Personal Freedom and Surrender

  • Marta Bargis


The chapter deals with the EAW, which represents the first and currently the most important instrument of mutual recognition for Member States of the European Union. Section 8.1 analyses the forms of intergovernmental cooperation and explains the reasons and the objectives of the change from extradition to surrender procedures. Section 8.2 draws the fundamental outlines of the Framework Decision on the EAW and examines the case law of the CJEU, which has provided relevant specifications on various profiles of the latter. Section 8.3 focuses on the critical issues regarding the implementation of the Framework Decision on the EAW in Member States and on the positive results of this mechanism; furthermore, it addresses the changes made to the Framework Decision on the EAW by three subsequent framework decisions (Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners, Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA on the decisions rendered in absentia, Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention): the first two modify the rules of the EAW (although only the second directly amends the original text of the Framework Decision), while the third plays a complementary role with regard to the EAW. Finally, Sect. 8.3 faces with the problem of the relationship between the EAW, based on punitive goals, and the fundamental rights protection of the requested person: from this specific standpoint, directives related to the roadmap for strengthening procedural rights and to Commission ‘package’ 2013 are analysed in detail.

Further Reading

  1. 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(2):200 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Amalfitano C (2013) Mandato d’arresto europeo: reciproco riconoscimento vs diritti fondamentali? Note a margine delle sentenze Radu e Melloni della Corte di Giustizia. 4 July 2013
  3. Bachmaier L (2015) Mutual recognition instruments and the role of the CJEU: the grounds for non-execution. New J Eur Crim Law 6(4):505 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The EU directive on the right to access to a lawyer: a critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111 ffGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachmaier Winter L (2016) Quo vadis – El TJUE y su papel en materia de cooperación penal al hilo de la reciente jurisprudencia sobre la orden de detención y entrega. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, no. 38Google Scholar
  6. Bargis M (2007) Studi di diritto processuale penale. II. Questioni europee e “ricadute” italiane. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargis M (2015) Il mandato di arresto europeo dalla decisione quadro del 2002 alle odierne prospettive. Dir pen cont 4:61 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Bargis M (2017) Mandato di arresto europeo e diritti fondamentali: recenti itinerari “virtuosi” della Corte di giustizia tra compromessi e nodi irrisolti. Dir pen cont 2:177 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. Bargis M, Selvaggi E (eds) (2005) Mandato d’arresto europeo. Dall’estradizione alle procedure di consegna. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  10. Benoit L (2003) Le mandat d’arrêt européen. Revue du Marché Commun et de l’Union européenne 465:106 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) (2004) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T.M.C. Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  12. Böse M (2015) Human rights violations and mutual trust: recent case law on the European arrest warrant. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 135 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Brodowski D (2017) Strafrechtsrelevante Entwicklungen in der Europäischen Union – ein Überblick. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 11 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Cartier ME (dir) (2005) Le mandat d'arrêt européen. Bruylant, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  15. Chelo A (2010) Il mandato di arresto europeo. Cedam, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  16. Chiavario M (2013) Manuale dell'estradizione e del mandato d'arresto europeo. Utet, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  17. Combeaud S (2006) Premier bilan du mandat d’arrêt européen. Revue du Marché Commun et de l’Union européenne 495:114 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Coventry T (2017) Pretrial detention. Assessing European Union competence under Article 82(2) TFEU. New J Eur Crim Law 8(1):43 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Da Fonseca A (2014) Le Tribunal constitutionnel espagnol et la Cour de justice: un dialogue d’apparat autour de l’affaire Melloni? 30 Mars 2014
  20. De Amicis G, Iuzzolino G (2008) Guida al mandato d'arresto europeo. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  21. Delgado L (2013) Droits fondamentaux et reconnaissance mutuelle: une jurisprudence troublante ou simplement prudente? 2 Fevrier 2013
  22. Di Chiara G (2013) The protection of the right of freedom on the European Union level: the European arrest warrant and non-custodial pre trial measures. The guideline of the principle of proportionality: an interpretative perspective. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquires and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 241 ffGoogle Scholar
  23. Fichera M (2009) The European arrest warrant and the sovereign state: a marriage of convenience? Eur Law J 15:70 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. Fichera M (2011) The implementation of the European arrest warrant in the European Union: law, policy and practice. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Flore D (2002) Le mandat d'arrêt européen: première mise en oeuvre d'un noveau paradigme de la justice pénal européenne. Journal des Tribunaux, pp 273 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Fontaine M (2016) Une directive relative à l’aide juridictionelle dans l’Union, alfin? 22 Octobre 2016
  27. Gáspár-Szilágyi S (2016) Joined cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: converging human rights standards, mutual trust and a new ground for postponing a European arrest warrant. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 24(2–3):197 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gómez-Jara Díez C (2006) European arrest warrant and the principle of mutual recognition. Eucrim, pp 23 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Grasso C (2013) The European arrest warrant under the scrutiny of the Italian constitutional Court. New J Eur Crim Law 4(1):120 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guiresse M (2016) Confiance mutuelle et mandat d’arrêt européen: evolution ou inflexion de la Cour de justice? 12 Avril 2016
  31. Heard C, Mansell D (2011) The European arrest warrant: the role of judges when human rights are at risk. New J Eur Crim Law 2(2):133 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Herlin-Karnell E (2007) In the wake of Pupino: Advocaten voor de Wereld and Dell’Orto. Germ Law J 8(12):1147 ffGoogle Scholar
  33. Jimeno-Bulnes M (2007) The enforcement of the European arrest warrant: a comparison between Spain and UK. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 15(3–4):263 ffGoogle Scholar
  34. Jimeno-Bulnes M (2008) European arrest warrant and surrender procedures: essential guarantees. In: de Hoyos Sancho M (ed) Criminal proceedings in the European Union: essential safeguards. Lex Nova, Valladolid, pp 101 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. Jimeno-Bulnes M (2010) The application of the European arrest warrant in the European Union: a general assessment. In: Fijnaut C, Ouwerkerk J (eds) The future of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 285 ffGoogle Scholar
  36. João Costa M (2017) The emerging EU extradition law. Petruhhin and beyond. New J Eur Crim Law 8(2):192 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kalb L (ed) (2005) Mandato di arresto europeo e procedure di consegna. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  38. Keijzer N, Sliedregt E (eds) (2009) The European arrest warrant in practice. T.M.C. Press, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  39. Klimek L (2012) New law on the European arrest warrant in the Slovak Republic: does it fulfil standards at the level of the EU? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 20(2):181 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Klimek L (2015) European arrest warrant. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klip A (2017) Europeans first!: Petruhhin, an unexpected revolution in extradition law. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 25(3):195 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kromrey H, Morgenstern C (2017) Die Menschenwürde und das Auslieferungsverfahren. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 106 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Labayle H (2013) Mandat d’arrêt européen et degré de protection des droits fondamentaux, quand la confiance se fait aveugle. 3 Mars 2013
  44. Labayle H (2013) Fin de questions, début des difficultés? La réponse de la Cour de justice au Conseil constitutionnel à propos du mandat d’arrêt européen dans l’affaire Jérémy Forrest. 1 Juin 2013
  45. Labayle H (2013) Suite e bientôt fin: la saga du mandat d’arrêt européen devant le Conseil constitutionnel. 16 Juin 2013
  46. Labayle H, Medhi R (2013) Le droit au juge et le mandat d'arrêt européen: lectures convergentes de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne et du Conseil constitutionnel. Revue française de droit administratif, pp 691 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Mansell D (2012) The European arrest warrant and defence rights. Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 36 ffGoogle Scholar
  48. Marchetti MR (2008) Mandato d'arresto europeo. Enc. dir., Annali II, vol I. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 539 ffGoogle Scholar
  49. Marin L (2011) ‘A spectre is haunting Europe’: European citizenship in the area of freedom, security, and justice. Some reflections on the principles of non-discrimination (on the basis of nationality), mutual recognition, and mutual trust originating from the European arrest warrant. Eur Public Law 17:705 ffGoogle Scholar
  50. Marin L (2014) Effective and legitimate? Learning from the lessons of 10 years of practice with the European arrest warrant. New J Eur Crim Law 5(3):327 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Medhi R (2013) Retour sur l’arrêt Melloni: quelques réflexions sur des usages contradictories du principe de primauté. 29 Mars 2013
  52. Meyer F (2016) ‘From Solange II to Forever I’ The German federal constitutional Court and the European arrest warrant (and how the CJEU responded). New J Eur Crim Law 7(3):277 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meysman M (2014) Quo vadis with vulnerable defendants in the EU? Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 179 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Miettinen S (2013) Onward transfer under the European arrest warrant: is the EU moving towards the free movement of prisoners? New J Eur Crim Law 4(1):99 ffGoogle Scholar
  55. Millet FX (2014) How much lenience for how much cooperation? On the first preliminary reference of the French constitutional Council to the Court of justice. Common Mark Law Rev, pp 195 ffGoogle Scholar
  56. Mitsilegas V (2015) The symbiotic relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights in Europe’s area of criminal justice. New J Eur Crim Law 6(4):457 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Niblock R (2016) Mutual recognition, mutual trust? Detention conditions and deferring an EAW. New J Eur Crim Law 7(2):250 ffGoogle Scholar
  58. Niblock R, Oehmichen A (2017) Local law repercussions on EU extradition law. Perspectives from continental Europe and England and Wales. New J Eur Crim Law 8(2):116 ffGoogle Scholar
  59. O’Reilly P (2007) The exit of the elephant from the European arrest warrant parlour. J Eur Crim Law 2:23 ffGoogle Scholar
  60. Ormazábal Sánchez G (2006) La formación del espacio judicial europeo en materia penal y el principio de reconocimiento mutuo. Especial referencia a la extradición y al mutuo reconocimento de pruebas. In: Armenta Deu T, Gascón Inchausti F, Cedeño Hernán M (eds) El derecho procesal penal en la Unión Europea. Colex, Madrid, pp 37 ffGoogle Scholar
  61. Ostropolski T (2014) The principle of proportionality under the European arrest warrant – with an excursus on Poland. New J Eur Crim Law 5(2):167 ffGoogle Scholar
  62. Oubiña Barbolla S (2012) The European arrest warrant in law and practice. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. V&R Unipress, Göttingen, pp 47 ffGoogle Scholar
  63. Pettigrew M, Vinter A (2017) Retreat in Europe. Returning to the issue of whole life sentences in Strasbourg. New J Eur Crim Law 8(2):128 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Platcha M (2003) European arrest warrant: revolution in extradition? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 11(2):178 ffGoogle Scholar
  65. Rafaraci T (2012) The application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. V&R Unipress, Göttingen, pp 67 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. Rozo Acuña E (ed) (2004) Il mandato di arresto europeo e l'estradizione. Cedam, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  67. Ruggeri S (2015) Procedimento penale, diritto di difesa e garanzie partecipative nel diritto dell’Unione europea. Dir pen cont 4:130 ffGoogle Scholar
  68. Schallmoser NM (2014) The European arrest warrant and fundamental rights. Risks of violations of fundamental rights through the EU framework decision in light of the ECHR. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 22(2):135 ffGoogle Scholar
  69. Selvaggi E (2008) Aporie nel m.a.e.: quale la base giuridica per il trasferimento dell'esecuzione della pena nel caso del cittadino? Cass. pen., pp 4407 ffGoogle Scholar
  70. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europaieshes Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  71. Siracusano F (2010) Reciproco riconoscimento delle decisioni giudiziarie, procedure di consegna e processo in absentia. Riv it dir proc pen, pp 115 ffGoogle Scholar
  72. Sokol T (2015) Implementation of European arrest warrant in Croatia: a risk for the functioning of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 23(3):258 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Taupiac-Nouvel G (2015) Le principe de proportionnalité en coopération judiciaire pénale: principe janusien de l’espace pénal européen. 16 Juin 2015
  74. Taupiac-Nouvel G (2016) L’arrêt Bob-Dogi de la Cour de justice, deux occasions manquées pour le droit de la coopération judiciarie pénale. 8 Juin 2016
  75. Tinsley A (2012) Note on the reference in case C-399/11 Melloni. New J Eur Crim Law 3(1):19 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Tinsley A (2012) The reference in case C-396/11 Radu: when does the protection of fundamental rights require non-execution of a European arrest warrant? Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 338 ffGoogle Scholar
  77. van Ballegooij W, Bárd P (2016) Mutual recognition and individual rights: did the Court get it right? New J Eur Crim Law 7(4):439 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. van der Hulst J (2014) Extradition and the European arrest warrant in the Netherlands. Eucrim, pp 64 ffGoogle Scholar
  79. Vassalli G (2002) Mandato d’arresto e principio di uguaglianza. Il giusto processo 3:129 ffGoogle Scholar
  80. Vervaele JAE (2013) The European arrest warrant and applicable standards of fundamental rights in the EU. Rev Eur Adm Law, pp 37 ffGoogle Scholar
  81. Viganò F (2014) Obblighi di adeguamento al diritto UE e ‘controlimiti’: la Corte costituzionale spagnola si adegua, bon gré, mal gré, alla sentenza dei giudici di Lussemburgo nel caso Melloni. 9 March 2014
  82. Vogel J (2013) Reaction to Radu. Judgment of the Oberlandesgericht of Munich of 15 May 2013. New J Eur Crim Law 4(3):310 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? Eucrim, pp 70 ffGoogle Scholar
  84. Weis K (2011) The European arrest warrant – a victim of its own success? New J Eur Crim Law 2(2):124 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weyembergh A (2006) Les juridictions belges et le mandat d'arrêt européen. Eucrim, pp 26 ffGoogle Scholar
  86. Weyembergh A, Armada I, Brière C (2014) Sur l’opportunité de réviser le mandat d’arrêt européen. Observateur de Bruxelles, Dossier spécial – Le droit pénal européenGoogle Scholar
  87. Wischmeyer T (2016) Generating trust trough law? Judicial cooperation in the European Union and the “principle of mutual trust”. Germ Law J 17(3):339 ffGoogle Scholar
  88. Xanthopoulou E (2015) The quest of proportionality for the European arrest warrant: fundamental rights protection in a mutual recognition environment. New J Eur Crim Law 6(1):32 ffGoogle Scholar
  89. Zanetti E (2009) Il mandato di arresto europeo e la giurisprudenza italiana. Giuffrè, Milano (8)2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Bargis
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Piemonte OrientaleVercelliItaly

Personalised recommendations