Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pressures of Constitutional Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

  • 1273 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with the constitutional challenges of the European arrest warrant. It is divided into four sections is summarised with concluding observations. Section 12.1 analyses the situation in Poland and the necessity to amend the Polish Constitution under the pressure of the Constitutional Tribunal. Section 12.2 analyses the situation in Germany in the light of the ‘double implementation’ of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant. Section 12.3 deals with the ‘EU-friendly’ approach of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. Similarly to Poland, Sect. 12.4 analyses the situation in Cyprus leading to the amendment of the Cypriot Constitution.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Hamuľák (2011), pp. 42 and 43.

  2. 2.

    Klimek (2012), p. 130.

  3. 3.

    Łazowski (2005), p. 572.

  4. 4.

    Code of Criminal Procedure—Act of 6th June 1997 (Journal of Laws, No. 89, Item 555 with amendments) [Pol.: Kodeks postępowania karnego—Ustawa z dnia 6 czerwca 1997 r. (Dziennik Ustaw, Nr 89, poz. 555 ze zmianami)]; the provisions transposing the Framework Decision on the EAW were inserted as Chapter 65a (Articles 607a–607j), which regulates the issuing of EAWs by the Polish authorities, and Chapter 65b (Articles 607k–607zc), which regulates the execution of the EAWs originating from other EU Member States; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on Poland’, document No. 14240/1/07, REV 1.

  5. 5.

    Act of 18th March 2004 amending the Criminal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Minor Offences Code [Pol.: Ustawa z dnia 18 marca 2004 r. o zmianie ustawy Kodeks karny, ustawy—Kodeks postçpowania karnego oraz ustawy—Kodeks wykroczen]; Journal of Laws [Dziennik Ustaw], 2004, No. 69, Item 626.

  6. 6.

    Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2nd April 1997 [Pol.: Konstytucja Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 2 kwietnia 1997 r.)].

  7. 7.

    Łazowski (2005), pp. 573 and 574.

  8. 8.

    Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland of 27th April 2005—file reference No. P 1/05 [Pol.: Wyrok Trybunału Konstytucyjnego w Polsce z dnia 27 kwietnia 2005—r. sygn. akt P 1/05]. 42/4/A/2005, published in Journal of Laws—Dz.U. No 77, item 680, 4th May 2005.

  9. 9.

    Judgment […], Pt. I, para. 2.3.

  10. 10.

    Łazowski (2005), p. 575.

  11. 11.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 3.

  12. 12.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 3.6.

  13. 13.

    Judgment […], Pt. I, ruling.

  14. 14.

    Komárek (2007), p. 19.

  15. 15.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2007) 407, p. 5.

  16. 16.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 5.4.

  17. 17.

    Łazowski (2005), p. 581.

  18. 18.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 5.9.

  19. 19.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 246.

  20. 20.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 5.

  21. 21.

    Judgment […], Pt. III, para. 5.7.

  22. 22.

    Łazowski (2007), pp. 148–150.

  23. 23.

    Komárek (2007), p. 21.

  24. 24.

    Sievers (2008), pp. 114 and 115.

  25. 25.

    Act to Implement the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between the Member States of the European Union (European Arrest Warrant Act) of 21st July 2004 [Ger.: Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses über den Europäischen Haftbefehl und die Übergabeverfahren zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz—EuHbG) Vom 21. Juli 2004], Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, 2004, p. 1748.

  26. 26.

    Act on the International Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters of 3rd December 1982 [Ger.: Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen Vom 3. Dezember 1982]. Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, 1982, p. 2071; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2009): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on Germany’, document No. 7058/2/09, REV 2.

  27. 27.

    Sinn and Wörner (2007), pp. 206 and 207.

  28. 28.

    Judgment of the Second Senate of the Federal High Constitutional Court of Germany of 18th July 2005—2 BvR 2236/04 [Ger.: Urteil des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 18. Juli 2005—2 BvR 2236/04].

  29. 29.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 55.

  30. 30.

    Komárek (2007), p. 21.

  31. 31.

    Mitsilegas (2006), pp. 1294 and 1295.

  32. 32.

    Judgment […], ruling.

  33. 33.

    Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany of 23rd May 1949 [Ger.: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 23. Mai 1949].

  34. 34.

    Sievers (2008), pp. 114 and 115.

  35. 35.

    In Germany, pursuant to the Constitution (Basic Law), the extradition of a German national to a foreign State was initially forbidden absolutely. However, the 47th Amendment to the Basic Law (Bundesgesetzblatt 2000, part I, p. 1633), adopted in 2000, softened this rigid prohibition. Nowadays, in spite of the fact that no German may be extradited to a foreign country, the national law can provide otherwise for extraditions to an EU Member State or to the International Criminal Court.

  36. 36.

    Judgment […], para. 77.

  37. 37.

    Judgment […], para. 84.

  38. 38.

    Judgment […], para. 143.

  39. 39.

    Long (2009), p. 17.

  40. 40.

    Mann (2007), p. 716.

  41. 41.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2007) 407, p. 5.

  42. 42.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 246.

  43. 43.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 209.

  44. 44.

    Pollicino (2008), p. 1329.

  45. 45.

    Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1295.

  46. 46.

    Pollicino (2008), pp. 1318 and 1329.

  47. 47.

    Sinn and Wörner (2007), p. 208; Sinn and Wörner (2008), p. 249.

  48. 48.

    Hinarejos Parga (2006), pp. 587 and 588.

  49. 49.

    Mitsilegas (2006), pp. 1297 and 1298.

  50. 50.

    Deen-Racsmány and Blextoon (2005), p. 340.

  51. 51.

    See: Mann (2007), pp. 717 et seq.

  52. 52.

    Sinn and Wörner (2007), p. 219.

  53. 53.

    Mölders (2006), p. 46.

  54. 54.

    Mann (2007), pp. 729 and 730.

  55. 55.

    Council of the European Union (2005): ‘European Arrest Warrant – Decision of the German Constitutional Court’, document 11600/05 limite, p. 3.

  56. 56.

    Act to Implement the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between the Member States of the European Union (European Arrest Warrant Act) of 20th July 2006 [Ger.: Gesetz zur Umsetzung des Rahmenbeschlusses über den Europäischen Haftbefehl und die Übergabeverfahren zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz—EuHbG) Vom 20. Juli 2006], Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I, 2006, p. 1721.

  57. 57.

    Sinn and Wörner (2008), p. 249.

  58. 58.

    Act No. 141/1961 Coll. of 29th November 1961 on Criminal Procedure as amended by later legislation [Czech: Zákon č. 141/1961 Sb. ze dne 29. listopadu 1961 o trestním řízení soudním ve znení pozdejších predpisu]; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2008): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on the Czech Republic’, document No. 15691/2/08, REV 2.

    However, later a new legislation containing all mutual recognition instruments, including the EAW and repealing the former provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, was adopted the Act on the International Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters—Act of the Parliament of the Czech Republic of 20th March No. 140/2013 Coll. on the International Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters [Czech: zákon Parlamentu České republiky ze dne 20. března 2013 č. 140/2013 Sb. o mezinárodní justiční spolupráci ve věcech trestních].

  59. 59.

    Act of the Parliament of the Czech Republic No. 539/2004 Coll. of 29th July 2004 amending Act No. 141/1961 Coll., Code of Criminal Procedure (Criminal Code) as amended by later legislation, and certain other Acts [Czech: zákon Parlamentu České republiky č. 539/2004 Sb. ze dne 29. července 2004, kterým se mění zákon č. 141/1961 Sb., o trestním řízení soudním (trestní řád) ve znění pozdějších předpisů, a některé další zákony].

  60. 60.

    Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 3rd May 2006—Pl. ÚS 66/04 [Czech: Nález Ústavního soudu České republiky ze dne 3. května 2006—Pl. ÚS 66/04]; 434/2006 Coll.

  61. 61.

    Hamuľák (2011), pp. 42 and 43.

  62. 62.

    Resolution of the Presidium of the Czech National Council of 16th December 1992 on the Declaration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms as a part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic [Czech: Usnesení předsednictva České národní rady ze dne 16. prosince 1992 o vyhlášení Listiny základních práv a svobod jako součásti ústavního pořádku České republiky].

  63. 63.

    It should be emphasised that the Constitutional Court faced with the dilemma of whether it should suspend judgment while “awaiting” the answer of the Court of Justice in the case of Advocaten voor de Wereld, or rather rule on the matter. It chose the second option.

  64. 64.

    Herczeg (2009), p. 348; Kloučková (2008), p. 171.

  65. 65.

    See: Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 13th September 1994—Pl. ÚS 9/94 [Czech: Nález Ústavního soudu České republiky ze dne 13. září 1994—Pl. ÚS 9/94]; 207/1994 Coll.

  66. 66.

    Judgment […], Pt. I, paras 3–5 and 8; Pt. II, para. 14.

  67. 67.

    Judgment […], Pt. I, para. 10.

  68. 68.

    See: Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 8th March 2006—Pl. ÚS 50/04 [Czech: Nález Ústavního soudu České republiky ze dne 8. března 2006—Pl. ÚS 50/04]; 154/2006 Coll.

  69. 69.

    Judgment […], Pt. II, para. 39.

  70. 70.

    Judgment […], Pt. II, para. 15.

  71. 71.

    Judgment […], Pt. II, paras 26 and 29.

  72. 72.

    Pollicino (2008), p. 1335.

  73. 73.

    Judgment […], Pt. II, paras 30 and 31.

  74. 74.

    Judgment […], Pt. VIII/a, para. 70.

  75. 75.

    Judgment […], Pt. VIII/a, para. 71.

  76. 76.

    Pollicino (2008), p. 1338.

  77. 77.

    Judgment […], Pt. IX, para. 100.

  78. 78.

    Judgment […], Pt. IX, para. 102.

  79. 79.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 245.

  80. 80.

    Komárek (2007), p. 25.

  81. 81.

    Act to Provide for the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures of Requested Persons between Member States of the European Union 2004 (133(I)/2004) [Greek: O περί Ευρωπαϊκού Εντάλματος Σύλληψης και των Διαδικασιών Παράδοσης Εκζητουμένων Μεταξύ των Κρατών Μελών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης Νόμος του 2004 (133(I)/2004)]; Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus (Επίσημη Εφημερίδα), Issue No. 3850, Appendix I, Pt. I, p. 2750; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on Cyprus’, document No. 14135/2/07, REV2.

  82. 82.

    Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, 6th July 1960 [Greek: Το Σύνταγμα της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, 6 Ιουλ 1960].

  83. 83.

    Tsadiras (2007), p. 1516.

  84. 84.

    Judgment of the Supreme Court of Cyprus of 7th November 2005 (Ap. No. 294/2005) [Greek: Απόφαση του Ανώτατου Δικαστηρίου Κύπρου της 7 Νοεμβρίου 2005 (Εφεση Αρ. 294/2005)]. The judgment is not numbered into paragraphs. More precise reference therefore cannot be provided.

  85. 85.

    Council of the European Union (2005): ‘Decisions of Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts concerning the European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 14281/05, p. 2.

  86. 86.

    Tsadiras (2007), p. 1521.

  87. 87.

    Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1298.

  88. 88.

    Judgment […]. The judgment is not numbered into paragraphs. More precise reference therefore cannot be provided.

  89. 89.

    Council of the European Union (2005): ‘Decisions of Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts concerning the European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 14281/05, p. 2.

  90. 90.

    Tsadiras (2007), p. 1521.

  91. 91.

    Council of the European Union (2005): ‘Decisions of Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts concerning the European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 14281/05, p. 3.

  92. 92.

    Fifth Amendment of the Constitution (127(I)/2006) [Greek: Ο περί της πέμπτης τροποποίησης του Συντάγματος νόμος του 2006 (127(I)/2006)]; Official Gazette of the Republic of Cyprus (Επίσημη Εφημερίδα), Issue No. 4090, Appendix I, Pt. I, p. 1372.

  93. 93.

    Tsadiras (2007), p. 1526.

  94. 94.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2007) 407, pp. 5 and 6.

  95. 95.

    Deen-Racsmány (2007), p. 183.

  96. 96.

    Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1297.

References

  • Deen-Racsmány Z (2007) Lessons of the European arrest warrant for domestic implementation of the obligation to surrender nationals to the International Criminal Court. Leiden J Int Law 20:167–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deen-Racsmány Z, Blextoon R (2005) The decline of the nationality exception in European extradition? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 13:317–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamuľák O (2011) Eurozatykač, tři ústavní soudy a dominance práva Evropské unie [transl. Eurowarrant, three Constitutional Courts and the dominance of European Union law]. Iuridicum Olomoucense, Olomouc

    Google Scholar 

  • Herczeg J (2009) Evropský zatýkací rozkaz [transl.: European arrest warrant]. In: Tomášek M et al (eds) Europeizace trestního práva [transl.: Europeanisation of criminal law]. Linde, Praha, pp 340–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinarejos Parga A (2006) Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court), Decision of 18 July 2005 (2 BvR 2236/04) on the German European arrest warrant law. Common Mark Law Rev 43:583–595

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012) Európsky zatýkací rozkaz: tlaky ústavných súdov na vnútroštátnych zákonodarcov za účelom prijatia záväzkov prameniacich z noriem EÚ [transl.: European arrest warrant: Constitutional Courts pressures on national legislators in order to adoption of obligations stemming from EU standards]. In: Hamuľák O, Madleňaková L (eds) Limity práva: Olomoucké debaty mladých právníků 2012 [transl.: Legal limits: young lawyers debates in Olomouc, vol 2012]. Conference proceedings from the International conference for Ph.D. students and young researchers organised by the Faculty of Law, Palacký University, held on 16–18 September 2012 in Hrubá Voda. Linde, Praha, pp 129–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloučková S (2008) Country report – the Czech Republic. In: Górski A, Hofmañski P (eds) The European arrest warrant and its implementation in the Member States of the European Union. Conference proceedings. International conference, Kraków, 9–12 November 2006. Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, Warszawa, pp 171–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Komárek J (2007) European constitutionalism and the European arrest warrant: in search of the limits of “Contrapunctual Principles”. Common Mark Law Rev 44:9–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Łazowski A (2005) Poland: constitutional tribunal on the surrender of Polish citizens under the European arrest warrant. Decision of 27 April 2005. Eur Const Law Rev 1:569–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Łazowski A (2007) Accession treaty: Polish constitutional tribunal: conformity of the accession treaty with the Polish constitution. Decision of 11 May 2005. Eur Const Law Rev 3:148–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Long N (2009) Implementation of the European arrest warrant and joint investigation teams at EU and national level. European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackarel M (2007) The European arrest warrant – the early years: implementing and using the warrant. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 15:37–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann GJ (2007) The European arrest warrant: a short-lived mechanism for extradition? Syracuse J Int Law Commer 34:715–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2006) The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Mark Law Rev 43:1277–1311

    Google Scholar 

  • Mölders S (2006) European arrest warrant act is void – the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 18 July 2005. German Law J 7:45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2008) European arrest warrant and constitutional principles of the Member States: a case law-based outline in the attempt to strike the right balance between interacting legal systems. German Law J 9:1313–1354

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievers J (2008) Too different to trust? First experiences with the application of the European arrest warrant. In: Guild E, Geyer F (eds) Security versus justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 109–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinn A, Wörner L (2007) The European arrest warrant and its implementation in Germany – its constitutionality, laws and current developments. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 3:204–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinn A, Wörner L (2008) Country report – Germany. In: Górski A, Hofmañski P (eds) The European arrest warrant and its implementation in the Member States of the European Union. Conference proceedings. International conference, Kraków, 9–12 November 2006. Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, Warszawa, pp 244–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Inconsistencies – the German Federal Constitutional Court on the European arrest warrant. Eur Const Law Rev 2:209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsadiras A (2007) Cyprus Supreme Court (Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο Κύπρου), Judgment of 7 November 2005 (Civil Appeal no. 294/2005) on the Cypriot European arrest warrant law. Common Mark Law Rev 44:1515–1528

    Google Scholar 

  • van Sliedregt E (2007) The European arrest warrant: between trust, democracy and the rule of law. Introduction. The European arrest warrant: extradition in transition. Eur Const Law Rev 3:244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Pan-European University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

    Libor Klimek

Authors
  1. Libor Klimek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Klimek, L. (2015). Pressures of Constitutional Courts. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation