Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Execution the European Arrest Warrant

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

Abstract

The chapter deals with procedures in the executing Member State. It is divided into ten sections and is summarised with concluding observations. First, in Sect. 7.1 is analysed the obligation to execute the European arrest warrant and Sect. 7.2 deals with decision on surrender in the event of multiple requests. Consequently, further sections deal with special procedural issues. Section 7.3 introduces the consent to surrender, Sect. 7.4 time limits, Sect. 7.5 grounds for non-execution the European arrest warrant, Sect. 7.6 procedural safeguards, Sect. 7.7 pre-surrender detention and Sect. 7.8 handing over of property. Section 7.9 introduces transit of a requested person and expenses and Sect. 7.10 execution of the retroactively issued 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
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
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.

    Article 17(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  2. 2.

    Article 9(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  3. 3.

    Article 15(1)(2)(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  4. 4.

    Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  5. 5.

    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.

  6. 6.

    Vennemann (2003), p. 103.

  7. 7.

    Recital 8 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  8. 8.

    Article 22 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  9. 9.

    Article 24(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  10. 10.

    Article 24(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  11. 11.

    Article 16(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  12. 12.

    Article 16(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  13. 13.

    Article 13(1)(2)(3)(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  14. 14.

    Article 14 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  15. 15.

    Article 17(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  16. 16.

    Gay (2006).

  17. 17.

    Article 17(2)(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  18. 18.

    Article 17(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  19. 19.

    Article 17(5)(7) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  20. 20.

    Article 20(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  21. 21.

    Article 23(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  22. 22.

    Article 23(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  23. 23.

    Article 23(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  24. 24.

    Blekxtoon (2005), p. 258.

  25. 25.

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

  26. 26.

    Judgment Jeremy F, para. 64.

  27. 27.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—Case C-306/09—I.B., para. 50; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—Case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West, para. 64; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—Case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 30; Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi—Case C-42/11—Joao Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 36.

  28. 28.

    Article 3 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  29. 29.

    Article 4 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  30. 30.

    Article 4a of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  31. 31.

    Recitals 12 and 13 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  32. 32.

    Łazowski and Nash (2009), p. 40.

  33. 33.

    van Sliedregt (2007), pp. 248 and 249.

  34. 34.

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

  35. 35.

    Judgment Jeremy F, para. 36.

  36. 36.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi—Case C-42/11—Joao Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 36.

  37. 37.

    Article 3 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  38. 38.

    Article 3(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  39. 39.

    Blekxtoon (2005), p. 233.

  40. 40.

    Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  41. 41.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello.

  42. 42.

    The rule against double jeopardy has its origins in British common law. Naturally, it has been developed and in nowadays it does not reflect the same idea as in the past. British colonisation caused that the double jeopardy has spread from Europe to the world. It is known for instance in the United States of America. In the United States of America the special protection for criminal trials is included in the provisions of the US Constitution, which contains the protection against double jeopardy. As provided in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The purpose of this provision was explained by the US Supreme Court in case of Green v. United States [355 U.S. 184 (1957)] which pointed out as follows: The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State, with all its resources and power, should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offence, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing State of anxiety and insecurity as well as enhancing the possibility that, even though innocent, he may be found guilty.

  43. 43.

    Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello, paras 26 and 27.

  44. 44.

    In Nahum, an Old Testament book, one passage states that affliction shall not rise up the second time (Nahum 1:9). This is the passage that Saint Jerome interpreted in 391 ad to mean that God does not twice punish the same act, and this interpretation became a canon-law maxim that manifests the act-equals-offense presumption not even God judges twice for the same act; see: Thomas (1998), pp. 116 and 117.

  45. 45.

    The Greek philosopher Demosthenes remarked in 355 bc that ancient Greek law forbids the same man to be tried twice on the same issue. As pointed out by Thomas, if ‘same issue’ meant ‘same act’ as seems likely, the act-equals-offense presumption was established in early Greek law well before Nahum; see: Thomas (1998), p. 118.

  46. 46.

    As the most important source dealing with the principle of ne bis in idem can be considered the Digest of Justinian (hereinafter ‘Digest’). As is stated in the Book XLVIII (48) of the Digest, the governor should not permit the same person to be again accused of crime of which he has been acquitted. This is the expression of the maxim nemo bis vexari pro una et eadam causa, literally translated ‘a man shall not be twice vexed or tried for the same cause’. Nonetheless, the protection against double jeopardy afforded by Roman law differed significantly from that accorded an individual under modern form of the principle of ne bis in idem, because criminal prosecutions in Rome, generally, were not brought by the State. Under Roman law, a criminal prosecution could be brought by the victim of the crime or by any Roman citizen. The Digest explains that this principle merely means that the individual cannot be charged by the same accuser. If the person who has now come forward as accuser be pursuing his own injury and shows that he had not known that an accusation had previously been brought by another, if there is good reason he is to be allowed to be an accuser; see: Rudstein (2004), p. 3; cited provision on ne bis in idem see: Scott (1932).

  47. 47.

    Di Federico (2011), p. 16.

  48. 48.

    Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 117 [1984]. Strasbourg, 22nd November 1984.

  49. 49.

    Article 4 of the Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention (Right not to be tried or punished twice).

  50. 50.

    Explanatory Report to the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

  51. 51.

    Article 50 of the EU Charter (Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence).

  52. 52.

    EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights (2006): ‘Commentary of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, p. 384; Draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (text of the explanations relating to the complete text of the Charter). CHARTE 4473/00, p. 45.

  53. 53.

    Details see: Eser (2009), pp. 188 et seq.

  54. 54.

    Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14th June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 239/19 of 22.9.2000.

  55. 55.

    Articles 54–58 of CISA (Application of the ne bis in idem principle). It should be noted that in 2003 was presented an Initiative with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision concerning the application of the ne bis in idem principle (Official Journal of the European Union, C 100/24 of 26.4.2003), which was intended to replace Articles 54–58 of CISA. The main aim of the initiative was to offer further clarification of the transnational ne bis in idem rule, among others, by defining the concept of ‘criminal offence’ broadly. It included an exception to the ne bis in idem rule in case of new and previously undiscovered evidence and something that could perhaps be seen as a soft law ‘mechanism’ for the resolution of positive conflicts of jurisdiction. Despite the fact that it would improve the application of ne bis in idem, it met strong criticism and was not adopted. In addition to that, in 2005 the European Commission presented a Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in idem in Criminal Proceedings [COM(2005) 696]. Its purpose was to launch a wide-ranging consultation of interested parties on issues of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters, including the principle of ne bis in idem. It identified problems that might arise and suggested possible solutions. The European Commission outlined the possibilities for the creation of a mechanism which would facilitate the choice of the most appropriate jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, and also for a possible revision of the rules on ne bis in idem.

  56. 56.

    Conway (2003), p. 221.

  57. 57.

    Article 54 of CISA.

  58. 58.

    van Bockel (2010), p. 65.

  59. 59.

    Chalmers et al. (2010), p. 611.

  60. 60.

    Záhora (2009), p. 178.

  61. 61.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 11th February 2003—Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01—Criminal proceedings against Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge, para. 33.

  62. 62.

    Mitsilegas (2009), p. 143.

  63. 63.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 18th July 2007—Case C-288/05—Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger.

  64. 64.

    Cryer et al. (2010), p. 93.

  65. 65.

    Conway (2003), p. 243.

  66. 66.

    Biehler (2008), p. 255.

  67. 67.

    Article 9 of the European Convention on Extradition; the term ‘Party’ shall mean Contracting Party of the Convention, i.e. State.

  68. 68.

    Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Extradition.

  69. 69.

    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 of 10 March 1995. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 78 of 30.3.1995.

  70. 70.

    Convention of 27th September 1995 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 of 13.10.1996.

  71. 71.

    Cimamoti (2009), p. 112.

  72. 72.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bot—Case C-261/09—Criminal proceedings against Gaetano Mantello, paras 36, 37 and 39; analysis of the elements bis and idem see: Cimamoti (2009), pp. 118 et seq.; or van Bockel (2010), pp. 41 et seq.

  73. 73.

    van der Wilt (2005), p. 103.

  74. 74.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello.

  75. 75.

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

  76. 76.

    Apap and Carrera (2004), p. 13.

  77. 77.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi—Case C-42/11—Joao Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 31.

  78. 78.

    Article 4 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  79. 79.

    Article 4(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  80. 80.

    Blekxtoon (2005), pp. 261–262.

  81. 81.

    Article 4(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  82. 82.

    Article 4(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  83. 83.

    Article 4(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  84. 84.

    Blekxtoon (2005), pp. 261 and 262.

  85. 85.

    Article 10 of the European Convention on Extradition.

  86. 86.

    Article 4(5) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  87. 87.

    Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  88. 88.

    Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 112 [1983]. Strasbourg, 21st March 1983.

  89. 89.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17th July 2008—Case C-66/08—Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski, para. 45; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6th October 2009—Case C-123/08—Dominic Wolzenburg, paras 62 and 67; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—Case C-306/09—I. B., para. 52; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—Case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 32.

  90. 90.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi—Case C-42/11—Joao Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 36.

  91. 91.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17th July 2008—Case C-66/08—Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski.

  92. 92.

    Article 4(7)(a)(b) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  93. 93.

    Commission of the European Communities (2006): ‘Annex to the Report from the Commission based on Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’(revised version), Commission staff working document, SEC(2006) 79, p. 11.

  94. 94.

    Commission of the European Communities: ‘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. 8.

  95. 95.

    Council of the European Union (2009): ‘Final report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations – The practical application of the European Arrest Warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States’, document No. 8302/2/09, REV 2, p. 13.

  96. 96.

    Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón—Case C-306/09—I.B. v Conseil des ministres, para. 39.

  97. 97.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6th October 2009—Case C-123/08—Dominic Wolzenburg, para. 58.

  98. 98.

    Pursuant to the International Covenant, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall […] to be tried in his presence. Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant.

  99. 99.

    Pursuant to the European Convention, everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing […]. Article 6(3)(c) of the European Convention.

  100. 100.

    Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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 (2008/C 52/01). Official Journal of the European Union, C 52/1 of 26.2.2008.

  101. 101.

    Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26th 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. Official Journal of the European Union, L 81/24 of 27.3.2009.

  102. 102.

    Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA […].

  103. 103.

    Article 4a(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  104. 104.

    Article 4a(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  105. 105.

    Recital 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  106. 106.

    Recital 13 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  107. 107.

    Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  108. 108.

    Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  109. 109.

    Blekxtoon (2005), p. 242.

  110. 110.

    Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón—Case C-306/09—I.B. v Conseil des ministres, para. 32.

  111. 111.

    Article 11(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  112. 112.

    Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 142/1 of 1.6.2012. Analysis of the Directive see: Chap. 15, Sect. 15.3.

  113. 113.

    Article 5(1) of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information.

  114. 114.

    Article 5(2) of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information; Recital 38 of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information.

  115. 115.

    Article 4(5) of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information.

  116. 116.

    Article 5(2) of the European Convention.

  117. 117.

    Article 11(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  118. 118.

    Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/1 of 6.11.2013.

  119. 119.

    Article 10(1) of the Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

  120. 120.

    Article 10(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

  121. 121.

    Article 12(1) of the Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

  122. 122.

    Article (2)(2) of the Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

  123. 123.

    Article 10(4)(5) of the Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer.

  124. 124.

    Article 11(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  125. 125.

    Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 280/1 of 26.10.2010. Analysis of the Directive see: Chap. 15, Sect. 15.2.

  126. 126.

    Article 2(7) of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  127. 127.

    Article 2(8) of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  128. 128.

    Recital 22 of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  129. 129.

    Recital 22 of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  130. 130.

    Article 3(6) of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  131. 131.

    Recital 22 of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  132. 132.

    Recital 22 of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation.

  133. 133.

    Article 11(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  134. 134.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—Case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu, paras 40 and 41.

  135. 135.

    Article 14 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  136. 136.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—Case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu.

  137. 137.

    Article 27(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  138. 138.

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

  139. 139.

    Judgment Jeremy F, para. 52 (emphasis added).

  140. 140.

    Recital 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  141. 141.

    Judgment Jeremy F, para. 53.

  142. 142.

    Recital 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  143. 143.

    Spencer (2005), p. 206.

  144. 144.

    Article 12 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  145. 145.

    Łazowski and Nash (2009), p. 36.

  146. 146.

    Towards supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention see the Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23rd October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/20 of 11.11.2009. The Framework Decision lays down rules according to which one Member State recognises a decision on supervision measures issued in another Member State as an alternative to provisional detention, monitors the supervision measures imposed on a natural person and surrenders the person concerned to the issuing State in case of breach of these measures (Article 1 of the Framework Decision).

  147. 147.

    Article 26(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  148. 148.

    Article 29(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  149. 149.

    Article 29(2)(3)(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  150. 150.

    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. 21.

  151. 151.

    Gless and Scaaaffner (2009), pp. 305 and 312.

  152. 152.

    Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. Official Journal of the European Union, L 195/45 of 2.8.2003 (as amended by the corrigendum—see Official Journal of the European Union, L 374/20 of 27.12.2006). The main objective of the Framework Decision is to establish the rules under which a Member State of the EU shall recognise and execute in its territory an Order freezing property or evidence issued by a judicial authority of another Member State in the context of criminal proceedings (Article 1 of the Framework Decision). It addresses the need for immediate mutual recognition of orders to prevent the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of evidence. However, it deals only with part of the spectrum of judicial co-operation in criminal matters with respect to evidence. Subsequent transfer of the evidence is left to mutual assistance procedures. Thus, the freezing order must therefore be accompanied by a subsequent request of mutual legal assistance when the transfer of the evidence to the issuing Member State is required. As a result, different rules are applicable to the freezing and to the transfer of evidence. The first is governed by the mutual recognition and the second by the mutual legal assistance. As an additional instrument to the freezing order, therefore, there was introduced the European evidence warrant adopted in order to replace all of existing mutual assistance regime. It was introduced by the Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/13 of 9.5.2008. However, both Order freezing property or evidence and the European evidence warrant may be regarded as unsatisfactory. It has become clear, since the adoption of both instruments, that the existing framework for the gathering of evidence is too fragmented and complicated; see: Klimek (2012), pp. 250–290.

  153. 153.

    Article 2(d) of the Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence.

  154. 154.

    Gless and Scaaaffner (2009), p. 301.

  155. 155.

    The rule applies except when a Member State avails itself of the possibility of refusal when the transit of a national or a resident is requested for the purpose of the execution of a custodial sentence or detention order.

  156. 156.

    Article 25(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  157. 157.

    Article 25(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  158. 158.

    Article 25(4) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  159. 159.

    Blekxtoon (2005), p. 260.

  160. 160.

    Article 30(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  161. 161.

    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. 23.

  162. 162.

    Article 32(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  163. 163.

    Article 32(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  164. 164.

    Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the 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 190/19 of 18.7.2002.

  165. 165.

    Kapaedis and Stephanou (2008), p. 164.

  166. 166.

    Vestergaard (2008), p. 217.

  167. 167.

    Mickevicius (2008), p. 294.

  168. 168.

    Bulnes (2008), p. 362.

  169. 169.

    van der Wilt (2008), p. 312.

  170. 170.

    Vermeulen (2008), p. 156.

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 

  • Biehler G (2008) Procedures in international law. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Blekxtoon R (2005) Commentary on an article by article basis. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 219–278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bulnes MJ (2008) Country report – Spain. 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 354–239

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cimamoti S (2009) European arrest warrant in practice and ne bis in idem. In: Keijyer N, van Sliedregt E (eds) (2009) The European arrest warrant in practice. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 111–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway G (2003) Ne bis in idem in international law. Int Crim Law Rev 3:217–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Di Federico G (2011) Fundamental rights in the EU: legal pluralism and multi-level protection after the Lisbon Treaty. In: Di Federico G (ed) The EU charter of fundamental rights: from declaration to binding document. Springer, Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York, pp 15–54

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2009) Human rights guarantees for criminal law and procedure in the EU-charter of fundamental rights. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 26:163–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay C (2006) The European arrest warrant and its application by the Member States. In: European Issues, No. 16/2006. http://www.asser.nl/upload/eurowarrant-webroot/documents/cms_eaw_id1675_1_EuropeanIssues.16.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2008

  • Gless S, Scaaaffner D (2009) The handing over of property according to Article 29 of the European arrest warrant framework decision: legal scope, implementation and alternative regimes for handing over property in the EU Member States. In: Keijyer N, van Sliedregt E (eds) The European arrest warrant in practice. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 297–315

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kapaedis A, Stephanou E (2008) Country report – Cyprus. 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 161–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012) Free movement of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. Lawyer Q 2:250–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Łazowski A, Nash S (2009) Detention. In: Keijyer N, van Sliedregt E (eds) The European arrest warrant in practice. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 33–50

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mickevicius D (2008) Country report – Lithuania. 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 288–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart, Oxford/Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudstein DS (2004) Double jeopardy: a reference guide to the United States constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott SP (1932) The civil law: including the twelve tables, the institutes of Gaius, the rules of Ulpian, the opinions of Paulus, the enactments of Justinian, and the constitutions of Leo, vol 11. Central Trust, Cincinnati (reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange, 2001)

    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 

  • Thomas GC (1998) Double jeopardy: the history, the law. New York University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • van Bockel B (2010) The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2005) The European arrest warrant and the principle ne bis in idem. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 99–117

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2008) Country report – The Netherlands. 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 307–318

    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 

  • 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 (2008) Country report – Belgium. 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 151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestergaard J (2008) Country report – Denmark. 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 189–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Záhora J (2009) Aplikácia zásady ne bis in idem v Európskej únii [transl.: Application of the principle of ne bis in idem in the European Union]. In: Jelímek (ed) O novém trestním zákoníku: Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference Olomoucké právnické dny, květen 2009: trestně právní sekce [transl.: On the new penal code: Almanach of contributions of international conference Olomouc Days of Law, May 2009: criminal law section]. Leges, Praha, pp 175–182

    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). Execution the European Arrest Warrant. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation