Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genesis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

  • 1293 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with the genesis of the European arrest warrant. It is divided into seven sections and is summarised with concluding observations. Section 2.1 presents general knowledge on the European integration and its ‘spill over’ into the area of Criminal law. Following general knowledge, Sect. 2.2 specialises on Europeanisation of Criminal law as an area for the development of the European arrest warrant, namely two issues—Third Pillar of the European Union and an Area of freedom, security and justice. Section 2.3 analyses the Corpus Juris project as the first ‘unsuccessful’ concept introducing the European arrest warrant. On the contrary, Sect. 2.4 briefly introduces the mechanism of mutual recognition of judicial decisions as a ‘new wave’ towards the European arrest warrant. While Sect. 2.5 is focused on Tampere European Council conclusions of 1999 and a decision to replace extradition procedure in the European Union, Sect. 2.6 points out at impact of the 9/11 plane attacks in the United States of America on the enactment of the European arrest warrant. Consequently, Sect. 2.7 analyses negotiating and adopting the legislation on the European arrest warrant.

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.

    Plachta and van Ballegooij (2005), p. 33.

  2. 2.

    Fontaine (2006), p. 5.

  3. 3.

    Full version of declaration see: Salmon and Nicoll (1997), pp. 44–46; or Hill and Smith (2000), pp. 13–15; In spite of the fact the Schuman Declaration is entitled by R. Schuman, it is J. Monnet who originally suggested to R. Schuman the idea of beginning with the two basic industries of coal and steel. See: Thody (1997), pp. 3–4.

  4. 4.

    Hahn (2008), pp. 24–26.

  5. 5.

    Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 4.

  6. 6.

    Dedman (1996), p. 7.

  7. 7.

    Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Paris (France), 18th April 1951.

  8. 8.

    Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome (Italy), 25th March 1957.

  9. 9.

    Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Rome (Italy), 25th March 1957; it should be noted that both treaties signed in Rome are known as ‘Treaties of Rome’; all three mentioned treaties are known as ‘Founding Treaties’.

  10. 10.

    Dedman (1996), p. 7.

  11. 11.

    Majone (2005), p. 5.

  12. 12.

    Folsom (2005), p. 3.

  13. 13.

    Reynolds (2000), p. 288.

  14. 14.

    Fischer (2006), p. 24.

  15. 15.

    Klimek (2013), p. 60.

  16. 16.

    Guild and Geyer (2008), p. 1.

  17. 17.

    Treaty on European Union, also known as the Treaty of Maastricht, was signed on 7th February 1992 in Maastricht (The Netherlands) and came into force on 1st November 1993; original version—Official Journal of the European Communities, C 191/1 of 29.7.1992; current version as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon—Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30.3.2010.

  18. 18.

    Asp (2002), p. 16.

  19. 19.

    Peers (2011b), pp. 269 and 270.

  20. 20.

    Schütze (2002), p. 29; Curtin and Decker (2011), p. 162; Peers (2011b), p. 6; Kaczorowska (2008), p. 85; Baratta (2002), p. 64.

  21. 21.

    Jánošíková (2004), p. 23.

  22. 22.

    Articles J-J.11 of the Treaty on EU—‘Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy’—Title V.

  23. 23.

    Articles K-K.9 of the Treaty on EU—‘Provisions on Co-operation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs’—Title VI.

  24. 24.

    The Three Pillar structure of the EU was abandoned on 1st December 2009 following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (the third revision of the Treaty on EU).

  25. 25.

    Article K.1 of the Treaty on EU. See: Klimek (2013), p. 69; Klimek (2014), p. 262.

  26. 26.

    Peers (2011a), p. 293.

  27. 27.

    Perron (2005), p. 6.

  28. 28.

    Craig (2010), pp. 332–334.

  29. 29.

    Craig (2010), p. 334.

  30. 30.

    Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. It was signed on 2nd October 1997 in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and came into force on 1st May 1999. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997.

  31. 31.

    Articles 29–42 of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam—‘Provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters’—Title VI. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997; similarly later in the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321 of 29.12.2006.

  32. 32.

    Klimek (2011), p. 464.

  33. 33.

    Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997.

  34. 34.

    Article 2 of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/231 of 13.12.2006), which performed the third revision of the Treaty on the EU, the AFSJ concept has appeared as the second objective of the Treaty on the EU. Nowadays, pursuant to the Treaty on the EU as amended by the Lisbon Treaty, the EU shall offer its citizens an AFSJ without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with the taking of appropriate measures concerning external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime [Article 3(2) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon].

  35. 35.

    Wessel et al. (2011), p. 274.

  36. 36.

    Monar (2005), p. 301.

  37. 37.

    Monar (2005), p. 110.

  38. 38.

    Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on How Best to Implement the Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 19/1 of 23.1.1999.

  39. 39.

    Para. 17 of the Action plan.

  40. 40.

    Eckes and Konstadinides (2011), p. 1.

  41. 41.

    De Witte et al. (2008), p. 399.

  42. 42.

    See: Delmas-Marty and van den Wyngaert (1998).

  43. 43.

    Radtke (2005), p. 105.

  44. 44.

    Spencer (2002), p. 64.

  45. 45.

    Delmas-Marty and Vervaele (2000).

  46. 46.

    Regan and O’Mahony (2002), pp. 306–307.

  47. 47.

    Articles 1–17 of the Corpus Juris 2000.

  48. 48.

    Articles 18–35 of the Corpus Juris 2000.

  49. 49.

    Article 25ter of the Corpus Juris 2000.

  50. 50.

    Article 25ter(4) of the Corpus Juris 2000.

  51. 51.

    Spencer (2000), p. 357.

  52. 52.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 20th February 1979—Case C-120/78—Cassis de Dijon (Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein). In line with this decision, a product lawfully produced and marketed in one EU Member State must be accepted in the other even if it does not match its technical or other specifications. However, this principle is not absolute as Member States are allowed to exclude such a product from their national market on the grounds of derogations. The principle of mutual recognition has gradually been applied to aspects of the internal market other than the free movement of goods, namely the free movement of services and the recognition of the qualifications of EU citizens. See: Kaczorowska (2008), pp. 478 et seq.

  53. 53.

    Murphy (2011), p. 225.

  54. 54.

    Asp (2005), p. 31.

  55. 55.

    Klip (2012), p. 356.

  56. 56.

    European Council (1998): ‘Cardiff European Council, 15th and 16th June 1998, Presidency Conclusions’, document No. SN 150/1/98 REV 1, para 39.

  57. 57.

    Klip (2012), pp. 336 et seq.

  58. 58.

    European Convention on Extradition. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 024 [1957]. Paris, 13th December 1957.

  59. 59.

    Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition of 1975; Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition of 1978; Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition of 2010.

  60. 60.

    Convention drawn up on the Basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on a simplified extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 78/2 of 30.3.1995.

  61. 61.

    Convention drawn up on the Basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 313/12 of 23.10.1996.

  62. 62.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 48.

  63. 63.

    European Council (1999): ‘Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council 15th–16th October 1999, European Council’, available in: Vermeulen (2005), pp. 327–341.

  64. 64.

    Presidency Conclusions […], para. 5 (emphasis added).

  65. 65.

    Presidency Conclusions […], para. 33 (emphasis added).

  66. 66.

    Presidency Conclusions […], para. 35 (emphasis added).

  67. 67.

    Apap and Carrera (2004), pp. 11 and 12.

  68. 68.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 43.

  69. 69.

    Balzacq and Carrera (2006), p. 5.

  70. 70.

    Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 12/10 of 15.01.2001; furthermore, mutual recognition has been developed in The Hague Programme of 2004 (Official Journal of the European Union, C 53/1 of 3.3.2005) and the Stockholm Programme of 2009 (Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/1 of 4.5.2010).

  71. 71.

    Section 5 of the Introduction to the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.

  72. 72.

    Point 2.2.1 of the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.

  73. 73.

    Point 8 of the table A of priorities of the Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters.

  74. 74.

    Casale (2008), p. 116.

  75. 75.

    Spencer (2005), p. 202.

  76. 76.

    Plachta and van Ballegooij (2005), p. 33.

  77. 77.

    Commission of the European Communities (2001): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2001) 522 final/2.

  78. 78.

    European Council (2001): ‘Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21st September 2001’, document No. SN 140/01.

  79. 79.

    European Council (2001): ‘Conclusions and Plan of Action of the Extraordinary European Council Meeting on 21st September 2001’, document No. SN 140/01, pp. 1 and 2.

  80. 80.

    European Parliament (2002): ‘European Parliament legislative resolution on the Proposal for a Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States’. Official Journal of the European Union, C 153 E/284 of 27.6.2002.

  81. 81.

    European Parliament (2002): ‘European Parliament legislative resolution on the Proposal for a Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States’. Official Journal of the European Union, C 153 E/284 of 27.6.2002.

  82. 82.

    Plachta and van Ballegooij (2005), p. 33.

  83. 83.

    For instance: Written question E-2652/01 by Frank Vanhecke of 1st October 2001. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 147 E/35 20.6.2002; Written question P-0526/02 by Charles Tannock of 19th February 2002. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 277 E/57 14.11.2002; Written question E-0530/02 by Charles Tannock of 25th February 2002. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 309 E/26 of 12.12.2002.

  84. 84.

    Trattato tra la Repubblica Italiana ed il Regno di Spagna per il perseguimento di gravi reati attraverso il superamento dell’estradizione in uno spazio di giustizia [transl.: Treaty between the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of Spain for the Pursuit of Serious Crime through the Superseding of Extradition in a Common Area of Justice. Rome, 28th November 2000.

  85. 85.

    Burgess and Vllaard (2006), p. 238.

  86. 86.

    Marin (2008), pp. 252 and 253.

  87. 87.

    Details see: Marin (2008), p. 253.

  88. 88.

    European Parliament (2002): ‘European Parliament legislative resolution on the draft Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States’, 14867/1/2001—C5-0675/2001—2001/0215(CNS). Official Journal of the European Communities, C 284 E/193 of 21.11.2002.

  89. 89.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18.7.2002.

  90. 90.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 65.

  91. 91.

    Wahl (2009), p. 138.

  92. 92.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22.6.2002.

  93. 93.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13th June 2002 on joint investigation teams. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 162/1 of 20.6.2002; see: Klimek (2012), pp. 63–67; Rijken (2006), pp. 99–118; Rijken and Vermeulen (2006).

  94. 94.

    Burgess and Vllaard (2006), p. 237.

  95. 95.

    Bomberg et al. (2008), p. 150.

  96. 96.

    See: Alegre and Leaf (2004), pp. 200–217.

References

  • Alegre S, Leaf M (2004) Mutual recognition in European judicial cooperation: a step too far too soon? Case study – the European arrest warrant. Eur Law J 10:200–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apap J, Carrera S (2004) European arrest warrant: a good testing ground for mutual recognition in the enlarged EU? Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp P (2002) Harmonisation and cooperation within the Third Pillar – built in risks. In: Dashwood A, Hillion C, Spencer J (eds) Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies, vol 4. Hart, Portland, pp 15–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp P (2005) Mutual recognition and the development of criminal law cooperation within the EU. In: Husabø EJ, Strandbakken A (eds) Harmonization of criminal law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Balzacq T, Carrera S (2006) The Hague Programme: the long road to freedom, security and justice. In: Balzaq T, Carrera S (eds) Security versus freedom? A challenge for Europe’s future. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Baratta R (2002) Overlaps between European community competence and European Union foreign policy activity. In: Cannizaro E (ed) The European Union as an actor in international relations. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 51–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Bomberg E, Peterson J, Stubb A (2008) The European Union: how does it work? 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess M, Vllaard H (2006) State territoriality and European integration. Routledge, Abingdon/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Casale D (2008) Institutional and legal aspects of EU counter-terrorism. In: Legal aspects of combating terrorism, vol 47. Centre of Excellence, Ankara, pp 115–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig P (2010) The Lisbon Treaty: law, politics, and treaty reform. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Craig P, De Búrca G (2011) EU law: text, cases and materials, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtin DM, Decker IF (2011) The European Union from Maastricht to Lisbon: institutional and legal unity out of the shadows. In: Craig P, De Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 155–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedman MJ (1996) The origins and development of the European Union 1945–1995: a history of European integration. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M, van den Wyngaert C (1998) Corpus Juris. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas-Marty M, Vervaele JAE (2000) Corpus Juris, vol 1. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B, Geecllioed A, Inghelram J (2008) Legal instruments, decision-making and EU finances. In: McDonnell A, Kapteyn PJG, Mortelmans K, Timmermans CWA (eds) The law of the European Union and the European communities. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 273–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckes C, Konstadinides T (eds) (2011) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice: a European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer P (2006) European law: historical and constitutional aspects. Eurokódex, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Folsom RH (2005) Principles of European Union law. Thomson/West, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine P (2006) Europe in 12 lessons. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild E, Geyer F (2008) The search for EU criminal law – where is it headed? In: Guild E, Geyer F (eds) Security versus justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn P (2008) The European Union. Chelsea House Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill C, Smith KE (eds) (2000) European foreign policy: key documents. Routledge, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jánošíková M (2004) História európskej integrácie [transl. History of European integration]. In: Klučka J, Mazák J et al (eds) Základy európskeho práva [transl. Basics of European law]. Iura edition, Bratislava, pp 9–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczorowska A (2008) European Union law. Routledge-Cavendish, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2011) Genéza európskeho zatýkacieho rozkazu a proces jeho implementácie v Slovenskej republike [transl: Genesis of the European arrest warrant and its implementation in the Slovak Republic]. Právny obzor 94:462–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012) Joint investigation teams in the European Union. Intern Secur 4:63–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013) Europeizácia trestného práva (historický vývoj) [transl. Europeanisation of criminal law (historic development)]. In: Ivor J, Klimek L, Záhora J (eds) Trestné právo Európskej únie a jeho vplyv na právny poriadok Slovenskej republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Slovak Republic]. Eurokódex, Žilina, pp 57–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2014) Pozícia trestného práva v primárnom práve Európskej únie [transl.: Position of criminal law in the European Union primary law]. In: Ľalíková N et al (eds) Poňatie a charakter práva [transl.: Concept and nature of law]. Proceedings of the international conference held on 27th February 2014 in Bratislava at the Faculty of Law, Pan-European University. Slovak Academic Press, Bratislava, pp 259–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2012) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland

    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 

  • Majone G (2005) Dilemmas of European integration: the ambiguities & pitfalls of integration by stealth. Oxford University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marin L (2008) The European arrest warrant in the Italian Republic. Eur Const Law Rev 4:251–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Monar J (2005) A new ‘Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ for the enlarged EU? The results of the European Convention. In: Henderson K (ed) Area of freedom, security and justice in the enlarged Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke/New York, pp 110–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CC (2011) The European evidence warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis)trust? In: Eckes C, Konstadinides T (eds) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice: a European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 224–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2011a) EU justice and home affairs law (non-civil). In: Craig P, De Búrca G (eds) The evolution of EU law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 269–298

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2011b) EU justice and home affairs law, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perron W (2005) Perspectives of the harmonization of criminal law and criminal procedure in the European Union. In: Husabø EJ, Strandbakken A (eds) Harmonization of criminal law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachta M, van Ballegooij W (2005) The framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States of the European Union. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 13–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radtke H (2005) The proposal to establish a European prosecutor. In: Husabø EJ, Strandbakken A (eds) Harmonization of criminal law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 103–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan E, O’Mahony P (2002) The Third Pillar of the European Union: the emerging structure of EU Police and Judicial co-operation in criminal matters, and its impact on Irish criminal justice and civil liberties. In: O’Mahony P (ed) Criminal justice in Ireland. Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, pp 297–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds D (2000) Europe divided and reunited. In: Blanning TCW (ed) The Oxford history of modern Europe. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 282–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken C (2006) Joint investigation teams: principles, practice, and problems. Lessons learnt from the first efforts to establish a JIT. Utrecht Law Rev 2:99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijken C, Vermeulen G (eds) (2006) Joint investigation teams in the European Union: from theory to practice. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon TC, Nicoll W (eds) (1997) Building European Union: a documentary history and analysis. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Schütze R (2002) European constitutional law. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JR (2000) The Corpus Juris project – has it a future? In: Dashwood A, Ward A (eds) The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies, vol 2. Hart, Oxford/Portland/Oregon, pp 355–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JR (2002) Introduction. In: Delmas-Marty M, Spencer JR (eds) European criminal procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer JR (2005) The European arrest warrant. In: Bell J, Kilpatrick C (eds) The Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies, vol 6. Hart, Oxford/Portland, pp 201–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Thody P (1997) An historical introduction to the European Union. Routledge, London/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G (2005) Essential texts on international and European criminal law, 4th edn. Maklu, Antwerpen, pp 327–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl T (2009) The European Union as an actor in the fight against terrorism. In: Wade M, Maljević A (eds) A war on terror? The European stance on a new threat, changing laws and human rights implications. Springer, New York/Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London, pp 107–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessel RA, Marin L, Matera C (2011) The external dimension of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice. In: Eckes C, Konstadinides T (eds) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice: a European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 272–300

    Chapter  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). Genesis. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation