Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bodies and Networks Facilitating and Co-ordinating the Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

  • 1246 Accesses

Abstract

The principle of the surrender procedure is almost entirely judicial. Besides the direct connection between judicial authorities, in order to facilitate or co-ordinate the procedure there is a possibility to use the EU’s bodies and networks. The chapter deals with bodies and networks facilitating and co-ordinating surrender procedure. It is divided into three sections and is summarised with concluding observations. Section 8.1 introduces the role of Eurojust. Further, Sect. 8.2 introduces the role of the European Judicial Network. Furthermore, Sect. 8.3 introduces the role of Europol.

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.

    Council of the European Union (2008): ‘European Handbook on How to Issue a European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 8216/2/08, REV 2, p. 21.

  2. 2.

    Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30.3.2010.

  3. 3.

    Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28th February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime as amended by the Decision 2009/426/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 63/1 of 6.3.2002.

  4. 4.

    Article 3(b) of the Council Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust […]; Klimek (2013a), p. 728.

  5. 5.

    Council of the European Union (2008): ‘European Handbook on How to Issue a European Arrest Warrant’, document No. 8216/2/08, REV 2, p. 21.

  6. 6.

    Eurojust (2005): ‘Annual Report 2004’, p. 67.

  7. 7.

    Eurojust (2006): ‘Annual Report 2005’, p. 91.

  8. 8.

    Eurojust (2012): ‘Annual Report 2011’, p. 23.

  9. 9.

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

  10. 10.

    Eurojust (2005): ‘Annual Report 2004’, p. 84.

  11. 11.

    Da Mota and Manschot (2005), p. 66.

  12. 12.

    Eurojust (2005): ‘Annual Report 2004’, p. 38.

  13. 13.

    Eurojust (2006): ‘Annual Report 2005’, pp. 54–55.

  14. 14.

    Eurojust (2012): ‘Annual Report 2011’, p. 24.

  15. 15.

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

  16. 16.

    Eurojust (2012): ‘Annual Report 2011’, p. 25.

  17. 17.

    Eurojust (2005): ‘Annual Report 2004’, p. 88; details see pp. 88 et seq.

  18. 18.

    Eurojust (2006): ‘Annual Report 2005’, p. 39.

  19. 19.

    Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2007) 407; Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Annex to the 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’, Commission staff working document, SEC(2007) 979.

  20. 20.

    Eurojust (2007): ‘Annual Report 2006’, pp. 5 and 35.

  21. 21.

    Long (2009), p. 25.

  22. 22.

    Eurojust (2008): ‘Annual Report 2007’, p. 70.

  23. 23.

    Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16th December 2008 on the European Judicial Network. Official Journal of the European Union, L 348/130 of 24.12.2008.

  24. 24.

    Article 3(a)(b)(c) of the Decision 2008/976/JHA on the European Judicial Network; Klimek (2013c), p. 750.

  25. 25.

    Article 10(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  26. 26.

    Long (2009), p. 25.

  27. 27.

    Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2006’, document No. 11371/3/07, REV 3, p. 3.

  28. 28.

    Council of the European Union (2008): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2007’, document No. 10330/08, p. 4.

  29. 29.

    Council of the European Union (2009): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2008’, document No. 9734/1/09, REV 1, p. 4.

  30. 30.

    Council of the European Union (2012): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2011’, document No. 9200/6/12, REV 6, p. 5.

  31. 31.

    Council of the European Union (2006): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2005’, document No. 9005/5/06, REV 5, p. 3.

  32. 32.

    Council of the European Union (2010): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2009’, document No. 7551/4/10, REV 4, p. 5.

  33. 33.

    Council of the European Union (2011): ‘Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant – Year 2010’, document No. 9120/11, p. 5.

  34. 34.

    See http://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/EJN_EAWAtlas.aspx (available 04-04-2013).

  35. 35.

    Article 88(1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30.3.2010.

  36. 36.

    Council Decision 2009/371/JHA of 6th April 2009 establishing the European Police Office (Europol). Official Journal of the European Union, L 121/37 of 15.5.2009.

  37. 37.

    The list of other forms of serious crime which Europol is competent to deal with partially mirrors the list of 32 crimes as provided by the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  38. 38.

    Article 4(1) of the Decision 2009/371/JHA establishing Europol; Klimek (2013b), p. 757; Klimek (2014), p. 213.

  39. 39.

    Europol (2007): ‘Annual Report 2006’, p. 45.

  40. 40.

    Europol (2008): ‘Annual Report 2007’, p. 20.

References

  • Da Mota JLL, Manschot RJ (2005) Eurojust and the European arrest warrant. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 63–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013a) Eurojust. 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 725–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013b) Europol. 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 757–774

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013c) Siete justičnej spolupráce v trestných veciach [transl: Networks of judicial co-operation in criminal matters]. 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 749–756

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2014) European Police Office (Europol): past, present and future. In: Bělohlávek AJ, Černý F, Rozehnalová N (eds) Czech yearbook of international law, The role of governmental and non-governmental organizations in the 21st century, vol 5. Juris Publishing, New York, pp 209–228

    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 

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). Bodies and Networks Facilitating and Co-ordinating the Procedure. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation