Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Definition and General Presentation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

  • 1286 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with the definition and general presentation of the European arrest warrant. It is divided into three sections and is summarised with concluding observations. First and foremost, Sect. 4.1 analyses the legal definition of the European arrest warrant. Further, Sect. 4.2 introduces its main features and Sect. 4.3 introduces the relation of the European arrest warrant to fundamental rights.

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.

    Apap and Carrera (2004), p. 16.

  2. 2.

    Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  3. 3.

    The author’s analysis of the definition of the EAW has been previously elaborated in his former works, namely: Klimek (2009, 2010).

  4. 4.

    Fenyk and Kloučková (2003), p. 150.

  5. 5.

    Article 6(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  6. 6.

    Lagodny (2005), pp. 39 and 40.

  7. 7.

    Lagodny (2005), p. 42.

  8. 8.

    Recital 1 of the Framework Decision on the EAW (emphasis added); point 35 of the Tampere Conclusions—see: ‘Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council 15th–16th October 1999, European Council’, available in: Vermeulen (2005), pp. 327–341.

  9. 9.

    Lagodny (2005), p. 40.

  10. 10.

    Nanada (2011), p. 338.

  11. 11.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 44.

  12. 12.

    Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 2187 UNTS 90, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9 of 17th July 1998; entered into force 1st July 2002.

  13. 13.

    Article 102 of the Rome Statute.

  14. 14.

    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, p. 5.

  15. 15.

    Article 3(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  16. 16.

    Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15th March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 82/1, 22.3.2001. The Framework Decision stipulates that each EU Member State shall ensure that victims have a real and appropriate role in its criminal legal system. It shall continue to make every effort to ensure that victims are treated with due respect for the dignity of the individual during proceedings and shall recognise the rights and legitimate interests of victims with particular reference to criminal proceedings. In addition, each EU Member State shall ensure that victims who are particularly vulnerable can benefit from specific treatment best suited to their circumstances.

  17. 17.

    Article 1(c) of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.

  18. 18.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27th 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L 327/27 of 5.12.2008.

  19. 19.

    Article 1(b) of the Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments […].

  20. 20.

    Article 25 of the European Convention on Extradition.

  21. 21.

    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], Pt. VI, para. 51.

  22. 22.

    Apap and Carrera (2004), p. 16.

  23. 23.

    Bureš (2009), p. 25.

  24. 24.

    Zurek (2012), p. 66.

  25. 25.

    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, pp. 5 et seq; Spencer (2005), pp. 205 et seq.

  26. 26.

    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 [Treaty between the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of Spain for the pursuit of serious crime through the superceding of extradition in a common area of justice]. Rome, 28th November 2000.

  27. 27.

    Bureš (2011), p. 153.

  28. 28.

    Treaty on EU introduced the legal concept of the European citizenship into EU law. Every national of a Member State is a citizen of the EU. Citizenship of the EU is additional to and not replaces national citizenship (Article 9 of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon). The European citizenship is emphasised also in the Treaty on the functioning of the EU (Article 20 as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon); see: Bellamy and Warleigh (2005) or European Commission (2000): ‘Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights’, EU Citizenship Report 2010, COM(2000) 495.

  29. 29.

    Shaw (2008), p. 687.

  30. 30.

    Hailbronner (2006), p. 88.

  31. 31.

    Long (2009), p. 12; Klimek (2011), pp. 442–448.

  32. 32.

    Council of the European Union (2008): ‘European Handbook on How to Issue a European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 8216/2/08, REV 2, p. 10.

  33. 33.

    Deen-Racsmány (2007), p. 170; see also: Deen-Racsmány (2006), pp. 293–299.

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    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.

  36. 36.

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

  37. 37.

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

  38. 38.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 40.

  39. 39.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  40. 40.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 36.

  41. 41.

    Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/389 of 30.3.2010. The EU Charter was not submitted to any formal voting procedure, either before national parliaments or before the European Parliament. The draft of the EU Charter was adopted in October 2000. The final text of the EU Charter was introduced in December 2000 at the Nice Summit (Official Journal of the European Communities, C 364/1 of 18.12.2000). In 2007 it was proclaimed in Strasbourg by the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission (Official Journal of the European Union, C 303/1 of 14.12.2007); detailed information see: Affirming fundamental rights in the EU: Time to act. Report of the Expert Group on Fundamental Rights, 1999; Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (text of the explanations relating to the complete text of the EU Charter). CHARTE 4473/00; Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Commission Communication on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, COM(2000) 559 final; Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Communication from the Commission on the legal nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, COM(2000) 644 final; EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (2006): ‘Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’; Peers and Ward (2004).

  42. 42.

    Recital 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  43. 43.

    Article 47 of the EU Charter.

  44. 44.

    Article 48 of the EU Charter.

  45. 45.

    Article 49 of the EU Charter.

  46. 46.

    Article 50 of the EU Charter.

  47. 47.

    The Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty Establishing the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/231 of 13.12.2006.

  48. 48.

    Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30.3.2010.

  49. 49.

    Article 6 of the Treaty on EU.

  50. 50.

    Paladinu (2011), p. 266.

  51. 51.

    Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Commission Communication on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, COM(2000) 559 final, p. 3.

  52. 52.

    Smith (2007), p. 105.

  53. 53.

    Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 239.

  54. 54.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 005 [1950]. Rome, 4th November 1950.

  55. 55.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—Case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre.

  56. 56.

    Judgment Jeremy F, paras 46 and 47.

  57. 57.

    Recital 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  58. 58.

    Vennemann (2003), p. 115.

  59. 59.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 41.

  60. 60.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2011) 175, p. 3.

  61. 61.

    Resolution of the Council of 30th November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, C 295/1 of 4.12.2009.

  62. 62.

    European Commission (2011): ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2011) 175.

References

  • 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 

  • Bellamy R, Warleigh A (2005) Citizenship and governance in the European Union. Continuum, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureš O (2009) European arrest warrant: implications for EU counterterrorism efforts. Cent Eur J Int Secur Stud 3:21–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureš O (2011) EU counterterrorism policy: a paper tiger? Ashgate, Farnham/Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers D, Davies G, Monti G (2010) European Union law, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deen-Racsmány Z (2006) The European arrest warrant and the surrender of nationals revisited: the lessons of constitutional challenges. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 14:293–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fenyk J, Kloučková S (2003) Mezinárodní justiční spolupráce v trestních věcech [transl. International judicial co-operation in criminal matters]. Linde, Praha

    Google Scholar 

  • Hailbronner K (2006) Nationality in public international law and European law. In: Bauböck R, Ersbøll E, Groenendijk K, Waldrauch H (eds) Acquisition and loss of nationality. Comparative analyses, policies and trends in 15 European countries, volume I. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2009) Európsky zatýkací rozkaz [transl. European arrest warrant]. Student research competition held at the Faculty of Law, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2010) European arrest warrant, Diploma Work. Faculty of Law, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2011) Odovzdávanie štátnych príslušníkov prostredníctvom európskeho zatýkacieho rozkazu [transl.: Surrender of nationals via European arrest warrant]. In: Dufalová L et al (eds) Míľniky práva v stredoeurópskom priestore 2011 [transl.: Milestones of law in the area of Central Europe, Vol 2011]. Conference proceedings from the international conference for Ph.D. students and young researchers organised by the Faculty of Law, Comenius University, held on 31st March–2nd April 2011 in Častá-Papiernička. Comenius University, Bratislava, pp 442–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny O (2005) Extradition’ without a granting procedure: the concept of ‘surrender’. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 39–45

    Chapter  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 

  • Nanada VP (2011) Extradition and mutual legal assistance: recent trends in inter-state cooperation to combat international crimes. In: Brown BS (ed) Research handbook on international criminal law. Edward Elgar, Northampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Paladinu L (2011) The European charter of fundamental rights after Lisbon: a “Timid” Trojan Horse in the domain of the common foreign and security policy? In: Di Federico G (ed) The EU charter of fundamental rights: from declaration to binding document. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S, Ward A (eds) (2004) Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union: politics, law and policy. Hart, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw MN (2008) International law, 6th edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RKM (2007) Textbook on international human rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    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 201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennemann N (2003) The European arrest warrant and its human rights implications. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 63:103–122

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek J (2012) Against tradition: the European arrest warrant. Educ Sci Without Borders 3:66–70

    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). Definition and General Presentation. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation