Judicial Network (click on the tab practical implementation
of mutual recognition instruments:
http://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu
the website of Eurojust (for annual reports and their annexes, e.g. guidelines in the
case of concurrent EAWs):
http://eurojust.europa.eu/about/structure/college/Pages/assistants-nationalmembers.aspx
the website of the Council of the European Union (e.g. for the European handbook on
how to issue a European Arrest Warrant):
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/applications/PolJu/details.asp?
id=66&lang=FR&cmsid=720
the website of the Court of Justice (for case-law):
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/
the website of the Council of Europe (for the texts of the conventions and their status of
ratification):
http://www.conventions.coe.int/?pg=/treaty/default_en.asp&nd=&lg=fr
the website of the European Court of Human Rights (for case-law):
http://www.echr.coe.int/echr/
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES....................................................................8

2. DEFINITION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT.............................................................................10
3. PROCESSING OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT BY THE ISSUING AUTHORITY..................................11
3.1. Acts for which a European arrest warrant can be issued.........................................................11
3.2. Conditions that must be met by the European arrest warrant.................................................12
3.2.1 Formal requirements.....................................................................................................................12
3.2.2 Content requirements....................................................................................................................12
3.2.3 Language requirements................................................................................................................13
3.2.4 Principle of proportionality as a criterion for issue........................................................................15
3.3. Transmission.................................................................................................................................15
3.3.1 Between whom?............................................................................................................................15
3.3.2 How? 16
3.3.3 When?...........................................................................................................................................18
4. PROCESSING OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT BY THE EXECUTING AUTHORITY............................20
4.1. Flagging: the possibility of blocking execution of the European arrest warrant upon entry
of the alert in the SIS...............................................................................................................................20
4.2. Obligation to arrest and the rights of the person concerned..................................................21
4.3. Surrender decision........................................................................................................................22
4.3.1 Time limits for the decision to be taken and situation pending the decision.................................22
4.3.2 Cases in which execution may or must be refused......................................................................23
4.3.3 Conditional surrender....................................................................................................................29
4.3.4 Decision in the event of multiple requests....................................................................................31
4.3.5 Appeals..........................................................................................................................................31
4.3.6 Notification of the decision to the issuing authority.......................................................................32
4.4. The surrender itself.......................................................................................................................32
4.4.1 Time limits......................................................................................................................................32
4.4.2 Postponed or conditional surrender..............................................................................................32
5. EFFECTS OF THE SURRENDER.............................................................................................................34
5.1. Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State (Article 26 of
the FD) 34
5.2. Speciality rule and exceptions (Article 27 of the FD)................................................................34
5.3. Surrender or subsequent extradition (Article 28 of the FD).....................................................35
6. RELATION TO OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS AND THE APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
OVER TIME...................................................................................................................................... 36
6.1.
6.2.
7.
7.1.
7.2.
7.3.
8.
Relation to other legal instruments (Article 31 of the DC)........................................................36

Application of the European arrest warrant over time (Article 32 of the FD).........................37
TRANSPOSITION AND PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................................40
Germany.........................................................................................................................................41
Poland.............................................................................................................................................41
Cyprus............................................................................................................................................42
THE CASE-LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST
WARRANT....................................................................................................................................... 43
8.1. Advocaten voor de wereld case .................................................................................................43
8.1.1 Legal background..........................................................................................................................43
8.1.2 Judgment of the Court of Justice..................................................................................................43
8.2. Szymon Kozlowski case .............................................................................................................45
8.3. Santesteban Goicoechea case ...................................................................................................46
8.4. Leymann and Pustovarov case ..................................................................................................48
8.5 Wolzenburg case..........................................................................................................................49
8.5.1. Legal background........................................................................................................................49
8.5.2. Judgment of the Court of Justice.................................................................................................50
8.6. I.B. case..........................................................................................................................................50
8.7. Mantello case.................................................................................................................................52
8.8. Melvin West case...........................................................................................................................53
8.9. Lopes Da Silva Case.....................................................................................................................54
9. PRACTICAL TIPS...................................................................................................................................56
9.1. As an executing authority............................................................................................................56
9.2. As an issuing authority................................................................................................................56
10. CASE STUDIES................................................................................................................................. 58
1.
Introduction: background and general objectives
Remember that the extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union
was initially organised by the conventions adopted within the framework of the Council of
Europe, namely the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 (
Compendium A.2.1.) and its two additional protocols of 15 October 1975 ( Compendium
A.2.2.) and of 17 March 1978 ( Compendium A.2.3.). Because these conventions were
somewhat outmoded and cumbersome, efforts have been made by the Member States to
simplify them. The most tangible improvements were introduced by certain provisions of the
Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and by two EU conventions of 1995
and 1996 ( Compendium B.4.1. and Compendium B.4.2.). For more information on this topic,
see Module 2.
It was the conclusions of the European Council of Tampere that first conceived of the abolition
of extradition, but solely for the purposes of enforcing a sentence. According to these
conclusions, the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States
for persons attempting to flee justice after having been finally sentenced, and replaced by a
simple transfer of such persons (paragraph 35). For the remainder, the European Council
envisaged a simple acceleration of extradition procedures.
The idea of abolishing extradition was subsequently developed, in particular in the programme
of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition, but this time not just with regards
to sentencing but to pre-trial arrangements as well (cf. paragraph 3.1.2. of the programme and
paragraph 2.2.1 concerning extradition for the purposes of prosecution).
A few days after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the European Commission
presented a proposal to that effect. The initiative was negotiated during the Belgian Presidency,
and political consensus was rapidly achieved. It was then formally adopted in the form of
Framework Decision (FD) 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and
surrender procedures1 ( Compendium B.4.3.).
While pursuing the objective laid down in Article 29 of the Treaty on European Union, this
Framework Decision is in some ways the culmination of work to simplify extradition between
Member States: it replaces existing extradition procedures with a new, faster and simpler
system based on the principle of mutual recognition. The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002
was also the first practical application of this principle: the principle of mutual recognition was
applied to the European arrest warrant.
1 OJ L 190 of 18 July 2002, p.1.
Major changes introduced by this new system included:

the judicialisation of the procedure.
a broadening of the offences for which surrender can take place.
a reduction in the conventional grounds for refusing extradition and a relaxation of
verifications, based on the idea that substantial verifications should first and
foremost be conducted in the issuing State.
an acceleration, through the setting of time limits by which the decision on execution
of the European arrest warrant and the decision on the surrender of the person
requested by the warrant must in principle be taken.
These changes will be studied through an examination of the rules governing the new system.
Indicate here references to your national law transposing the Framework Decision
2.
Definition of the European Arrest Warrant
The European arrest warrant (EAW) is defined as a judicial decision issued by a Member State
(MS) with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person,
for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or
detention order (Article 1 of the FD).
There are two key elements to this definition:
Firstly, the fact that it is a judicial decision: this is a core element that reflects the
judicialisation of the procedure. In theory, the central authorities, particularly the issuing
States central authority, no longer perform a role in the procedure. If they do play a role, it
must now merely be providing general information and assistance to the judicial authorities.
The Framework Decision states that each Member State may designate a central authority
or, where prescribed by its legal system, more than one central authority, to assist the
competent judicial authorities (Article 7(1) of the Framework Decision). Certain national
implementing laws have, however, attributed a greater role to the central authorities they
have designated (for example, in Ireland, the central authority verifies that the warrant is
correct as to its form and content before transmitting it to the High Court for assessment of
recognition and execution).
Indicate here the authorities and their competences in your national law
Furthermore, the fact that the decision covers the arrest and surrender of a person for the
purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or
detention order means it covers the pre-trial stage and the sentencing stage.
3.
3.1.
Processing of the European arrest warrant by the issuing authority

ACTS FOR WHICH A EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT CAN BE ISSUED
A European arrest warrant may be issued for offences punishable by the law of the issuing
Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12
months2 or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for
sentences of at least four months (Article 2 of the Framework Decision).
Such a rule entails some broadening of the offences for which surrender can take place:
in terms of severity of the penalty imposed in the issuing State (according to Article 2
of the 1996 Convention, extradition shall be granted for offences that are punishable
under the law of the requesting Member State by deprivation of liberty or a detention
order for a maximum period of at least 12 months)
because this definition of the scope refers solely to the law of the issuing State, the
severity of the penalty in the executing State is immaterial; in other words, the
condition set forth in the 1996 convention requiring the offences to be punishable by
the law of the requested Member State by a custodial sentence or detention order
with a maximum of at least six months has been discarded (see below on the partial
abolition of the verification of double criminality).
scope and double criminality are two separate things. Double criminality is discussed
in other modules.
the Framework Decision did not establish a minimum sentence remaining to be
served, but the handbook (see below) recommends not issuing a European Arrest
warrant where the remaining sentence is less than 4 months, even if the sentence
handed down was 4 months or more.
the Framework Decision does not require the issuing authority to assess the
European arrest warrant from the perspective of the principle of proportionality, and its
legislation does not necessarily allow it a large margin of discretion: this issue is
discussed later on.
In order to address the practical problems posed by the process of issuing and executing the
European arrest warrant, the Council of the European Union has drafted the European
handbook on how to issue a European arrest warrant. The aim of this Handbook is to provide
guidelines with a view to the adoption of good practice based on practical experience to date. It
includes an annex containing guidelines on how to fill in the European arrest warrant form. The
handbook was revised in 2010 and is available on the Council of the EUs website 3. In some
2 Austrian law has concurrent requirements for EAWs issued for the purposes of executing a sentence (see evaluation
report: Council doc. 7024/08 of 28 February 2008, p. 37).
3 Council doc. 17195/1/10 REV 1, 17 December 2010 (p.60)
Member States, this type of handbook has also been adopted at national level.
If this is the case for your country, indicate here the references from your national
handbook.
3.2.
CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET BY THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
The European arrest warrant must meet a series of conditions as to its form, content and
language.
Formal requirements
The European arrest warrant and the information it must contain must be submitted in the
form attached as an annex to the Framework Decision. The form may not be modified, or any of
its parts deleted. If a box is not relevant, not applicable should be written, rather than deleting it
(cf. Guidelines on how to fill in the European arrest warrant form, annexed to the European
handbook on how to issue a European arrest warrant4).
Indicate here how to obtain the electronic version of the form. If this form is not available
at national level, pursuant to Article 8 of the Framework Decision, the forms are available
in all languages from the website of the European Judicial Network. The form can be filled in
and printed out using the new EAW Wizard tool for completing a European arrest warrant
online, available in all languages on the EJN website.
Practical tip:
http://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/eawwizard.aspx
3.2.1
Content requirements
The European arrest warrant must contain specific information (Article 8(1) of the Framework
Decision):
4 Council doc. 17195/1/10 REV 1 (see above).
a) the identity and nationality of the requested person

b) the name, address, telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address of the issuing
judicial authority
c) evidence of an enforceable judgment, an arrest warrant or any other enforceable
judicial decision having the same effect within the scope of the system
d) the nature and legal classification of the offence
e) a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the
time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person
f) the penalty imposed, if there is a final judgment, or the prescribed scale of penalties
for the offence under the law of the issuing Member State
g) if possible, other consequences of the offence.
The information listed in a) to f) must always be provided to ensure the satisfactory outcome of
the procedure. The form contains fields for several other items of information, although it states
some of these are optional. For instance, while some information is seen as essential for an
arrest in the executing State, and some is to enable the executing judicial authority to take its
decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant, some other items are merely optional.
In practice, it is preferable to provide as much information as possible, since:
the status of the information varies from one State to another: some authorities can
be more pernickety than others, some of them even going beyond what is required
by the Framework Decision (see below);
the more information the issuing authority provides, the easier it will in theory be to
process the file. If it is better informed, the executing authority will tend to be more
trusting, so that any unnecessary additional requests for information may be
avoided.
The European Handbook on how to issue a European arrest warrant 5 also stresses the
importance of paying very close attention to the description of the circumstances of the case
(box e)). In particular, the circumstances must always be described fully and exhaustively, so
that the application of the rule of speciality, ne bis in idem, the possibility of invoking the
territorial clause, and the statute of limitations can be assessed. Thus, if the offence is not
included in the list, the detailed description should enable the executing judicial authority to
assess double criminality.
It is also important to indicate the existence of photographs and fingerprints of the requested
person, where they are available.
3.2.2 Language requirements
The European arrest warrant must be translated into the official language or one of the official
languages of the executing Member State. States may make a declaration to the General
Secretariat of the Council that they will accept a translation in one or more other official
languages of the EU (Article 8(2) of the Framework Decision). Relatively few MS accept a
5 Council doc. 17195/1/10 REV 1 (see above).
language other than their official language. The final report on the 4 th round of mutual
evaluations deplores this situation and recommends a more flexible approach to the EAW form
and any supplementary information6.
Languages accepted by the Member States when receiving a European arrest warrant7:
German, French, Dutch8
German, French, Dutch,
Czech, Slovak
Belgium
French, Dutch, German
Bulgaria
Bulgarian
Cyprus
Greek, Turkish, English
Denmark
Danish, Swedish, English
Spain
Spanish9
Estonia
Estonian, English
Finland
Finnish, Swedish, English
France
French
Greece
Greek
Hungary
Hungarian10
Ireland
Irish, English
Italy
Italian
Latvia
Latvian, English
Lithuania
Lithuanian, English
Luxembourg
French, German, English
Malta
Maltese, English
Netherlands
Dutch, English
Poland
Polish
Portugal
Portuguese
Romania
Romanian, English,
French
Slovakia
Slovak, Czech with the
Czech Republic, Polish
Germany
Austria
6 Council doc. 8302/2/09 REV 4 28.5.2009 (Recommendation 5 p. 11)

7 Source: The handbook (see above), Annex IV
8 Germany and Austria accept European arrest warrants issued in all the official languages
of the issuing States which
accept European arrest warrants in German.
9 When a European arrest warrant is issued through a SIS alert, the executing judicial authority will provide the translation if
it is not in Spanish.
10 Hungary accepts the European arrest warrant in English, French and German in its relations with the Member States
which accept language(s) other than their official languages.
Slovenia
Sweden
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
(tab1_mod8_V30)
with Poland, German with

Austria11
Slovenian, English
Swedish, Danish,
Norwegian, English
Czech, Slovak with
Slovakia, German with
Austria
English
11 Based on previous bilateral treaties.
3.2.3 Principle of proportionality as a criterion for issue

According to the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, the competent authorities
of an issuing Member State are not required to verify proportionality before deciding to issue a
warrant, since there is no provision for evaluating the pertinence of a European arrest warrant in
the particular case. It is, however, important, to follow the recommendations on this subject
contained in the European Handbook on how to issue a European arrest warrant 12. To curb the
growing tendency in certain Member States of resorting to issuing an EAW for all types of
offence that meet the formal requirements, in each case an assessment should be made that
takes into account all the various elements, including the seriousness of the offence, the
measure to be imposed, the resources to be deployed in the executing State and, in particular,
the fact that the measure involves deprivation of liberty. A number of MS have introduced
proportionality criteria into their law 13. Thus, according to the handbook, the European arrest
warrant should not be chosen where the coercive measure that seems proportionate, adequate
and applicable to the case in hand is not preventive detention or where, although preventive
detention is admissible, in the specific case an alternative non-custodial coercive measure may
be chosen. As part of the review of the follow-up to the recommendations issued following the
4th round of mutual evaluations14, the Council specified, for example, the issue of summons to
appear or hearings via videoconference as alternative measures to consider.
3.3.
TRANSMISSION
3.3.1 Between whom?

In theory, the procedure passes between courts; in other words, the warrant is issued by and
transmitted directly from the issuing judicial authority to the executing judicial authority. This is
the second key element that reflects judicialisation. Nevertheless, a Member State may, if it is
necessary as a result of the organisation of its internal judicial system, afford its central
authority(ies) responsibility for the administrative transmission and reception of European arrest
warrants as well as for all other official correspondence relating thereto. In this instance, the
information relating to the designated central authority or central authorities must be
communicated to the General Secretariat of the Council (Article 7(2) of the Framework
Decision). Any difficulties concerning the transmission or the authenticity of any document
required for the execution of the European arrest warrant shall be dealt with by direct contacts
between the judicial authorities involved, or, where appropriate, with the involvement of the
12 Revised handbook cited above (pp. 14-15).
Annex to the final report from the Commission on the implementation of FD doc. SEC (2011) 430 of 11 April 2011 also
mentions the case of the Czech Republic (p. 57), of Latvia (p. 110), of Lithuania (p. 116), and of Slovakia (p. 151).
13
14
Council doc. 8436/2/10 REV2 of 28.5.2010.
central authorities of the Member States (Article 10(5) of the Framework Decision). These
specifications are binding on all authorities of the issuing MS.
Indicate here, as applicable, the designated central authorities in your country

3.3.2 How?
The procedures for the transmission of the European arrest warrant vary depending on whether
the location of the requested person is known to the issuing judicial authority.
=> There are therefore two possible scenarios:
3.3.2.1 Where the issuing authority knows the location of the requested person
If the issuing authority knows the location of the requested person (Article 9 of the Framework
Decision), it may transmit the European arrest warrant directly to the executing authority, but if
the person is in a Member State that has designated a central authority for receiving European
arrest warrants, it will send it to that authority. If it does not know the authority, it may make
enquiries through the European Judicial Network to identify it (Article 10(1) of the FD). Given the
short time limits for execution, it is advisable that the arrest warrant be translated in advance
into one of the languages accepted by the executing Member State. Once the executing judicial
authority has been identified, the issuing judicial authority may forward the European arrest
warrant by any secure means capable of producing written records under conditions allowing
the executing Member State to establish its authenticity (Article 10(4) of the Framework
Decision)15. There is, however, nothing to prevent the issuing judicial authority from issuing a
SIS alert and initiating an Interpol alert (see below). This may even be preferable, since the
information on the location of the person may be wrong or, even though the person may reside
in the State identified as the executing State, they may be travelling or have fled.
If the judicial authority which receives a European arrest warrant is not competent to act upon it,
it automatically forwards it to the competent authority in its Member State and informs the
issuing authority accordingly (Article 10(6)).
To identify the authority that receives and executes the European arrest warrant in the executing
State, consult the Atlas on the website of the European Judicial Network. This provides the
information requested if you type in data concerning the place to which the EAW will be
transmitted (country, area, region, sub-region, locality and postcode). It may also be useful to
contact the European Judicial Network contact point.
final report on the 4th round of mutual evaluations stresses that many MS nonetheless require the original, and
recommends abandoning this requirement (aforesaid document, recommendation 6 p. 12)
15The
Where the issuing authority does not know the location of the requested person
In this instance, the issuing authority will issue an alert in the SIS, pursuant to Article 95 of the
Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement ( Compendium B.2.1.), and may or
must call on Interpols services16.
SIS alert: the issuing authority must issue an alert in the SIS, pursuant to Article 95 of the
Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement. Under the previous extradition system,
an alert had the same force as a request for provisional arrest (Article 64 of the CISA).
Pursuant to the Framework Decision, an alert in the Schengen Information System is
equivalent to a European arrest warrant accompanied by the information set out in Article
8(1) (Article 9(3) of the Framework Decision). The number of alerts for the purposes of arrest
and surrender is constantly increasing (28,666 in 2009, compared with 24,560 in 2008 and
19,199 in 2007, and in 2009 represented 82.5% of all EAWs issued by the States
participating in the SIS)17.
This use of a SIS alert is, however, on a transitional basis, due to two types of technical
limitations currently facing the SIS:
a) A technical limitation associated with the information and documents transmitted: at
present, the SIS does not allow either the transmission of all the information listed in
Article 8(1) of the Framework Decision or a scanned version of the European arrest
warrant itself. Therefore, as long as this type of limitation exists, the procedure is as
follows:
some of the information required by Article 8(1) will be transmitted through an
alert in accordance with Article 95
the additional information required will be transmitted by the Sirene bureaux via
what are known as A and M forms: these are not entered into the SIS but sent
by the Sirene bureau of the issuing State to the other Sirene bureaux
note that almost all the Member States use English as the working language for
this type of exchange of information so that, in the event of a hit in the SIS (i.e.,
if the person is located in one of the States connected to the SIS), the State in
which the person is located has basic, understandable information that it can use
to place the person in custody pending receipt of the translation
subsequently, the original and if necessary the translation of the European arrest
warrant must be transmitted within a certain period following the arrest, which
A third channel is mentioned by the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, namely the secure
telecommunications system of the European judicial network, but this channel is not yet operational (see Module 4).
16
17 Source: annex to the final report from the Commission on the implementation of the FD, doc. SEC (2011) 430 p. 14.
varies depending on the Member State (see below). There are differences
between the Member States as regards the time limit for transmission following
the arrest of the requested person. Complying with the specified time limit is
imperative, since the person may be released if this has expired.
b) A technical limitation associated with the number of Member States connected: as of
November 2010, 24 Member States of the European Union are connected to the SIS,
that is, all 27 Member States minus the United Kingdom, Ireland and Cyprus. Iceland,
Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (since December 2011) are also connected to
the SIS. However, these four States are not, as such, subject to the system established
by the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002, but to a specific system very similar to that
of the European arrest warrant, and which is applicable between the EU Member States
and some of these Schengen partners (see below). Until such time as the other Member
States are connected, the issuing authority must call upon Interpol.
The SIS II (second generation SIS) is under development. Initially, the objective of
establishing a SIS II was to do away with these two types of limitation: as originally designed,
the SIS II would not only enable all the Member States to be connected but also revamp the
SIS. The intention was to introduce new aims, to expand access to other authorities and to
integrate new information. However, the two aspects have become separated. Because
substantial difficulties and delays were encountered in the revamping of the SIS, the Justice
and Home Affairs Council of 5 December 2006 decided to extend the SIS to 9 of the new
joining Member States (this did not initially include Bulgaria and Romania, and Cyprus has
not joined the project), without awaiting implementation of the SIS II. An interim, provisional
technical solution based on the existing system (known as SISone4all), has therefore been
brought into being and has in theory been operating in most Member States since
September 2007. The SIS II, with new aims and new information, is scheduled to come into
operation in Spring 2013. With this new SIS, it will be possible to transmit all the necessary
information as well as a scanned version of the European arrest warrant itself. This will
therefore be equivalent to transmission of the original and will be immediately available, and
a translation of the European arrest warrant will then simply need to be forwarded.
Furthermore, the SIS II will also contain biometric data. The legal basis for SIS II is Council
Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 200718 (for more information on the SIS, see Module 5).
Recourse to Interpol (Article 10(3) of the Framework Decision): the issuing authority may or
must call on Interpol, of which all the EU Member States are members (cf. the I-24/7
communication system, the diffusion system and the Red Notices system in Module 5). This
system is even more valuable while not all the Member States of the European Union are
connected to the SIS. For the Member States not yet connected to the SIS, note, however,
that an Interpol international alert is equivalent to a request for provisional arrest but not to a
European arrest warrant. After SIS II comes into operation, calling on Interpol will continue to
18 OJ L 205, 7 August 2007, p. 63.
be of value when the issuing State does not know the location of the requested person, since
it can be used to contact third countries that are not EU Member States (see Module 5).
3.3.3 When?
Although the alert has the value of a request for provisional arrest and EAW, where it is
accompanied by the information listed in Article 9(3) of the FD, the latter does not in itself
contain a provision on provisional arrest, and does not fix further time limits for receipt of the
EAW following arrest of the requested person. There are significant differences between MS in
this regard. The follow-up to the final report on mutual evaluations indicates that a time limit of 6
days would be reasonable19.
19 Council doc. 8436/2/10 REV2 of 28.5.2010, p. 3.
Time limits for receipt of the European arrest warrant following an arrest of the requested
person20:
NB: The time limits are stated as calendar days, unless otherwise indicated
Latvia
48 hours
Lithuania
48 hours
Luxembourg
6 working days
Malta
48 hours21
Netherlands
23 days where the arrest
is on the basis of a SIS
alert; in other cases, as
soon as possible.
Poland
48 hours22
Portugal
The time limit is left to the
discretion of the court,
usually 10 days.
Romania
48 hours
Slovakia
18 days for receipt of the
original and the official
translation (release of the
person at the request of
the prosecutor); 40 days
(mandatory release of the
person)
Slovenia
10 days
Sweden
As quickly as possible (a
few days, on decision of
the prosecutor)
Czech Republic
40 days
United Kingdom 48 hours23
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
20
21
22
23
40 days
40 days
10 days
24 hours
3 days (provided the EAW
has been issued prior to
the arrest of the
Denmark
Spain
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
24
25
requested person)
As quickly as possible or,
insofar as possible, within
10 days24
As quickly as possible,
and always within 10 days
3 working days
As quickly as possible or,
on request, within a
deadline set by the
Finnish competent
executing authority
6 working days
15 days, with a possibility
of extending the deadline
to 30 days
40 days
7 days25
10 days
4.
Processing of the European arrest warrant by the executing authority
4.1.
FLAGGING: THE POSSIBILITY OF BLOCKING EXECUTION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST

WARRANT UPON ENTRY OF THE ALERT IN THE SIS
When an alert is entered in the SIS by the issuing State, this alert must also be processed by
the SIS central authority in each of the other States. A check is therefore conducted before
activating the alert in the national territory. This check is currently governed by the provisions of
the Schengen convention regarding extradition, which creates a degree of conflict with the
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.
Under the Schengen convention, an indicator of validity (or, to use EU jargon, a flag) may be
attached to the alert in question, preventing the persons arrest for 24 hours. At the end of this
24 hours, the prohibition of arrest is either confirmed on legal grounds or for special reasons of
expediency or withdrawn. In exceptional cases, this 24-hour time limit may be extended by up
to one week.
This flagging may be perfectly justified: there are instances where it is certain that a person
cannot be surrendered (for example, because he is 14 years old, whereas the age of criminal
responsibility in the executing State is never lower than 16) and an arrest, even for a limited
duration, must consequently be avoided.
The system established by the Schengen convention partially contradicts the Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant, since it could entail that arrest is prevented (which
could de facto equate to non-execution of the European arrest warrant):
by a decision taken by an administrative authority (the SIS central authority), whereas
the Framework Decision states that the decision on execution is taken by a judicial
authority
on legal grounds or for special reasons of expediency, whereas the Framework
Decision provides for closed and narrowly-defined grounds for refusal.
It would, for example, be problematic if an administrative authority in charge of the SIS were to
decide, at its own initiative, to enter a flag based on a double criminality or ne bis in idem
requirement, since these are often complex legal issues that must be examined by a judicial
authority.
The possibility of using flagging is retained in the new rules that will shortly apply to the SIS II,
but will be more strictly defined26. A flag may therefore be added in two instances:
where the European arrest warrant in question has already been the subject of a normal
procedure that has led to a decision of non-execution, and where the judicial authority
that took this decision has requested the addition of a flag (= a posteriori flagging)
where a competent judicial authority (for example a court exercising certain centralised
powers) has asked the SIS central authority to add a flag, either in the specific case
(most probably referred by the SIS central authority) or by means of a general
instruction (for example on the issue of minors) (= a priori flagging), but only if it is
obvious that the execution of the European arrest warrant must be refused.
Given the potential contradictions between the current text of the Schengen convention and the
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, it is clearly preferable for the national
authorities to choose to opt for the solutions contained in the decision on SIS II, even if these
are not yet mandatory.
Note the interesting example of France, where a judge is a permanent presence at the SIS
central authority who ensures that there is judicial supervision of flagging at source.
Flagging should be distinguished from the deletion or correction of an alert under Article 111 of
the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA). In the latter, the request may
be made in any participating State, and the decision then enforced in the other States. The
relationship between the two situations is, however, vague, and the final report on mutual
evaluations states that this point should be examined further27.
4.2.
OBLIGATION TO ARREST AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON CONCERNED
Based on the European arrest warrant or on the SIS alert, the necessary measures must be
taken in the executing Member State to locate and arrange for the arrest of the requested
person.
The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 expressly enshrines two rights in favour of a
requested person who is arrested:
a) when a requested person is arrested, the executing competent judicial authority
shall, in accordance with its national law, inform that person of the European arrest
warrant and of its contents, and also of the possibility of consenting to surrender to
the issuing judicial authority (Article 11(1) of the FD). This information should take
26
27
the form of a letter of rights, for which an indicative model is published in an Annex to
Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 ( Compendium B.6a.1.)28.
A requested person who is arrested also has a right to be assisted by a legal counsel and by an
interpreter (Article 11(2) of the FD). Access to interpretation is governed by the provisions of
Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 in the same way as for any suspect or accused
person in a national procedure ( Compendium B.6a.2.)29. For other cases, arrest and
detention will be governed by the international obligations incumbent on the executing State
including Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and by the domestic law of
the executing State. The executing judicial authority will therefore decide whether the arrested
person should remain in detention in accordance with its national law. Pursuant to that law, the
authority may order the persons provisional release, provided the competent authority of the
said Member State takes all the measures it deems necessary to prevent the person
absconding (Article 12 of the Framework Decision).
The Framework Decision lays down further requirements regarding the rights of the person
concerned:
a) regarding consent to surrender given by the person concerned and, if appropriate,
renunciation of entitlement to the speciality rule (cf. Article 13 of the FD)
b) regarding the hearing of the person concerned: where the arrested person does not
consent to his or her surrender, he or she will be entitled to be heard by the
executing judicial authority, in accordance with the law of the executing Member
State (cf. Article 14 of the FD).
4.3.
SURRENDER DECISION
4.3.1 Time limits for the decision to be taken and situation pending the decision
Since one of the main objectives of the new system is the acceleration of procedures, all
European arrest warrants are to be dealt with and executed as a matter of urgency (Article 17(1)
of the Framework Decision), and time limits for taking the decision on surrender have been laid
down.
There are two separate scenarios:
a) either the person consents to the surrender: in this case, the final decision on
surrender should be taken within a period of 10 days after consent has been given
(Article 17(2) of the Framework Decision) Note that although the consent may not, in
principle, be revoked, some Member States (DK, FIN, SE, BE) have made use of the
possibility of declaring that revocation is possible (Article 13(4) of the FD). In such
cases, the period between consent and revocation shall not be taken into
28
29
consideration in establishing the time limits within which the decision to execute the
EAW must be taken.
b) or the person does not consent to the surrender: in this case, the final decision on
the execution of the European arrest warrant should be taken within 60 days of the
arrest (Article 17(3) of the Framework Decision)
If these deadlines cannot be met, an extension of 30 days is possible, but the executing judicial
authority must immediately inform the issuing judicial authority, giving the reasons for the delay
(Article 17(4) of the Framework Decision).
Where, in exceptional circumstances, a Member State cannot observe the time limits provided
for, it shall inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay (Article 17(7) of the Framework
Decision).
If the person enjoys a privilege or immunity, these time limits shall not start running unless, and
counting from the day when, the executing judicial authority is informed of the fact that the
privilege or immunity has been waived. Where power to waive the privilege or immunity lies with
an authority of the executing Member State, the executing judicial authority shall request to
exercise that power, but it shall be for the issuing judicial authority to request it in all other cases
(Article 20).
Pending its decision, and where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of
conducting a criminal prosecution, the executing judicial authority must either agree that the
requested person should be heard according Article 19 of the Framework Decision or agree to
the temporary transfer of the requested person (Article 18 of the FD). The conditions and the
duration of the temporary transfer shall be determined by mutual agreement between the
issuing and executing judicial authorities.
4.3.2 Cases in which execution may or must be refused

In principle, the European arrest warrant must be executed, but no possibility of refusal is ruled
out. This is, however, strictly regulated. Reasons must be given for any refusal (Article 17(6) of
the Framework Decision). Any non-execution must be based on one of the permitted grounds
for non-execution. Compared with the previous instruments governing extradition, the grounds
for refusal to execute are markedly more restricted:
a) two grounds for refusal have simply been abolished:
one based on the political nature of the offence
one based on the nationality of the person concerned: in doing so, the
Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant takes
account of European citizenship.
Note that the fact that the requested person is a national of the executing State is not
mentioned among the reasons for refusal and cannot be grounds for a decision of
non-execution. Two specific rules are, however, applicable (see below):
for a European arrest warrant for the purposes of conducting a prosecution:
the executing State may require that the requested person serve their
sentence in their territory if the proceedings result in a conviction.
for a European arrest warrant for the purposes of serving a sentence: the
executing State may decide that the sentence in question should be served
in their territory. In this case, the European arrest warrant is executed even if
the person is not actually surrendered to the issuing State.
The fact that the requested person is a national of the executing Member State
sometimes has the effect of modulating certain optional grounds for refusal, such as
the territoriality clause (see below).
b) others have been relaxed: this the case for the double criminality requirement,
which traditionally allows States to refuse to give their support for the suppression of
acts that do not constitute offences in their own law. Verification of this requirement
has in fact been partially abolished (see below).
Among the grounds for non-execution of the European arrest warrant expressly laid down as
such by the Framework Decision, three are mandatory, others are optional.
The three mandatory grounds for non-execution (Article 3 of the FD)
a) Amnesty (Article 3(1) of the FD): if the offence on which the arrest warrant is based
is covered by amnesty in the executing Member State, but only when that State has
jurisdiction under its own criminal law to prosecute the offence in parallel to the
issuing State.
b) Ne bis in idem (Article 3(2) of the FD): if the executing judicial authority is informed
that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of
the same acts provided that, where there has been a sentence, the sentence has
been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the
laws of the sentencing Member State. Unlike the provisions of the previous
instruments governing extradition, this condition is relative, in that it does not
automatically require verification by the executing judicial authority. This change is
due to the dynamics of the new system, under which such verification takes place
principally in the issuing State. Having said this, if the executing judicial authority is
notified of the existence of such a final sentence, (see below the Mantello
judgment of the CJEU), it must draw its own conclusions, i.e. refuse to execute the
warrant (see Module 9 for more information on ne bis in idem in transnational
relations).
c) Criminal responsibility (Article 3(3) of the FD): where the person concerned, due to
his or her age could not yet have been held criminally liable for the acts in respect of
which the decision was passed under the law of the executing State. The rules on
the age of criminal responsibility vary considerably from one Member State to
another.
Optional grounds for non-execution (Article 4 of the FD)
The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 lists 7 instances where the executing judicial
authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant. These seven optional grounds for
non-execution according to the Framework Decision are the following:
a) Absence of double criminality (Article 4(1) combined with Article 2 of the Framework
Decision): if the European arrest warrant is based on acts that are not one of the
offences for which the double criminality test has been abolished, and in these
circumstances the double criminality test has not been met. The possibility of
verifying double criminality is therefore still the rule, but in practice this verification
has been largely abolished. The Framework Decision provides that verification may
take place only in the cases foreseen in paragraph 4 of Art 2 meaning that the
offence is not included in the conditions settled in paragraph 2 of the same article.
The reference to the law of the issuing State, rather than that of the executing State, is
crucial in explaining this limitation of the verification of double criminality. The executing
judicial authority may therefore not verify whether the classification of the offence
corresponds to that of its domestic law (or, by extension, the severity of the penalty). In
other words, the executing authority must confine itself to checking that the issuing
authority has ticked one of the 32 boxes in the list contained in the certificate or warrant
(see below)30.
Moreover, the descriptions used in this list do not correspond to legal classifications. The
wording is generic. These 32 categories of offence should be interpreted flexibly by the
issuing authority when completing the certificate or warrant. It is of course not required
that exactly the same terms (e.g. sabotage) are used in domestic law.
Verification of double criminality is also no longer exercised with regards to attempts at
or complicity in one of the 32 categories of offences, except in Bulgaria, Denmark and
Poland31.
See below for the judgment of the Court of Justice in the Advocaten voor de wereld case
concerning the compatibility of Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision with Article 6(2) of
the EU Treaty.
30
31
b) Ongoing prosecution in the executing State for the same act (Article 4(2) of the FD).
This is normally the case where the person is already being prosecuted for the same
acts when the executing authority receives the EAW, but some implementing laws
have applied this provision differently: for example, in Austria, an EAW issued in
respect of a national for offences committed abroad will be sent to the national
prosecution authorities if the offences are also punishable in Austria in order to
initiate a new procedure in Austria32.
c) Extension of the ne bis in idem principle to decisions adopted in the executing
Member State not to prosecute or to halt proceedings in respect of the same acts,
preventing further proceedings (Article 4(3) of the Framework Decision). This ground
for refusal largely corresponds to the broad interpretation given by the CJEU to
Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement in the Gzutc
and Brgge case (see Module 9). According to this interpretation, it is therefore
logical to consider that this ground for non-execution has become mandatory.
d) Extension of the ne bis in idem principle to third States (Article 4(5) of the FD): if the
executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally
judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there
has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served, or
may no longer be executed under the laws of the sentencing country.
e) Statute of limitations (Article 4(4) of the FD): where the criminal prosecution or
punishment of the requested person is statute-barred according to the law of the
executing Member State, but only when the acts fall within the jurisdiction of that
Member State under its own criminal law.
f) Nationality or residence in the executing State (Article 4(6) of the Framework
Decision): if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of
executing a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is
staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State
undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its
domestic law. For example, if a European arrest warrant is issued in respect of
person X, a national or resident of State A, by a court in State B for the purposes of
execution of a sentence, the judicial authority of State A may refuse to execute the
warrant and to surrender X, but will undertake to execute the sentence in
accordance with its domestic law33.
Several Member States apply these provisions differently, depending on whether the
requested person is or is not a national: the ground for refusal is mandatory in the
32
33
first instance, and optional in the second (for example in AT 34 and in DE35), or simply
not applicable to non-nationals (SE36). This is also reserved solely for nationals in
France.
The Court of Justice has already been called upon on three occasions concerning
matters of interpretation of this provision: in the Szymon Kozlowski case, in the
Wolzenburg case, and in the Lopes da Silva Jorge case (see below section 8).
The surrender of nationals on the basis of an EAW has also been the subject of a
number of judgments from national courts (see below section 7).
Execution should be possible even if the acts that gave rise to the final sentence are
not punishable in the executing MS37. Where the executing Member State
undertakes to execute the sentence instead of surrendering the person who is the
subject of the European arrest warrant (or where execution of the warrant is subject
to returning the person to the executing Member State in order to serve their
sentence there see below), the provisions of Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of
27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to
judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving
deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU (
Compendium B.5.5. see Module 10) applies mutatis mutandis to the extent that
they are compatible with those of the FD on the EAW (Article 25 of FD 2008/909).
However, this instrument allows (Article 7(4)) Member States to declare they will
refuse to execute the sentence where there is no double criminality (PL, IE and AT
have made a declaration to that effect38). The final report notes differences that could
cause difficulties39. It is recommended that any problem encountered in this regard is
reported to the government, which may refer the matter to the Commission, which is
responsible for the report on the transposition of FD 2008/909/JHA.
g) Territoriality clause (Article 4(7) of the FD): where the European arrest warrant
relates to offences that:
Are either (letter a) regarded by the law of the executing State as having been
committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing State or in a place
34
35
36
37
38
39
treated as such. For example, if a murder has been committed by X in the

territory of State A, where the victim is a national (Y) of State B and a judicial
authority of State B issues a European arrest warrant against X, the executing
authority of A may refuse to execute the warrant, since the murder was
committed in its own territory
Or (letter b) have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member
State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow prosecution for
the same offences when committed outside its territory. For example, if a murder
has been committed by X in the territory of State C, where the victim is a national
(Y) of State B and a judicial authority of State B issues a European arrest
warrant against X, the executing authority of State A may refuse to execute the
warrant if its domestic law does not allow prosecution of murders committed
outside its territory.
In a number of Member States, these provisions, particularly those of subparagraph (a),
are applied differently depending on whether the requested person is a national of the
executing Member State (for example, in DE40 and in PL41).
Many national implementing laws have made these grounds for non-execution, or some of
them, mandatory grounds for non-execution. In practice, to determine the precise status of
these grounds for non-execution, the content of the national implementing laws should therefore
be checked.
Where the executing authority has doubts as to the existence of a ground for refusal, it is
advisable to contact the issuing authority direct for any supplementary information (Article 15(2)
of the FD) in order to clarify the situation and adopt a decision in full knowledge of the facts.
Beyond these questions regarding the optional or mandatory status of grounds for nonexecution, we must be aware that many national implementing laws have introduced other
grounds for non-execution not provided for by the framework decision on the European arrest
warrant42. Note, in this regard, the special case of breach of human rights.
Indicate here the specifics of your national implementing law and the relevant case-law
where appropriate
40
41
42
The special case of human rights

Among the grounds for mandatory or optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant, the
Framework Decision makes no explicit mention of either the humanitarian or the nondiscrimination clause, or a general clause to the effect that there should be no surrender if there
are valid grounds for believing that it would breach the persons fundamental rights. However,
the preamble to the Framework Decision does refer to the humanitarian or non-discrimination
clause (see recital 13), and its Article 1(3) states that it shall not have the effect of modifying the
obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article
6 of the Treaty on European Union. National legislators have transposed the Framework
Decision in different ways in this respect:
Some have made no provision at all for a ground for non-execution on the basis of
fundamental rights (such is the case in Luxembourg and Spains legislature)
others have introduced the humanitarian or non-discrimination clause only (e.g.
French legislature), or a general human rights clause only (such as in Belgian law)
others have even inserted both (Greek law, for example) or have expanded on the
grounds for refusal on the basis of fundamental rights (e.g. the United Kingdom and
Italy, which has, inter alia, inserted a ground for refusal on the basis of lack of a
maximum duration for pre-trial detention).
Judicial authorities have also responded differently. Some of them have shown moderation,
while others have been bold and others highly suspicious.
How should you respond? It is best to respond in a balanced fashion, taking account of two
essential concerns simultaneously:
firstly, there can be no question of breaking with the philosophy underpinning the entire
principle and mechanism of mutual recognition, namely mutual confidence and the idea
that verifications should first and foremost be carried out in the issuing State.
Secondly, the executing authorities cannot evade due respect for fundamental rights.
In this delicate exercise, the executing authority will have to ask itself two fundamental
questions in order to navigate the process of mutual recognition:
could the alleged violations of fundamental rights be invoked before the courts of the
issuing State and be duly taken into account by those courts?
is the executing authority sufficiently well placed, particularly in view of the inherent
complexity of all national legal systems, to assess whether there is a possible breach of
a fundamental right in the issuing State43?
the position taken should draw on the case-law of the CJEU concerning asylum
applications44 whereby, if we assume that the treatment of asylum seekers respects
fundamental rights in all MS, this assumption is rebutted is there are substantial grounds
43
44
for believing that there are, in the MS normally competent to consider such requests,
systemic violations of these rights that may result in an inhuman or degrading treatment
within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter.
the Court of Justice is due to give its judgment shortly, as part of a preliminary ruling 45.
4.3.3 Conditional surrender
In three scenarios, the executing judicial authority may make the surrender subject to obtaining
certain guarantees from the issuing authority (Article 5 of the Framework Decision):
Decisions in absentia
Where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of executing a sentence
or a detention order imposed by a decision rendered in absentia, and if the person concerned
has not been summoned in person or otherwise informed of the date and place of the hearing
which led to the decision rendered in absentia, surrender may be subject to the condition that
the issuing judicial authority gives an assurance deemed adequate to guarantee the person that
he or she will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case in the issuing Member State
and to be present at the judgment. For the executing judicial authority, the requirement for such
assurances is theoretically only optional and not mandatory: according to the Framework
Decision, that authority may, but need not necessarily, require them.
Under the new Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 ( Compendium
B.5.8.)46 which should be transposed no later than 28 March 2011 47) a new Article 4a has
been inserted into the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. These new
provisions replace this system of conditional surrender. They allow, subject to certain conditions,
refusal to execute the EAW if the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the
decision. For further information, see Article 2 of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. The
previous system nevertheless remains in force in respect of judgments in absentia handed
down in Italy, which has declared, as authorised by Article 8(3) of FD 2009/299, that it will only
apply it from 1st January 2014 at the latest.
Life sentences and life-time detention orders
If the offence on the basis of which the European arrest warrant has been issued is punishable
by custodial life sentence or life-time detention order, the execution of the said arrest warrant
may be subject to the condition that the issuing Member State has provisions in its legal system
for a review of the penalty or measure imposed, on request or at the latest after 20 years, or for
the application of measures of clemency to which the person is entitled to apply for under the
45
46
47
law or practice of the issuing Member State, aiming at a non-execution of such penalty or
measure. As with the previous scenario, this option is only available to the executing judicial
authority.
Nationality and residence
Where a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes of prosecution
is a national or resident of the executing Member State, surrender may be subject to the
condition that the person, after being heard, is returned to the executing Member State in order
to serve there the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in the issuing
Member State. This is the second qualification made to the abolition of the ground for refusal on
the basis of nationality. For example, if a European arrest warrant is issued in respect of a
person X, a national or resident of State A, by a court in State B for the purposes of prosecution,
the judicial authority of State A may make the surrender of X subject to the return of X, after
being heard, to serve the custodial sentence or detention order passed against him in State B.
See the observations on Article 4(6) of the FD above, and in particular the impact of Framework
Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual
recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures
involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
(Module 10).
See also the judgment of the Court of Justice in the I.B. case concerning combinations of the
conditions laid down in Article 5(1) and (3).
4.3.4 Decision in the event of multiple requests

European arrest warrants issued by two or more Member State (Article 16(1) and (2) of the
Framework Decision)
If two or more Member States have issued European arrest warrants for the same person, the
executing judicial authority shall make their decision with due consideration of:
all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness of the offences and the
place where they were committed
the respective dates of the European arrest warrants
whether the warrant has been issued for the purposes of prosecution or for execution of
a custodial sentence or detention order.
The advice of Eurojust may be sought, but this will not be binding. An annex to Eurojusts 2004
annual report contains guidelines concerning decisions in the event of multiple arrest warrants
for the same person and the same offence or for different offences, for the purposes of
prosecution or execution of a sentence48.
48
Conflict between a European arrest warrant and a request for extradition presented by a third
country (Article 16(3) of the Framework Decision)
The Framework Decision does not expressly state that the European arrest warrant takes
precedence over a request for extradition from a third country. It simply states that the executing
State must choose between the two competing requests with due consideration of all the
circumstances. Nevertheless, since the aim is to establish a European criminal law-enforcement
area between the Member States of the European Union and to create mutual confidence,
except in special cases it would a priori seem logical to give precedence to a request from
another Member State.
4.3.5 Appeals
The Framework Decision itself makes no provision regarding any appeals against a decision
taken by the executing judicial authority concerning surrender. The rules on the matter are
governed by the executing States domestic law. It should be noted, however, that the time limits
set forth in Article 17 (see above) also apply to appeals.
Indicate here the specifics of your national implementing law
4.3.6 Notification of the decision to the issuing authority

The decision on the action to be taken on the European arrest warrant must be notified
immediately to the issuing authority by the executing authority (Article 22 of the Framework
Decision).
It is also important to inform the issuing authority about the progress of the execution process.
In the follow-up to the evaluations report, a form was proposed to this effect and introduced into
the revised version of the handbook49.
49
4.4.
THE SURRENDER ITSELF
4.4.1 Time limits

Principle
The person requested will be surrendered as soon as possible on a date agreed between the
authorities concerned (Article 23(1) of the Framework Decision). He or she shall be surrendered
no later than 10 days after the final decision on the execution of the European arrest warrant. If
the surrender within this time limit is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any of
the Member States, the executing and issuing judicial authorities shall immediately contact each
other and agree on a new surrender date. In that event, the surrender shall take place within 10
days of the new date thus agreed (Article 23(2) and (3) of the FD).
Temporary postponement of the surrender for serious humanitarian reasons
The surrender may exceptionally be temporarily postponed for serious humanitarian reasons,
for example if there are substantial grounds for believing that it would manifestly endanger the
requested person's life or health. However, as soon as these grounds have ceased to exist, the
executing judicial authority shall immediately inform the issuing judicial authority and agree on a
new date for the surrender to take place (Article 23(4) of the FD).
Failure to comply with the above time limits
If the above time limits expire, the person shall be released (Article 23(5) of the FD).
4.4.2 Postponed or conditional surrender
The executing judicial authority may, after deciding to execute the European arrest warrant,
postpone the surrender of the requested person so that he or she may be prosecuted in the
executing Member State or, if he or she has already been sentenced, so that he or she may
serve, in its territory, a sentence passed for an act other than that referred to in the European
arrest warrant (Article 24(1) of the FD).
There is an alternative: instead of postponing the surrender, the executing judicial authority may
temporarily surrender the person to the issuing Member State, under conditions to be
determined by mutual agreement in writing (Article 24(2) of the FD).
5.
Effects of the surrender
5.1. DEDUCTION OF THE PERIOD OF DETENTION SERVED IN THE EXECUTING MEMBER STATE
(ARTICLE 26 OF THE FD)
The issuing Member State shall deduct all periods of detention arising from the execution of a
European arrest warrant from the total period of detention. To that end, all information
concerning the duration of the detention of the requested person on the basis of the European
arrest warrant shall be transmitted by the executing Judicial authority to the issuing judicial
authority.
5.2.
SPECIALITY RULE AND EXCEPTIONS (ARTICLE 27 OF THE FD)
Under the speciality rule, a person surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise
deprived of his or her liberty for an offence committed prior to his or her surrender other than
that for which he or she was surrendered. However, this rule is deprived of much of its
substance, since the Framework Decision makes it conditional on two types of exception:
it does not apply in the seven cases listed in Article 27(3)
it does not apply between the Member States that have notified the General Secretariat
of the Council that consent is presumed to have been given for persons surrendered to
be prosecuted, sentenced or detained for an offence committed before the surrender
and other than that for which he or she was surrendered (only AT and EE have made
such a declaration). Even when such notification has been given, the executing
authorities retain the option, in specific cases, of providing otherwise in the decision to
surrender.
On the interpretation of Article 27 of the FD, see (below) the judgment of the Court of Justice in
the Leymann and Pustovarov case.
Note that the FD does not contain any provision on accessory surrender (the ability to
surrender the person at the same time for acts that fall within the scope of the FD and for
offences that do not fall within this scope, contrary to the Council of Europe extradition
convention (Article 2(2)). The situation varies between Member States 50. In addition, prosecution
for previous acts not covered by the EAW, but which are not punishable by a penalty involving
deprivation of liberty, is authorised under Article 27(3) b), c) and d).
50
Indicate here the specifics of your national implementing law

5.3.
SURRENDER OR SUBSEQUENT EXTRADITION (ARTICLE 28 OF THE FD)
Where a person X has been surrendered by executing State A to issuing State B, the latter may
not then surrender the person to another Member State C or extradite him or her to a third State
for an offence committed prior to the initial surrender, without the executing State A having given
its consent to this surrender or this subsequent extradition. In the case of a subsequent
surrender to another Member State, however, this principle, is deprived of much of its substance
in that:
a) in three scenarios, the subsequent surrender to a Member State may take place
without the consent of the executing State A (paragraph 2).
b) the executing State As option of refusing subsequent surrender to another
Member State is limited and subject to rules: State A must consent to the
surrender when the offence for which surrender is requested entails an obligation
to surrender (paragraph 3).
c) Each Member State may notify the General Secretariat that, in its relations with
other Member States which have given the same notification, it consents to the
subsequent surrender of the person to a Member State other than the executing
Member State for offences committed prior to surrender. None of the Member
States have made use of this option. Even when such notification has been
given, the executing authorities retain the right, in specific cases, of providing
otherwise in the decision to surrender (paragraph 1).
The Court of Justice has stated that where there is more than one successive warrant, the
executing MS that must indicate its consent is the one that made the last surrender: see below
the Melvin West case.
Note that these three relaxations of the rule do not apply in the case of subsequent extradition
to a third State (Article 28(4) of the FD).
6. Relation to other legal instruments and the application of the European arrest
warrant over time
6.1.
RELATION TO OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS (ARTICLE 31 OF THE DC)
From 1 January 2004, the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 replaced the following existing
conventions between the EU Member States51:
a) the 1957 Convention of the Council of Europe and its protocols, as well as the
provisions relating to extradition in the 1977 European Convention on the
suppression of terrorism
b) the Convention of 16 May 1989 between the MS of the EC on the simplification
and modernisation of methods of transmitting extradition requests
c) The EU extradition conventions of 1995 and 1996
d) the provisions (Title III, Chapter 4) of the Convention Implementing the
Schengen Agreement.
However, these texts do not necessarily cease to apply:
a) between Member States: consideration should be taken not only of the rules
governing the application of the Framework Decision over time (see below), but
also of any annulment by specific national constitutional courts of domestic
implementing legislation. In the event of annulment, the resultant legal vacuum
has to be filled, and it is logically the old rules that are then applied (see the case
of Germany below, before the entry into force of the law of 25/7/2006).
b) between Member States and third States: the pre-existing provisions continue to
apply. For instance, the conventions of the Council of Europe continue to apply in
relations between Member States and third States.
the Santesteban Goicoechea case.
Article 31(2) also allows MS to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or
arrangements in force when this Framework Decision is adopted in so far as such agreements
or arrangements allow the objectives of this Framework Decision to be extended or enlarged.
Thus, DK, SE and FIN continue to apply the uniform legislation in force between the Nordic
States between them52.
NOTE: arrangements with the Schengen partners
a. The extradition system, with the improvements already introduced by the Schengen
convention, currently continues to apply with the Schengen associate states, namely
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, since these States are not bound by the Framework
51
52
Decision on the European arrest warrant, which is not a development of the Schengen
acquis.
b. However, solely in the case of relations between the EU Member States and Norway and
Iceland (and therefore not with Switzerland or Liechtenstein), it should be noted that an
agreement was concluded on 28 June 2006 on a surrender procedure ( Compendium
B.8.3). This agreement, which is not yet in force, establishes a procedure that is almost
identical to that of the European arrest warrant: judicialisation, scope of the SIS alert etc.,
albeit with some slight differences, including:
double criminality: verification of double criminality still applies, but each of the
States concerned may declare that, on condition of reciprocity, it will abolish this
verification in the same instances as those provided for the European arrest
warrant.
political offence: the exception for political offences is removed, but this removal
may be limited to specific terrorist offences.
surrender of nationals: the basic rule is identical to that of the European arrest
warrant, but one of the States concerned may declare that it will refuse to
surrender its nationals.
6.2.
APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT OVER TIME (ARTICLE 32 OF THE FD)
Requests for surrender received before 1 January 2004 are still governed by the previous
instruments. This will apply only as long as the extradition procedure is in force. This procedure
may result in a refusal to extradite. Although the matter is not regulated in the Framework
Decision, it appears that in this instance it is possible to issue a European arrest warrant, the
execution of which will then be subject to the new system created by the Framework Decision.
Accordingly, if the refusal to extradite is based, for example, on the fact that the person in
question is a national of the requested Member State, issuing a European arrest warrant will
make it possible to overcome this obstacle, since this ground for refusal is not provided for in
the Framework Decision.
In principle, the European arrest warrant procedure is applicable to surrender requests received
after 1 January 2004. This date is effectively applicable in the Member States which had
transposed the Framework Decision into their law by that date. It is a later date in the other
Member States (see the table below). In addition, the Framework Decision provides that at the
time of adopting the Framework Decision, Member States may make a declaration indicating
that they will continue to apply the previous extradition system to acts committed before a date
which they specify, provided that the date in question is not later than 7 August 2002. Six
Member States have made use of this option, but not always in the manner provided for in the
Framework Decision:
a) The French implementing law provided that the new system would apply to
surrender requests received from 10 March 2004, but that the previous extradition
system would continue to apply to requests based on acts committed before 1
November 1993.
b) Italy and Austria declared that they will continue to deal with requests for surrender
for acts committed before the entry into force of the FD (7/8/2002) in accordance
with the previous extradition system. In addition, Italy continues to verify double
criminality for acts committed prior to the Italian implementing law (i.e. committed
before 14/5/2005).
c) Luxembourgs implementing law states that the European arrest warrant will only
apply to acts committed after 7 August 2002, irrespective of whether LUX was the
issuing or executing Member State, although it had not made the necessary
declaration to this effect at the time of adoption of the Framework Decision. The
legislation was amended in August 2011 to bring it into conformity with the FD.
d) The Czech Republic declared that it would continue to apply the previous extradition
system to requests concerning Czech nationals based on acts committed before 1
November 2004, in other words by a date later than 7 August 2002, without making a
distinction as to the issuing or executing Member State. This declaration was also
untimely, since this country is one of the new Member States which clearly could not
have been associated with the adoption of the Framework Decision.
e) Slovenia also declared that its implementing law is applicable only to offences
committed after 7 August 2002, but withdrew its declaration in October 2008.
Germany
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Denmark
Spain
Estonia
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Application of the law on the

European arrest warrant with
effect from:
23/08/2004
01/05/2004
Reservation concerning its

scope over time:
--Applies to acts committed

after 07/08/2002
01/01/2004
--01/01/2007
--01/05/2004
--01/01/2004
--01/01/2004
--07/01/2004
--01/01/2004
--12 (Paris) 13/03/2004
Applies to acts committed
after 01/11/1993
09/07/2004
--01/05/2004
--01/01/2004
--14/05/2005
Applies to acts committed
after 07/08/2002
30/06/2004
21/10/2004 --(surrender of nationals)

01/05/2004
--26/03/2004
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Sweden
Czech Republic
07/06/2004
12/05/2004
01/05/2004
01/01/2004
01/01/2007
01/08/2004
01/05/2004
01/01/2004
14/01/2005
United Kingdom
01/01/2004
(tab3_mod8_V30)
--------------Applies to acts committed by

Czech
nationals
after
01/11/2004
---
the Santesteban Goicoechea case.
7.
Transposition and practical implementation
The measures transposing the Framework Decision were to be adopted by the Fifteen by no
later than 1 January 2004 and by the 10 new Member States by no later than 1 May 2004. Of
the 15, only 8 were ready in time: Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland, Spain, Sweden, Portugal
and the United Kingdom. To date, the text has been transposed in all the Member States
including the two new members, Romania and Bulgaria, from 1 January 2007. However, as
evidenced by the first report from the European Commission on evaluations issued in February
2005, many Member States transposed it late, and many also did so inconsistently (e.g. Italy,
which increased the number of grounds for refusal).
In some cases, the application of the European arrest warrant generated significant difficulties,
but practitioners generally agree that overall it has been a great success and has markedly
improved cooperation in comparison to the previous extradition procedure.
Although the figures should be treated with caution, particularly because not all the States have
reliable statistics in this area, the data in the table below confirm this overall positive trend. The
number of EAWs issued has more than doubled in 5 years, while the number of EAWs executed
over the same period has multiplied by five.
Statistics on the application of the European arrest warrant
(2005-2009)53:
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Number of
EAWs issued
6894
6889
10883
14196
15827
Number of
persons
surrendered
836
1223
2221
2919
4431
In 2009, surrender decisions with the consent of the person concerned were taken within an
average of 16 days and those without consent within an average of 48.6 days. Over 50% of
surrenders took place with the consent of the person concerned54.
However, constitutional problems have arisen in some of the Member States, primarily with
regard to the surrender of nationals. In some instances, these led to the total or partial
53
54
annulment of the implementing law, and sometimes to a constitutional amendment (PL, RO,
CY)55. There are three important examples of this below:
7.1.
GERMANY
In a decision of 18 July 2005, the German Federal Constitutional Court

(Bundesverfassungsgericht)56 annulled the entire German implementing law on grounds of
inconsistency with the Constitution. This decision was handed down following the European
arrest warrant issued by the Spanish investigating judge Baltasar Garzon against Mamoun
Darkanzali. This businessman, regarded as a close associate of the Saudi national Osama Bin
Laden, has dual nationality Syrian and German and is suspected of complicity in terrorist
activities as well as membership of Al Qaeda. The subject had brought an appeal before the
Constitutional Court against a decision of the Oberlandesgericht and the judicial authority to
surrender him to the Spanish authorities. The Constitutional Court upheld the appeal, ruling that
the implementing law infringed Articles 16(2) and 19(4) of the German Constitution. Until such
time as a new implementing law was adopted, in principle Germany relied on the previous
extradition system. A new implementing law has since been adopted, and has been in force
since 2 August 2006. However, for nationals and persons treated as such, this introduces a
proportionality test concerning appeals against the European arrest warrant, therefore still
applying differentiated treatment for nationals, contrary to the Framework Decision.
7.2.
POLAND
Article 55(1) of the Polish Constitution prohibits the extradition of its nationals. When
transposing the Framework Decision, the Polish legislator did not concern itself with this
provision. It considered that surrender in the context of a European arrest warrant is a separate
concept to that of extradition and is therefore not covered by Article 55(1). Article 607t(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the surrender of a Polish national on the basis of a
European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of prosecution. Following a Dutch European
arrest warrant issued against a Polish national (Maria D.), Gdansk regional court nevertheless
decided to refer the matter to the Polish Constitutional Court. Unlike the legislator, the
Constitutional Court held that the procedure on the basis of the European arrest warrant
complies with the definition of extradition within the meaning of Article 55(1) of the Constitution.
According to the court, surrender is in essence no different to extradition. Both cases entail
handing over a person who is sought for prosecution or sentencing to a foreign State so that it
can undertake a prosecution or in order to impose a sentence. The court therefore held that
surrender is a form of extradition within the meaning of Article 55(1) of the Polish constitution,
and thus concluded that Article 607t(1) is unconstitutional 57. It merely annulled the disputed
provision, rather than the implementing law as a whole. It also delayed the effect of the
annulment by 18 months, until 6 November 2006. Article 55 of the Polish constitution was
55
56
57
amended in due course and since 7 November 2006 Poland has been surrendering its
nationals, albeit maintaining some restrictions (the alleged acts must have been committed
outside Polish territory, and the surrender is subject to the double criminality requirement).
Therefore, whether it is consistent with the Framework Decision is still open to question.
7.3.
CYPRUS
The constitution of Cyprus prohibits the extradition of its nationals. The surrender of a Cypriot
national to the British judicial authorities had been refused on the basis of the unconstitutionality
of the national law transposing the Framework Decision. In support of an appeal against this
refusal, the public prosecutors office argued, inter alia, that the surrender procedure was not
equivalent to an extradition, and that it could not therefore be considered to fall within the scope
the constitutional prohibition. This argument was not accepted by the Supreme Court of Cyprus
in its judgment of 7 November 200558. Conservatively, it circumvented the issue: it argued that
the reasons justifying the arrest of persons are exhaustively enumerated by the Constitution and
that, whatever the nature of the surrender, the arrest of a Cypriot for the purposes of his or her
surrender to the judicial authorities of another Member State on the basis of a European arrest
warrant is not included in that list of reasons. It concluded that it cannot interpret domestic law in
conformity with the Framework Decision concerned, since this could not be considered superior
to the national constitution.
A revised version of the Cypriot Constitution entered into force on 28 July 2006. However, the
surrender of its nationals is possible only for acts committed after the date of Cypruss
accession to the European Union (1 May 2004), thus maintaining a distinction between the
treatment of its nationals and that of other citizens of the EU.
58
8.
The case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European
arrest warrant
To date, the European arrest warrant has been the subject of seven decisions of the Court of
Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. Of the seven references for preliminary rulings,
only one concerns the validity of the Framework Decision (the Advocaten voor de wereld case),
while the other three relate to its interpretation. These judgments are briefly discussed below.
8.1.
ADVOCATEN VOOR DE WERELD CASE 59
8.1.1 Legal background

An action was brought before the Belgian Constitutional Court seeking the annulment of the
Belgian law transposing the European arrest warrant. There were various grounds for this
appeal, brought by the non-profit association Advocaten voor de wereld, including the use of a
Framework Decision and the principle of the legality. In its judgment of 13 July 2005 60, the
Constitutional Court held that some of the grounds put forward related to the validity of the
Framework Decision itself. It therefore decided to refer two questions to the Court of Justice for
a preliminary ruling: one was the question of whether the Framework Decision on the European
arrest warrant is compatible with Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, under which
Framework Decisions may be adopted only for the purpose of approximation of the laws and
regulations of the Member States; and the other was whether Article 2(2) of the Framework
Decision, in so far as it sets aside verification of the requirement of double criminality for the
offences listed therein, is compatible with Article 6(2) of the EU Treaty and, more specifically,
with the principle of legality in criminal proceedings and with the principle of equality and nondiscrimination guaranteed by that provision.
8.1.2 Judgment of the Court of Justice

These two questions were resolved by Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in his opinion of
12 September 2006, and subsequently, succinctly, by the Court of Justice itself which, in its
judgment of 3 May 2007, upheld the validity of the Framework Decision.
59
60
Regarding the question of the compatibility of the Framework Decision with Article 34(2)(b), the
Court stated that the mutual recognition of the arrest warrants issued in the different Member
States in accordance with the law of the issuing State concerned requires the approximation of
the laws and regulations of the Member States with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal
matters and, more specifically, of the rules relating to the conditions, procedures and effects of
surrender as between national authorities 61. It went on to state that there is nothing to justify the
conclusion that the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States through the
adoption of framework decisions is directed only at the Member States rules of criminal law, that
is to say, those rules which relate to the constituent elements of criminal offences and the
penalties applicable. It therefore considered that Article 34(2) EU cannot be construed as
meaning that the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States by the
adoption of a framework decision cannot relate to areas other than those mentioned in Article
31(1)(e) EU and, in particular, the matter of the European arrest warrant. Regarding the
question of whether the Council should have relied on a convention (pursuant to the principle of
congruent forms), or on a Framework Decision, the Court declared that while it is true that the
European arrest warrant could equally have been the subject of a convention, it is within the
Councils discretion to give preference to the legal instrument of the framework decision in the
case where, as here, the conditions governing the adoption of such a measure are satisfied62.
Regarding the second question on the compatibility of Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision to
the extent that it dispenses with verification of double criminality for the categories of offences
mentioned therein with Article 6(2) EU, the Court first examined its conformity with the principle
of the legality of criminal offences and penalties. Having briefly stated the content of this
principle, the Court pointed out that the Framework Decision does not seek to harmonise the
criminal offences in question in respect of their constituent elements or of the penalties which
they attract. While Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision dispenses with verification of double
criminality for the categories of offences mentioned therein, the definition of those offences and
of the penalties applicable continues to constitute matters determined by the law of the issuing
Member State. It follows, therefore, that the aforesaid Article does not infringe the principle of
the legality of criminal offences and penalties.63
The Court of Justice then examined the compatibility of Article 2(2) with the principle of equality
and non-discrimination. It stated, with regard to the choice of the thirty-two categories of
offences listed, that the Council was able to form the view, on the basis of the principle of
mutual recognition and in the light of the high degree of trust and solidarity between the Member
States, that, whether by reason of their inherent nature or by reason of the punishment incurred
[...], the categories of offences in question feature among those the seriousness of which in
terms of adversely affecting public order and public safety justifies dispensing with the
61
62
63
verification of double criminality64. Consequently, according to the Court, even if one were to
assume that the situation of persons suspected of having committed offences featuring on the
list set out in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision or convicted of having committed such
offences is comparable to the situation of persons suspected of having committed, or convicted
of having committed, offences other than those listed in that provision, the distinction is, in any
event, objectively justified65. Furthermore, with regard to the fact that the lack of precision in the
definition of the categories of offences in question risks giving rise to disparate implementation
of the Framework Decision within the various national legal orders, the Court merely pointed out
that it is not the objective of the Framework Decision to harmonise the substantive criminal law
of the Member States and that nothing in the 3rd pillar of the EU Treaty makes the application of
the European arrest warrant conditional on harmonisation of the criminal laws of the Member
States within the area of the offences in question 66. Consequently, Article 2(2) does not breach
the principle of equality67.
8.2.
SZYMON KOZLOWSKI CASE 68

In this case, two questions were referred to the Court of Justice by the
Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Stuttgart in proceedings concerning the execution of a European
arrest warrant. The EAW had been issued on 18 April 2007 by the Polish regional court of
Bydgoszcz for the execution of a 5-month prison sentence handed down on 28 May 2002 by the
local court of Tuchola against a person named Kozlowski, a Polish national in custody in
Germany for the execution of a three-year prison sentence. The grounds for non-execution that
the German judicial authority could have invoked included the possibility provided for in Article
4(6) of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, whereby the executing judicial
authority may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant if it has been issued for the purposes
of executing a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in,
or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to
execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law.
Both questions referred for a preliminary ruling related specifically to Article 4(6) of the
Framework Decision. The aim of the first was to clarify the terms staying and resident in the
executing State; the aim of the second was to determine whether a transposition of Article 4(6)
as had taken place in Germany in such a way that the surrender of a national of the executing
64
65
66
67
68
Member State against his or her will for the purposes executing a sentence is always
impermissible, whereas extradition of the nationals (on the basis of a European arrest warrant)
of other Member States against their will can be authorised at the discretion of the authorities, is
compatible with Union law, in particular with the principle of non-discrimination and Union
citizenship.
In its judgment of 17 July 2008, the Court of Justice answered only the first question Having
stated that the definition of the terms staying and resident cannot be left to the assessment of
each Member State but must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation 69, the Court
explained the procedure to be followed in applying Article 4(6). It distinguished between two
steps: the executing judicial authority must initially ascertain whether the person concerned is a
national or a resident of the executing Member State, or is staying there, within the meaning of
the aforesaid Article. Second, if the executing judicial authority finds that that one of the above
terms applies to the person in question, since that ground for refusal is in theory optional, it must
assess whether there is a legitimate interest that would justify execution of the sentence
imposed in the territory of the executing Member State. With regards to the first step, the Court
explained that a person resides in the executing Member State when he or she has established
his or her actual place of residence there, and that he or she stays there when he or she has
acquired, following a stable period of presence in that State, certain connections with that State
which are of a similar degree to those resulting from residence 70. Since Szymon Kozlowski was
not resident in Germany, it need only be established whether he was staying there. In order to
determine this, according to the Court, it is necessary to make an overall assessment of various
objective factors characterising the situation of the requested person, which include, in
particular, the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family and economic
connections which he has with the executing Member State71. According to the Court, in the light
of various factors referred to by the national court as characterising the situation of Mr
Kozlowski, in particular the length and conditions of his stay, the absence of family ties and his
very weak economic connections with Germany, he cannot be regarded as covered by the term
staying within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision72.
69
70
71
72
8.3.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA CASE 73

This reference for a preliminary ruling brought by the Chambre de linstruction (indictment
division) of Montpellier Court of Appeal in the Santesteban Goicoechea case, concerning the
interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.
In the case in question, Montpellier Court of Appeal was considering a request for extradition
from the Spanish authorities regarding a person named Santesteban Goicoechea, a Spanish
national, who was serving a prison sentence in France for membership of a criminal
organisation. This request was based on the 1996 extradition convention, since it related to acts
committed in February and March 1992; the European arrest warrant could not therefore be
applied in this instance given that, according to its declaration made pursuant to Article 32 of the
Framework Decision, France indicated that it would continue to deal with requests relating to
acts committed before 1st November 1993 in accordance with the extradition system applicable
before 1st January 2004.
Montpellier Court of Appeal referred two questions to the Court of Justice.
Since Spain, unlike France, had not made a declaration indicating that it would continue to apply
the conventions applicable before the European arrest warrant came into force, the first
question sought to determine whether the failure of a Member State to notify its intention to
continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements precludes that Member State from using,
with another Member State (in this case France) which has made a declaration under Article 32
of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant, in this
instance the 1996 Convention.
Furthermore, since the 1996 Convention had not come into force in France until 1 st July 2005,
the second question referred by Montpellier Court of Appeal was whether that convention could
apply to acts committed in 1992 even though it had only come into force in the executing State
after 1st January 2004, the date on which the Framework Decision on the European arrest
warrant came into effect pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision.
With regard to the first question, according to the Court of Justice the 1996 Convention is not
among the bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements mentioned in Article 31(2) of the
Framework Decision for which notification could be possible74. The lack of notification by Spain
therefore has no effect on the continuance of the conventions concluded before the European
73
74
arrest warrant came into force or on the possibility of this Member State making use of them in
its relations with other Member States. Moreover, as stated in Article 31(1), the fact that the
European arrest warrant in principle replaces the earlier conventions does not entail the
abolition of those conventions. These conventions continue to apply where a Member State,
such as France, has restricted the temporal scope of the European arrest warrant, and in other
situations where the European arrest warrant system would not be applicable 75. The CJEU
concluded that Articles 31 and 32 of the Framework Decision refer to distinct situations which
are mutually exclusive. While Article 31 deals with the consequences of the application of the
European arrest warrant system for international conventions in the field of extradition, Article 32
envisages a situation in which that system does not apply. Consequently, Article 31 of the
Framework Decision must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European
arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates
to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to
Article 32 of the Framework Decision76.
With regard to the second question, concerning the effect of pre-existing instruments, the
objective of enhancing judicial cooperation and the need to avoid a legal vacuum, the Court
concluded that, where the European arrest warrant system is not applicable, Article 32 of the
Framework Decision does not oppose application by an executing Member State of an
extradition convention such as the 1996 Convention, even if this only became applicable after
1st January 200477.
8.4.
LEYMANN AND PUSTOVAROV CASE 78

A request for a preliminary ruling was also referred to the Court of Justice by the Korkein oikeus
(Finnish Supreme Court) as part of criminal proceedings instituted in Finland against Leymann
and Pustovarov, charged with a serious drugs-related offence and surrendered to the Finnish
authorities by the Polish and Spanish authorities respectively. This was in execution of
European arrest warrants issued for, inter alia, having smuggled into Finland, with the aid of
accomplices, a large quantity of amphetamines with the intention of reselling them. Having been
prosecuted and convicted for smuggling a large quantity of hashish, rather than amphetamines,
with a view to its resale, the two persons filed an appeal against their conviction at the first
instance court and subsequently an appeal to the Finnish Supreme Court against the decision
upholding their conviction. The Supreme Court referred three questions to the Court of Justice
75
76
77
78
concerning the interpretation of Article 27(2) to (4) of the Framework Decision on the European
arrest warrant, in its provisions relating to the principle of speciality.
In its judgment of 1st December 2008, the Court began by examining the first question in order
to identify the relevant criteria for determining whether the surrendered person is being
prosecuted for an offence other than that for which the person was surrendered within the
meaning of Article 27(2) of the Framework Decision, requiring implementation of the consent
procedure referred to in Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4). On the basis of the Framework Decisions
aims of speeding up and simplifying judicial cooperation between the Member States, the Court
answered this first question by advocating a degree of flexibility. Accordingly, it held that the
description of the offence in the European arrest warrant must be compared with that in the later
procedural document, and that it must be ascertained whether the constituent elements of the
offence, according to the legal description given by the issuing State, are those for which the
person was surrendered and whether there is sufficient correspondence between the
information given in the arrest warrant and that contained in the later procedural document.
Modifications concerning the time or place of the offence are allowed, in so far as they derive
from evidence gathered in the course of the proceedings conducted in the issuing State
concerning the conduct described in the arrest warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence
and do not lead to grounds for non-execution under Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework
Decision79.
The Court of Justice then turned its attention to the second question, namely whether a
modification of the description of the offence, concerning only the kind of narcotics in question
and not changing the legal classification of the offence, is such as to define an offence other
than that for which the person was surrendered within the meaning of Article 27(2) of the
Framework Decision, and makes it necessary to have recourse to the consent procedure
referred to in Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4). The Court dealt with this question swiftly, holding that, in
circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a modification of the description of the
offence concerning the kind of narcotics concerned is not such, of itself, as to define an offence
other than that for which the person was surrendered. However, the offence concerned is still
punishable by imprisonment for a maximum period of at least three years and comes under the
rubric illegal trafficking in narcotic drugs in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision80.
Finally, even though it does not arise unless an offence other than the one for which a person
has been surrendered has been referred to the competent judicial authorities, the third question
was examined by the Court of Justice. This question seeks to determine how the exception to
the specialty rule in Article 27(3)(c) of the Framework Decision should be interpreted, taking into
account the consent procedure laid down in Article 27(4) of the Framework Decision. In
79
80
particular, it asks whether those provisions permit a person to be prosecuted and sentenced for
an offence other than that for which he was surrendered, requiring the consent of the executing
Member State, before that consent has been received, in so far as his liberty is not restricted. It
also asks whether the fact that the person concerned is, in addition, detained on the basis of
other charges providing a lawful basis for his detention affects the possibility of prosecuting and
sentencing him for that other offence. Under consideration, the Court answered that the
exception provided for in Article 27(3)(c) of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as
meaning that, where there is an offence other than that for which the person was surrendered,
consent must be requested, in accordance with Article 27(4) of the Framework Decision, and
obtained if a penalty or a measure involving the deprivation of liberty is to be executed. The
person surrendered can be prosecuted and sentenced for such an offence before that consent
has been obtained, provided that no measure restricting liberty is applied during the prosecution
or when judgment is given for that offence. The exception in Article 27(3)(c) does not, however,
preclude a measure restricting liberty from being imposed on the person surrendered before
consent has been obtained, where that restriction is lawful on the basis of other charges which
appear in the European arrest warrant81.
8.5 WOLZENBURG CASE82
8.5.1. Legal background

The reference for preliminary ruling was made by the International Rechtshulpkamer of the
Rechtbank Amsterdam (Chamber for International Cooperation in legal matters of the
Amsterdam District Court) concerning a European arrest warrant issued by Germany for several
offences, including importing marijuana, against a German national who had lived and worked in
the Netherlands for one year, but who did not hold a residence permit of indefinite duration. The
referring court submitted several questions, including whether it could be considered that a
person stayed or resided in the executing Member State as soon as they lawfully remained
there on the basis of Article 18 EC. If this was not the case, the Amsterdam court asked whether
they needed to remain there for a duration determined by the executing Member State, and if
yes, under what conditions and what supplementary administrative requirements may be
imposed to lay down this duration. Pursuant to Directive 2004/38, nationals of other Member
States may obtain a residence permit of indefinite duration from the Dutch administrative
authorities if they reside in the Netherlands for an uninterrupted period of 5 years. Finally, the
referring court asked whether the principle of non-discrimination conflicts with national
legislation, whereby the requirement that the surrender of a national must be refused where
surrender is sought for the purposes of executing a sentence is extended only to nationals of
other Member States who hold a residence permit of indefinite duration.
81
82
8.5.2. Judgment of the Court of Justice

The Court firstly stated that the principle of non-discrimination contained in Article 12 EC also
applies in matters relating to the TEU83. It then stated that the issuance of a document certifying
permanent residence for European Union citizens who have legally resided in the territory of
another Member State for a continuous period of five years is not a mandatory formality. Such a
document has only declaratory and probative force; it does not give rise to any right 84. The Court
then examined the question of discrimination, and its reasoning, based on the objective of
optimal reintegration into society led it to conclude that the principle of non-discrimination does
not preclude the legislation of the executing Member State, under which the competent judicial
authority of that State is to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued against one of its
nationals with a view to the enforcement of a custodial sentence, whilst such a refusal is, in the
case of a national of another Member State having a right of residence on the basis of Article
18(1) EC, subject to the condition that that person has lawfully resided for a continuous period
of five years in that Member State of execution85.
1 I.B. CASE86

In a judgment of 16 June 2000, Bucharest Court sentenced I.B. to a 4-month prison sentence
for trafficking in nuclear and radioactive materials, a judgment that was upheld by the Court of
Appeal on 3 April 2001. These two courts authorised I.B. to serve his sentence at his place of
work, rather than in custody. On 15 January 2002 the Supreme Court, ruling in absentia and
without I.B. having been informed of the date and place of the hearing, quashed the earlier
decisions and ordered that the sentence be served in custody. In February 2002, I.B. went to
Belgium, where his family joined him in October of the same year. On the basis of an alert in the
Schengen Information System (SIS), I.B. was arrested in Belgium on 11 December 2007 and
Bucharest Court immediately issued a European arrest warrant. On 19 December 2007, I.B.
lodged an application for the grant of refugee status in Belgium (an application that was still
pending at the time of the CJEUs judgment). Nivelles Court of First Instance ruled that the
European arrest warrant fulfilled all the conditions and was enforceable. It held that I.B. could
not serve his sentence in Belgium, since this option was only available in respect of convictions
with res judicata force, which was not the case. I.B. therefore had the right to request a retrial.
83
84
85
86
Furthermore, the provision of Belgian law whereby surrender for the purposes of prosecution
can be subject to the condition that person be returned to Belgium after being heard was not
applicable either, because Article 7 of the Belgian law provides that an arrest warrant based on
a judgment rendered in absentia is considered as having been issued for the purposes of
executing a sentence. The Court consequently referred to the Constitutional Court the question
of whether these provisions were compatible with constitutional provisions relating to the
principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination. The Court, holding that the Belgian law
merely sought to implement the FD on the European arrest warrant, decided to ask the CJEU
the question of whether a European arrest warrant based on a judgment in absentia imposed
under these conditions should not be considered a warrant issued for the purposes of executing
a sentence within the meaning of Article 4(6) of the FD, but an arrest warrant for the purposes of
prosecution within the meaning of Article 5(3). If this was not the case, the Court asked whether
these provisions should be interpreted as not permitting the surrender to be subject to the
persons return to Belgium in such circumstances and, conversely, whether they contravened
the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 6(2) TEU. Finally, if the answer to the 1 st
question was negative, the Court asked whether the provisions of the FD enumerating the
grounds for refusal prevented the warrant from being executed if there were valid grounds for
believing that its execution would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the
person concerned, as enshrined by Article 6(2) TEU.
The Court noted, firstly, that the application for refugee status could have no bearing on the
answers to the questions referred by the referring court 87. Later, recalling that the aim of Articles
4(6) and 5(3) of the FD is to place particular importance on the possibility of increasing the
chances of the requested persons social reintegration, it deemed that there is nothing to
indicate that the European Union legislator wished to exclude requested persons from that aim
on the basis of a sentence rendered in absentia. It instead concluded that the situation of a
person who has been sentenced in absentia and to whom it is still open to apply for a retrial is
comparable to that of a person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant for the purposes
of prosecution, and that there is no objective reason preventing an executing judicial authority
which has applied Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584 from applying the condition
contained in Article 5(3) of that Framework Decision. Such an interpretation is also the only one
that, currently, offers a real possibility of reintegrating into society 88. This conclusion meant that
the court did not answer the last two questions submitted by the referring court.
2 MANTELLO CASE89
87
88
89

The reference was made by the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (higher regional court) (Germany),
in proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued by the Tribunale
di Catania against G. Mantello, an Italian citizen resident in Germany for the purposes of
prosecution for participation in a criminal organisation active in cocaine trafficking between
January 2004 and November 2005 (punishable by 20 years imprisonment under Italian law)
and for selling cocaine to third parties (punishable by 8-20 years imprisonment), with the
aggravating circumstance that the drug was supplied to a minor. It emerged, however, that on
30 November 2005, Mantello had already been convicted for importation and possession of
drugs with a view to resale on 13 September 2005, a sentence upheld by the Corte dAppello di
Catania (court of appeal) in April 2006. The sentence was later reduced and then served. The
Oberlandsgericht Stuttgart therefore asked the Tribunale di Catania whether the judgment of
2005 prevented further prosecution. In April 2009, the latter finally answered that this was not
the case. Considering that, at the time, the prosecuting Italian authorities already had sufficient
evidence to prosecute Mantello for participation in a criminal organisation, the
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart asked the Court of Justice whether the concept of same acts
should be defined according to the law of the issuing Member State or that of the executing
Member State, or according to an autonomous interpretation based on the law of the European
Union. In particular, it asked, in a situation where, at the time of the conviction for unlawful
importation of narcotics, the investigating authorities had information and evidence which
supported a strong suspicion of participation in such an organisation, but for tactical reasons
relating to their investigation did not submit the relevant information and evidence to the court
and to institute criminal proceedings on that basis, whether this unlawful importation did not
constitute the same act, within the meaning of Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, as
participation in an organisation whose purpose is drugs trafficking.
The Court declared that the concept of same acts cannot be left to the discretion of the judicial
authorities of each Member State90, and added since that Article 54 of the Convention
Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and Article 3(2) shared the same objective, an
interpretation of that concept given in the context of the CISA is equally valid with regards to the
European arrest warrant91. The Court considered, however, that rather than questioning
whether or not the acts that resulted in the previous conviction are the same acts as those for
which the European arrest warrant was issued against Mantello, the referring court sought to
establish whether the previous judgment has res judicata force in respect of the acts alleged in
the new proceedings, given that the authorities responsible for the investigation held certain
information but, for tactical reasons, did not submit this to the Tribunale di Catania. However, the
final nature of a judgment for the purposes of Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision is
90
91
determined by the law of the Member State where this judgment was delivered 92. Therefore,
since the Oberlandsgericht requested information from the issuing authority regarding the final
nature of the November 2005 decision in respect of the alleged acts in the new proceedings,
and received a negative response, it must draw the appropriate conclusions from the
assessments made by the issuing judicial authority in its response93.
8.5.
8.5.1
MELVIN WEST CASE94
Legal background
The application was made by the Korkein oikeus in a case involving three successive arrest
warrants. The requested person had initially been surrendered by the British authorities to
Hungary, where Mr West was sentenced for theft and destruction of ancient works of great
value. The UK granted its consent, pursuant to Article 28(3) of the FD on the EAW, to Mr Wests
surrender from Hungary to Finland, where he had been convicted of similar offences. The
Finnish authorities then wished to execute an EAW issued by FR, where he had been convicted
of acts of theft at the French national library. HU gave its consent, but the UK was silent. The
Korkein oikeus questioned the objective pursued by this provision of Article 28(3) and the issue
of whether the UK retained its right to consent even after Mr West was surrendered by HU to
FIN.
8.8.2. Judgment of the Court of Justice
The Court considered it appropriate to consider the wording of the provision and the objective
pursued by the DC. With regards to that wording, it observed that the term executing Member
State is used repeatedly in Article 28 and that its meaning is the same every time: it is the
Member State which executed the European arrest warrant on the basis of which the person
concerned was surrendered to that issuing Member State and which confers on the latter the
power to surrender that person, as executing Member State, to another Member State 95. As to
the objective pursued, it is to facilitate and accelerate judicial cooperation. Requiring consent
from both the first and the second executing MS could complicate the execution of an EAW, for
example, by generating multiple requests for supplementary information, or may increase the
possibility of divergent decisions96. Only requiring the consent of the first executing MS would
92
93
94
95
96
achieve the objective of simplicity, but this MS could in any case refuse execution of the first
EAW or the first subsequent surrender, for example to invoke Articles 4(6), and 5(3) of the FD
for the benefit of a person who is a national or resident of that State 97. Furthermore, a direct and
immediate relationship between the second and third executing MS is (more) likely to facilitate
judicial cooperation between those two MS 98. The Court concluded that Article 28(2) of the
Framework Decision must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person has been subject to
more than one surrender between Member States pursuant to successive European arrest
warrants, the subsequent surrender of that person to a Member State other than the Member
State having last surrendered him is subject to the consent only of the Member State which
carried out that last surrender99.
8.6.
LOPES DA SILVA CASE100

The question for preliminary ruling was referred by Amiens Court of Appeal, which had to rule on
the execution of an EAW issued by the court of Lisbon against a Portuguese national residing in
France, where he had got married, for the purposes of serving a 5-year prison sentence for
drugs trafficking. The French implementing law provides that the execution of an EAW may be
refused if the person is of French nationality and the French authorities undertake to execute
the sentence themselves. Mr Lopes Da Silva argued that his surrender to the Portuguese
authorities would disproportionately infringe his right to respect for private life, and that the
provision in question, insofar this right to refuse surrender is available only to French nationals,
was an incorrect implementation of the FD and, additionally, discriminatory contrary to Article 18
TFEU. For its part, FR argued that the grounds provided for in Article 4(6) of the FD were
optional, and also subject to the undertaking to execute the sentence itself under domestic law.
However, French law did not at the time provide for an undertaking to execute a sentence
handed down against a non-national, since FR had not ratified the convention of 28 May 1970
on the international validity of criminal judgments, nor that of 13 November 1991 on the
enforcement of foreign criminal sentences, and had not yet implemented FD 2008/909/JHA on
the mutual recognition of custodial sentences.
8.9.2.
Judgment of the Court of Justice
The Court first noted that MS have some margin of discretion in implementing Article 4(6) of the
FD and that an executing Member State may only legitimately pursue such an objective with
regards to persons who have demonstrated some degree of integration into the society of that
97
98
99
100
State101. Furthermore, it underlined that in implementing this provision into their domestic law,
they are required to comply with Article 18 TFEU, and that under these conditions it cannot be
accepted that a requested person who is not a national of the executing Member State but who
has stayed or resided there for a certain period would never be likely to have established any
binding connections with that State that could justify invoking this ground for optional nonexecution102. It further stated that although Article 3(1) a) of the Convention on the Transfer of
Sentenced Persons allows a State that is a party to that convention to limit to its own nationals
the possibility of a sentence imposed in another State being enforced within its territory, neither
that convention nor any other rule of international law requires those States to make provision
for such a rule103. Therefore, the alleged impossibility of undertaking to execute the sentence
handed down against a non-national cannot justify discriminatory treatment: although a Member
State may, in transposing Article 4(6), decide to limit the situations in which its executing judicial
authority may refuse to surrender a person who falls within the scope of that provision thereby
reinforcing the system of surrender in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition it
cannot exclude automatically and absolutely the nationals of other Member States staying or
resident in its territory, irrespective of their connections with it 104. In application of the principle of
conforming interpretation, the referring court must also take into consideration the principles and
provisions of domestic law governing the conclusions a court is entitled to draw from the
existence of discrimination prohibited under that law, and in particular those that allow that court
to alleviate such discrimination until the legislature has taken the measures necessary to
eliminate it105.
101
102
103
104
105
9.
9.1.
Practical tips
AS AN EXECUTING AUTHORITY
What should you do when faced with a national implementing law that is not in
conformity with the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002? Try, pursuant to the caselaw of the Court of Justice in the Pupino106 case, to apply it as consistently as
possible with the spirit and letter of the EU instrument. It may be necessary to stay
proceedings and refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of
the European Union so that it can interpret the Framework Decision. Where
appropriate, its response should enable you to draw the relevant conclusions
domestically. Note, however, that a preliminary ruling procedure before the CJEU
lasts an average of 20 months. This is one of the reasons why so few references for
preliminary rulings have been made to the Court. Due to growing awareness of this
within the EU, and indeed within the CJEU itself, an urgent preliminary ruling (PPU)
procedure has been established. The PPU has been effective since 1 st March 2008
(see Module 3).
What should you do if you receive a European arrest warrant issued by an issuing
authority within a Member State that shows a lack of confidence towards or is
reluctant comply with the Framework Decision? Do not apply the principle of
reciprocity! Its existence is now redundant within the European Union. It goes
against the principle of mutual recognition and the case-law of the Court of Justice of
the European Union in the Pupino case. One good example to follow is the approach
adopted by the Portuguese Supreme Court, which upheld a judgment of Evora Court
of Appeal granting the surrender of a Portuguese national to the Spanish authorities
for the purposes of enforcing a three-year prison sentence. Even though it
recognised that, if the situation were reversed, the Spanish authorities would not
have surrendered their national to the Portuguese authorities, the Portuguese court
took the view that absence of reciprocity cannot be an obstacle to cooperation within
the European Union107.
9.2.
AS AN ISSUING AUTHORITY
What should you do when faced with an executing authority that is not complying with
the Framework Decision?
If it is an isolated case, the first step should be to try to resolve the problem through
direct contact with the executing judicial authority. If this direct contact proves
unsuccessful, the European Judicial Network contact points can be approached.
Where appropriate, the central authorities of the executing State, where these are
represented among the contact points, will be notified. If this fails, the national
106
107
member of Eurojust can be approached and, if this still does not work, the College of
Eurojust can be called upon.
If the problems recur, it may be appropriate to refer the matter to your government,
which will be able to notify and discuss the problems direct with the executing
government. One solution to this may be to organise bilateral meetings. If this also
fails, the government may notify the institutions responsible for evaluations about the
problematic situation (the Commission and the Council).
10.
Case studies
Case study 1: the Battisti case

In 1993, Cesare Battisti, the former leader of an Italian far-left group, was sentenced in his
absence to life imprisonment by Milan Assize Court. He was found guilty of four murders
committed in the late 1970s. He was granted political asylum in France, where he wrote novels
and earned his living as a caretaker. He benefited from the Mitterrand doctrine, a policy
established by the former French President that granted asylum to Italian far-left terrorists
provided that they renounced violence. The French authorities therefore rejected requests for
Mr Battistis extradition on several occasions.
In June 2004, following a new Italian request, the trial chamber of Paris Court of Appeal ruled in
favour of extradition. On 21 August 2004, Cesare Battisti failed to report to the police as
required under the conditions of his parole, and was declared as having absconded. He was
arrested on 18 March 2007 in Brazil.
Questions
1. Could a Mitterrand doctrine still be conceivable in the current framework of the
European Union?
The European arrest warrant overhauls the traditional extradition procedure: it has
judicialised it, eliminating the political phase the government intervention phase
characteristic of the conventional procedure and in principle it no longer allows any
political interference in the processing and execution of surrender requests on the basis of a
European arrest warrant. It must therefore be concluded that a policy such as the
Mitterrand doctrine could no longer be conceivable in the current framework of judicial
cooperation between the Member States of the European Union.
2. Could the Italian authorities have issued a European arrest warrant to circumvent the
application of the Mitterrand doctrine?
France made use of the option available pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision on
the European arrest warrant and declared that this would not be applicable in relations with
France, for acts committed before 1993. One of the reasons for this declaration was specifically
to prevent old cases of this kind from falling within the scope of the European arrest warrant.
Case study 2: the Rezala case

Sid Ahmed Rezala, a 20-year-old French national, was convicted of three murders committed in
France in 1999. Having fled to Portugal, he was arrested in the suburbs of Lisbon. He was
imprisoned in Portugal, where the Portuguese authorities rejected a request for extradition on
grounds that Rezala risked life imprisonment in France. The Portuguese Constitution does not
permit the extradition of a person who would incur a prison sentence of over thirty years in the
requesting country. Rezala committed suicide in prison before being tried or extradited.
Questions:
1. What should have been the Portuguese courts decision if the request for Rezalas
surrender had been based on a European arrest warrant?
In the current framework of the European arrest warrant, there is no option for the
executing State, in this case Portugal, to reject a request for surrender on the
grounds that the national law of the issuing Member State (France) provides for a
life sentence or lifetime imprisonment in its legislation. Nevertheless, as provided
for by Article 5.2 of the Framework Decision, the Portuguese authorities may make it
a condition of the surrender that the person is entitled to a periodic review of his
personal situation that might allow a revision of the penalty imposed this can either
be on request or at the latest after 20 years of the sentence or for the application
of measures of clemency provided for in the issuing Member State.
Case study 3
On 25 February 2003, A left Albania and illegally docked in Italy on a boat owned by his brotherin-law B, who had Italian nationality. The boat was intercepted by an Italian Customs patrol. A
was sent back to Albania. B was charged in Italy with facilitation of unauthorised entry and
residence. B left Italy before being arrested.
An Italian court issued a European arrest warrant against B.
Questions:
Based on the following assumptions:

1. Since the Italian court does not know where B is located, how will it disseminate the
European arrest warrant?
Article 9.2 of the Framework Decision provides for the dissemination of an alert for a
requested person in the Schengen Information System (SIS). This alert is equivalent to
a European arrest warrant pending receipt of the original in due and proper form by the
executing judicial authority. The period for the transmission of the original varies
depending on the State (a table listing these periods is available in this module). This
arrangement is transitional, until such time as the SIS is capable of transmitting all the
information required (Article 8 of the Framework Directive). For Member States not yet
connected to the SIS, dissemination must continue via the traditional mechanisms such
as Interpol (Article 10.3 of the Framework Directive). There is, moreover, no reason why
Member States connected to the SIS should not use the Interpol as well. This is usually
the case since it is possible that the person concerned might be located outside EU
territory.
2. If the Italian court knows that B has fled to Brussels, to the home of one of his former
business associates, can it send the arrest warrant directly to a local judicial authority in
Brussels?
The Italian court may in fact send the European arrest warrant to the judicial authority
with local jurisdiction in the executing State (Article 9.1 of the Framework Directive).
To identify this authority, the Italian court will use the Atlas available on the European
Judicial Network website: http://www.ejn-crimjust.eu.int/eaw_atlas.aspx 108. Simply enter
the postcode for the location (in this case 1000) to obtain a series of information:
a. the authority to which the European arrest warrant should be sent is the Crown
Public Prosecutor in Brussels (the website provides particulars such as the
postal address and telephone number)
b. the details (address, telephone number, e-mail) of various authorities are also
listed:
the federal prosecution office, as the authority to contact in urgent cases
the Ministry of Justice, as the contact authority regarding arrangements
for the persons transit
etc.
Although the new procedure has been judicialised, Member States may designate one
or more central authorities to assist the competent judicial authorities (Article 7 of the
Framework Decision). The tasks assigned will, however, be purely administrative. These
central authorities may not take part in reaching the decision on the European arrest
warrant (unless the Framework Decision is otherwise transposed).
108
B has been arrested by the Belgian Police on the basis of the European arrest warrant. Under
Belgian law, facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence is a criminal offence only if the act
has been committed for profit, a limitation authorised by the FD on the facilitation of
unauthorised entry and residence109. There is nothing to indicate that this is the case here.
Questions:
1. What approach should a Belgian investigating court adopt regarding the request for
surrender to the Italian authorities?
In accordance with Article 2.2 of the Framework Decision, the traditional requirement of
double criminality has been abolished for 32 categories of offence exhaustively enumerated,
provided that these offences are punishable in the issuing Member State by a penalty of a
maximum period of at least 3 years. Accordingly, European arrest warrants issued for
alleged or proven offences included in that list must be executed by the arresting State
without verification of criminality in that State. The only verification will be the minimum
threshold of the requested penalty. For offences other than these, double criminality may be
verified and surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European
arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing
Member State (Article 2.4 of the Framework Directive).
In the case in question, facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence is included in the list
of offences for which the double criminality requirement has been abolished, provided it is
punishable by a maximum period of at least 3 years in IT (issuing MS). This information
must be stated in the EAW (box c) of the form). The Belgian investigating judge cannot
therefore refuse execution of the European arrest warrant on this basis.
2. Would it be different if the boat had docked in Greece (where Italy has been informed and
is prosecuting B on the basis of active nationality jurisdiction, since B has Italian
nationality)?
Article 4.7 of the Framework Decision states that grounds for optional refusal may be based
on the territoriality clause. It states that execution of the arrest warrant may be refused
where it relates to offences which: (a) are regarded by the law of the executing Member
State as having been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member
State or in a place treated as such; or (b) have been committed outside the territory of the
issuing Member State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow
prosecution for the same offences when committed outside its territory.
109
In this case study, the 1st scenario would not be applicable, since the offence was not
committed in Belgium (the executing State). As regards the 2nd scenario, since the acts were
committed in Greece, it should be verified whether Belgian law authorises prosecution for
the same offences committed outside its territory, which is probably not the case, since the
offence was not committed for profit.
Case study 4
A Belgian court issued a European arrest warrant against X in a fraud case. The Italian court
refused to execute the EAW on the basis of its implementing law, which states that the warrant
cannot be executed if the law of the issuing State does not provide for a fixed time limit for pretrial detention.
Questions
1. What do you think of this ground for refusal?
This ground is not one of the grounds for refusal authorised by the FD. Italian law is
inconsistent with the EU instrument. The case-law of the House of Lords, which set
aside the requirements of national law not provided for by the FD, is an instructive
example.110.
2. What is the Italian courts margin of manoeuvre?
The Italian court should ensure that the requirements of its legislation are interpreted as
consistently as possible with the provisions of the FD 111. It could make inquiries with the
Belgian issuing authority regarding the conditions under which a period of pre-trial
detention is extended and seek guarantees of review from its counterpart. It could ask
the CJEU whether the FD can be interpreted as authorising refusal to execute an EAW
when the law of the issuing country does not fix a time limit for pre-trial detention.
Case study 5
X, residing in Brussels, is a suspect in a case that is under investigation in Austria. On 15
September 2006, the competent court in Vienna rejected the prosecutor's request to place X in
110
111
pre-trial detention during the investigation. The prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision
and obtained a new decision on 28 September 2006 granting the request for pre-trial detention.
During the appeal process, X was not consulted: this was not provided for by the Code of
Criminal Procedure at the time. However, it was generally accepted in Austria that this provision
should be amended, and a new law was adopted on 15 November of the same year. In addition,
evidence provided suggested that X was considered guilty even before the trial, and that the
investigating judge was the same person who acted as prosecutor.
An Austrian judge issued an EAW against X and sent it to the prosecutor in Brussels, where X
was arrested. The competent court took the decision to execute the EAW. X appealed against
this decision and applied for non-execution on the basis of Article 5(4) of the Belgian
implementing law, which provides that execution of an EAW must be refused if there are valid
grounds for believing that the European arrest warrant would have the effect of infringing the
fundamental rights of the person concerned, as enshrined by Article 6 of the Treaty on
European Union. The indictments chamber in Brussels agreed with the defendants reasoning
and decided not to execute the EAW.
Question
1. What do you think of this ground for refusal?
The FD contains no explicit ground for refusal relating to fundamental rights. Recital
12 mentions this, but is not part of the instrument itself. However, most Member
States have introduced a clause similar to that contained in Article 4(5) of the
Belgian law. In practice, this amounts to a strong presumption that fundamental
rights are de facto respected in all Member States: it must nevertheless be
questioned whether, firstly, the court of the executing Member State is well placed to
assess potential infringements (is there convincing evidence that this is not the case
here?), and secondly whether any infringements can be corrected in the issuing
Member State112.
Case study 6
X was charged with drug trafficking in Italy, where the acts, committed in February 2006, are
punishable by imprisonment of up to 10 years. A court in Rome decided in March 2008 to issue
an EAW against X. Checking the database for ongoing proceedings, it found that X had also
been charged with a speeding offence punishable by up to 6 months. It decided to insert the two
offences in the EAW. X lives in Nicosia (CY). The court issuing the warrant sent it to the Cypriot
Central Authority, the Ministry of Justice. The central authority sent additional requests to the
issuing authority concerning the following questions:
- why has such a long time elapsed between the acts and the EAW?
112
- had X already been convicted in the past for similar acts?

Questions
1. Is the central authority well-placed to ask these questions?
By sending the questions to the issuing authority direct, the central authority is going
beyond its support and facilitation remit. The FD provides for direct contact between the
executing and issuing authorities. In addition, the answers to these questions should
have no impact on the decision on whether to execute the EAW. At most, it might ask
whether there is any statute of limitations under Cypriot law, but only if Cyprus has
jurisdiction in respect of the acts.
The court in Rome provided the requested information. The central authority transmitted
the EAW to the executing authority, which decided to execute it for drug trafficking, but
not for the traffic offence.
2. Is this decision consistent with the FD?
The traffic offence punishable by 6 six months imprisonment is outside the scope of the
FD. The FD contains no provision regarding accessory surrender. Even under the
extradition procedure of the 1957 Convention, extradition for such offences was
optional. Furthermore, the situation is not included in the exceptions to the speciality rule
listed in Article 27 of the FD. Therefore, the decision of the Cypriot court is correct and,
unless X has renounced the speciality rule or remains in Italy for more than 45 days
after his final discharge (Article 27(3) a) and f)), he cannot be prosecuted for speeding.
Case study 7
During a police operation at a nightclub in Warsaw, X is found in possession of 0.5 grams of
cannabis. He is charged with possession of illegal drugs. In PL, the maximum penalty for this
offence is two years in prison. X, who lives in Hamburg (DE), is not arrested but does not
respond to summons during the investigations. At the request of the prosecutor of Warsaw, a
Polish court issues an EAW and transmits it to the judicial authorities of Hamburg. The
competent prosecutor in Hamburg refuses to execute the warrant on the grounds that EAW
would never be issued in DE for acts of this magnitude, based on the principle of proportionality.
Question
1. Is this decision of refusal consistent with the FD?
Refusal may be based on the fact that these acts would not be punishable in DE, if on
the one hand the EAW is not issued for drug trafficking, but mere possession. Even if it
was for drug trafficking, the penalty would be less than three years, which does not meet
the condition whereby the offences included in the categories listed in Article 2 of the FD
are not subject to verification of double criminality. However, the executing authority
does not have to carry out a review of proportionality, even though it is recommended
that issuing authorities review whether or not an EAW should be issued from the
perspective of proportionality.
2. What other approach could the German prosecutor have adopted?
The German prosecutor could propose that X be heard in Germany.
Case study 8: the Assange case
In August 2010, Swedish police questioned J. Assange in connection with a complaint of rape
and sexual violence. He was not arrested and left the country for the United Kingdom, unaware
that an EAW had been issued against him by the Swedish prosecutor and transmitted to the
British central authority. The warrant concerns, inter alia, rape (described as sexual intercourse
while the victim was asleep) and sexual violence (described as having unprotected sex without
the consent of the partner).
J. Assange responded to the summons from the competent court, which ordered his extradition
(i.e. execution of the EAW; UK law has retained the old terminology). On appeal, J. Assange
argued that (1) the EAW was not issued by a judicial authority, (2) that the acts as described do
not correspond to the classifications used, (3) there is not yet any formal charge against him, (4)
that, in any event, his surrender for such acts would be disproportionate.
Questions
1. Could J. Assange be tried in the United Kingdom?
Yes, but the executing authority cannot impose this on the issuing authority as an
alternative to execution of the EAW and surrender.
2. What should we make of the arguments of the defence?
It is for each Member State to designate the issuing authorities, but these must be
judicial authorities. Although several Member States do not have prosecutors, their
status as a judicial authority independent of the executive power should not be
challenged. Rape is one of the categories of offence where verification of double
criminality is not required, provided that it is punishable in the issuing Member State by
a maximum sentence of at least 3 years: it does not fall to the English court in this case
to challenge the classification ascribed by the issuing authority. However, it may verify
whether the act described as sexual violence would also be punishable in the UK.
Nevertheless, it does not fall to the English court to examine whether these acts are
proven. The requirement that the requested person must already have accused status
is an addition IN the UKs implementing law that is not found in the FD. It should at least
not afford it too strict an interpretation, which would inhibit the cooperation sought by
the FD. The argument that the measure is disproportionate is not a ground for refusal
either in the FD or in the implementing law in the UK.
The appeal was dismissed in July 2011 and on 30 May 2012, the decision to execute and
surrender was upheld by the Supreme Court, which granted an additional two weeks for
reopening the appeal on the basis of any new evidence submitted by the defence. On 14 June,
this 2-week period expired and the appeal was not reopened. A few days later, J. Assange left
the home where he had been placed under house arrest and took refuge at the Ecuadorian
Embassy. He feared that Sweden would extradite him to the United States, where he could be
prosecuted for espionage.
3. Could Sweden extradite J. Assange to the United States without the consent of the
UK? What would be the competent authority in the UK for granting its consent?
According to Article 28 of the FD, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a
European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of
the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. This
consent is given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is
bound, as well as its domestic law. This would not, therefore, be the judicial authority
executing the EAW, but in all likelihood the Minister of Justice. Note that an agreement
on extradition between EU MS and the US113 entered into force on 1st February 2009
and the bilateral agreements between the MS and the US have been amended
accordingly.
The contents and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the EJTN, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of these
contents and opinions.
113

Mod8 v3 en

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mod8 v3 en

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODULE 8 THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURE VERSION 3.

(logo of the training organiser)

The European Judicial

With the support of the European Union

the Member State concerned

WHATS NEW IN THIS VERSION?

In particular, this new version (3.0) takes into account:

AIMS OF THIS MODULE

European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 Compendium A.2.1.; its two

European Convention on extradition of 27 September 1996 Compendium B.4.2.

For further information => see the following websites:

1. INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES....................................................................8

Relation to other legal instruments (Article 31 of the DC)........................................................36

Introduction: background and general objectives

Major changes introduced by this new system included:

Definition of the European Arrest Warrant

Processing of the European arrest warrant by the issuing authority

CONDITIONS THAT MUST BE MET BY THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

a) the identity and nationality of the requested person

6 Council doc. 8302/2/09 REV 4 28.5.2009 (Recommendation 5 p. 11)

of the issuing States which

accept European arrest warrants in German.

with Poland, German with

11 Based on previous bilateral treaties.

3.2.3 Principle of proportionality as a criterion for issue

3.3.1 Between whom?

Council doc. 8436/2/10 REV2 of 28.5.2010.

Indicate here, as applicable, the designated central authorities in your country

19 Council doc. 8436/2/10 REV2 of 28.5.2010, p. 3.

Processing of the European arrest warrant by the executing authority

FLAGGING: THE POSSIBILITY OF BLOCKING EXECUTION OF THE EUROPEAN ARREST

OBLIGATION TO ARREST AND THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSON CONCERNED

4.3.2 Cases in which execution may or must be refused

treated as such. For example, if a murder has been committed by X in the

The special case of human rights

4.3.4 Decision in the event of multiple requests

Indicate here the specifics of your national implementing law

4.3.6 Notification of the decision to the issuing authority

THE SURRENDER ITSELF

4.4.1 Time limits

Effects of the surrender

SPECIALITY RULE AND EXCEPTIONS (ARTICLE 27 OF THE FD)

Indicate here the specifics of your national implementing law

SURRENDER OR SUBSEQUENT EXTRADITION (ARTICLE 28 OF THE FD)

RELATION TO OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS (ARTICLE 31 OF THE DC)

Application of the law on the

Reservation concerning its

--Applies to acts committed

21/10/2004 --(surrender of nationals)

--------------Applies to acts committed by

Transposition and practical implementation

In a decision of 18 July 2005, the German Federal Constitutional Court

ADVOCATEN VOOR DE WERELD CASE 59

8.1.1 Legal background

8.1.2 Judgment of the Court of Justice

SZYMON KOZLOWSKI CASE 68

8.2.1 Legal background

SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA CASE 73

8.3.1 Legal background

LEYMANN AND PUSTOVAROV CASE 78

8.4.1 Legal background

8.5 WOLZENBURG CASE82

8.5.1. Legal background