Improving the European Arrest Warrant

1 Introduction 1
1.1 The ImprovEAW project 1
1.2 Genesis of the report 4
1.3 Brief outline of the report 6

2 Transposition and implementation of the Framework Decision 9
2.1 Introduction 9
2.2 Infringement procedures 11
2.3 Grounds for refusal and guarantees 11
2.3.1 Mandatory grounds 12
2.3.2 Optional grounds 12
2.3.3 Guarantees 13
2.3.4 Incorrect transposition of optional groundsto mandatory ones and vice versa 14
2.3.5 Additional grounds for refusal 18
2.3.6 Distinction based on nationality 19
2.4 Human rights concerns and detention conditions: the two-step test 20
2.5 Issuing an EAW 21
2.5.1 Issuing judicial authorities 21
2.5.2 Preparation of the EAW 22
2.5.3 National judicial decision (proportionality) 23
2.5.4 Proportionality of issuing an EAW 24
2.5.5 Execution-EAWs: coherence between legal instruments 27
2.5.6 Proportionality revisited 30
2.5.6.1 Introduction 30
2.5.6.2 Proportionality of the EAW is more than proportionality of a NAW 30
2.5.6.3 Factors determining proportionality and the interests of justice 30
2.5.6.4 Formal requirement: judicial review 36
2.5.7 Dual level of protection 37
2.6 Executing an EAW 39
2.6.1 Executing judicial authorities 39
2.6.2 Prosecutors as executing judicial authority 41
2.6.3 Proportionality of executing an EAW 41
2.7 Central authorities 42
2.8 Language requirements 42
2.9 Conditional surrender 44
2.10 Recommendations 46

3 The EAW-form 51
3.1 Introduction 51
3.1.1 EAW-form 51
3.1.2 Validity of the EAW 53
3.1.3 EAW-form and the decision on the execution of an EAW 58
3.1.4 Recommendations regarding the EAW-form in general 61
3.2 Section (a) of the EAW-form 63
3.2.1 Legal framework 63
3.2.2 Section (a) in practice 64
3.2.2.1 Difficulties on the issuing side 64
3.2.2.2 Difficulties on the executing side 64
3.2.3 Recommendations regarding section (a) 65
3.3 Section (b) of the EAW-form 66
3.3.1 Legal framework 66
3.3.1.1 Introduction 66
3.3.1.2 Judicial decision 66
3.3.1.3 Enforceable judicial decision 68
3.3.1.4 Judicial decision ‘coming with the scope of Articles 1 and 2’ 71
3.3.1.5 Objectives of Art. 8(1)(c) of FD 2002/584/JHA 72
3.3.1.6 Arrestwarrant or enforceable judicial decision having the same effect 75
3.3.1.7 Enforceable judgment 76
3.3.2 Section (b) in practice 80
3.3.2.1 Difficulties on the issuing side 80
3.3.2.2 Difficulties on the executing side 83
3.3.3 Recommendations regarding section (b) 86
3.3.3.1 Revocation of a suspended sentence/parole 86
3.3.3.2 Offences not covered by the national arrest warrant 86
3.3.3.3 ‘Finality’ and ‘enforceability’ 87
3.4 Section (c) of the EAW-form 87
3.4.1 Legal framework 87
3.4.1.1 Introduction 87
3.4.1.2 Accessory surrender 90
3.4.1.2.1 Accessory extradition 90
3.4.1.2.2 Potential scope for accessory surrender 92
3.4.1.2.3 Accessory surrender allowed? 94
3.4.1.3 Sentence which may be imposed 95
3.4.1.3.1 Length of the sentence 95
3.4.1.3.2 Inchoate offences and participation 96
3.4.1.3.3 Multiple offences 96
3.4.1.4 Sentence which was imposed 97
3.4.1.4.1 Length of the sentence 97
3.4.1.4.2 Adding up sentences to reach the threshold 99
3.4.1.4.3 Single sentence for multiple offences: partial refusal 100
3.4.2 Section (c) in practice 103
3.4.2.1 Accessory surrender in practice 103
3.4.2.2 Sentence which may be imposed 105
3.4.2.2.1 Length of the sentence 105
3.4.2.2.2 Inchoate offences and participation 105
3.4.2.2.3 Multiple offences 105
3.4.2.3 Sentence which was imposed 106
3.4.2.3.1 Length of the sentence 106
3.4.2.3.2 Adding up sentences to reach the threshold 108
3.4.2.3.3 Single sentence for multiple offences: partial refusal 108
3.4.3 Recommendations regarding section (c) 109
3.4.3.1 Correlating offences with sentences; cumulative sentences 109
3.4.3.2 Accessory surrender 110
3.4.3.3 Thresholds of Art. 2(1) of FD 2002/584/JHA 110
3.4.3.4 Sentence which was imposed 111
3.4.3.4.1 Length of the sentence 111
3.4.3.4.2 Adding up individual sentences of less than four months 111
3.5 Section (d) of the EAW 111
3.5.1 Legal framework 111
3.5.2 Section (d) in practice 113
3.5.3 Recommendations regarding section (d) 114
3.6 Section (e) 115
3.6.1 Legal framework 115
3.6.1.1 Introduction 115
3.6.1.2 The concept ‘offence’ 116
3.6.1.3 The structure of section (e) 117
3.6.1.3.1 The structure in general 117
3.6.1.3.2 Description of the offence 118
3.6.1.4 Listed offences 119
3.6.1.4.1 Introduction 119
3.6.1.4.2 Custodial sentence of three years 123
3.6.1.4.3 Description 124
3.6.1.4.4 Review 124
3.6.1.5 Ne bis in idem 128
3.6.1.5.1 Introduction 128
3.6.1.5.2 The ‘same acts’ 130
3.6.1.5.3 Ex officio application? 131
3.6.1.6 Double criminality 131
3.6.1.6.1 Introduction 131
3.6.1.6.2 Assessment of double criminality 134
3.6.1.6.3 Temporal point of reference 136
3.6.1.6.4 Refusal on account of lack of double criminality 140
3.6.1.7 Prosecution in the executing Member State for the same acts 142
3.6.1.7.1 Introduction 142
3.6.1.7.2 The ‘same act’ 143
3.6.1.8 Statute-barred criminal prosecution or punishment 143
3.6.1.8.1 Introduction 143
3.6.1.8.2 Temporal point of reference 146
3.6.2 Section (e) in practice 147
3.6.2.1 The structure of section (e) 147
3.6.2.1.1 The structure in general 147
3.6.2.1.2 Description of the offence 147
3.6.2.2 Listed offences 148
3.6.2.2.1 Introduction 148
3.6.2.2.2 Custodial sentence of three years 151
3.6.2.2.3 Description 151
3.6.2.2.4 Review 151
3.6.2.3 Ne bis in idem 152
3.6.2.3.1 Transposition 152
3.6.2.3.2 The ‘same acts” 152
3.6.2.3.3 Ex officio application? 153
3.6.2.4 Double criminality 153
3.6.2.4.1 Transposition 153
3.6.2.4.2 Assessment of double criminality 155
3.6.2.4.3 Temporal point of reference 155
3.6.2.4.4 Refusal on account of lack of double criminality 158
3.6.2.5 Prosecution in the executing Member State for the ‘same acts’ 159
3.6.2.5.1 Transposition 159
3.6.2.5.2 The ‘same act’ 159
3.6.2.6 Statute-barred criminal prosecution or punishment 160
3.6.2.6.1 Transposition 160
3.6.2.5.2 Temporal point of reference 160
3.6.3 Recommendations regarding section (e) 162
3.6.3.1 Structure of section (e) 162
3.6.3.2 Listed offences 163
3.6.3.3 Ne bis in idem 164
3.6.3.4 Double criminality 164
3.6.3.5 Statute-barred criminal prosecution or punishment 165
3.7 Section (f) of the EAW-form 165
3.7.1 Legal framework 165
3.7.1.1 Introduction 165
3.7.1.2 Information about extraterritoriality 166
3.7.1.3 Information about (interruption of periods of) time limitation 169
3.7.1.4 Other information 169
3.7.2 Section (f) in practice 170
3.7.2.1 Information provided by the issuing side 170
3.7.2.2 Information encountered by and wished for by the executing side 172
3.7.2.3 Difficulties with Art. 4(7)(b) of FD 2002/584/JHA 173
3.7.3 Recommendations regarding section (f) 175
3.8 Section (g) of the EAW-form 176
3.8.1 Legal framework 176
3.8.2 Section (g) in practice 176
3.8.2.1 Difficulties on the issuing side 176
3.8.2.2 Difficulties on the executing side 176
3.8.3 Recommendations regarding section (g) 177
3.9 Section (h) of the EAW-form 178
3.9.1 Legal framework 178
3.9.2 Section (h) in practice 181
3.9.2.1 Difficulties on the issuing side 181
3.9.2.2 Difficulties on the executing side 181
3.9.3 Recommendations regarding section (h) 182
3.10 Section (i) of the EAW-form 183
3.10.1 Legal framework 183
3.10.1.1 Introduction 183
3.10.2 Section (i) in practice 185
3.10.2.1 Difficulties on the issuing side 185
3.10.2.2 Difficulties on the executing side 185
3.10.3 Recommendations regarding section (i) 186

4 Problems not directly related to the EAW-form 187
4.1 Introduction 187
4.2 Supplementary information – Art. 15(2)-(3) of FD 2002/584/JHA 189
4.2.1 Legal framework 189
4.2.1.1 When to use Art. 15 (2) and (3) of FD 2002/584/JHA 189
4.2.1.2 Type of information 191
4.2.1.3 Which authority should provide the information? 192
4.2.2 Legal practice 193
4.2.2.1 Authority that requests or provides supplementary information 193
4.2.2.2 Authority requesting the supplementary information 194
4.2.2.3 Proprio motu – Art. 15(3) of FD 2002/584/JHA 195
4.2.2.4 Type of information requested with Art. 15(2) of FD 2002/584/JHA 196
4.3 Detention conditions and deficiencies in the system of justice 201
4.3.1 Legal framework 201
4.3.1.1 Detention conditions 201
4.3.1.2 Deficiencies in the system of justice 205
4.3.2 Legal practice 208
4.3.2.1 Uneven trigger – uneven effect 208
4.3.2.2 Aranyosi and Căldăraru test 211
4.3.2.3 Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice) test 213
4.3.2.4 Sources to establish in abstracto risk 214
4.3.2.5 Supplementary information 215
4.3.2.6 Miscellaneous issues 222
4.4 Guarantee of return – Art. 5(3) of FD 2002/584/JHA 223
4.4.1 Legal framework 223
4.4.2 Legal practice 226
4.4.2.1 Implementation 226
4.4.2.2 Which instrument covers the return? 227
4.4.2.3 Consent and distinction between nationals/non-nationals 227
4.4.2.4 Authority 230
4.4.2.5 Uniform text for the guarantee 231
4.4.2.6 Other procedural steps and procedure of return 232
4.5 Time limits – Art. 17 of FD 2002/584/JHA 234
4.5.1 Legal framework 234
4.5.2 Legal Practice 236
4.5.2.1 Availability of data 236
4.5.2.2 The special case of the Netherlands 238
4.5.2.3 Informing Eurojust 238
4.5.2.4 Fixing a time limit for complying with the request of Art. 15(2) of FD 2002/584/JHA 240
4.6 Recommendations 242
4.7 New structures of cooperation in criminal matters with and within the EU 244
4.7.1 Surrender to and from Iceland and Norway 245
4.7.1.1 The legal framework 245
4.7.1.2 The Agreement in practice 246
4.7.1.3 Recommendations 247
4.7.2 The application of the Petruhhin case and Ruska Federacija case 247
4.7.2.1 The legal framework 247
4.7.2.2 The consequences of the judgments in practice 251
4.7.2.3 Recommendations 254
4.7.3 Surrender to and from the United Kingdom 254
4.7.3.1 The legal framework 254
4.7.3.2 The Agreement in practice 255
4.7.3.3 Recommendations 257
4.7.4 The investigations by the European Public Prosecutor`s Office 257
4.7.4.1 The legal framework 257
4.7.4.2 The consequences of the Regulation in practice 258
4.7.4.3 Recommendations 260
4.8 Speciality rule 260
4.8.1 The legal framework 260
4.8.2 Speciality rule in practice 261
4.8.2.1 The content of the decision to execute an EAW 261
4.8.2.2 The formalities of the decision to execute an EAW 263
4.8.2.3 Ensuring the compliance with the speciality rule 264
4.8.2.4 Difficulties in the issuing state 265
4.8.2.5 Difficulties in the executing Member State 268
4.8.3 Recommendations 270

5 Synthesis 271
5.1 Introduction 271
5.2 The legal framework 272
5.2.1 Introduction 272
5.2.2 Observations 272
5.2.2.1 FD 2002/584/JHA 272
5.2.2.1.1 Amending/replacing the FD 272
5.2.2.1.2 Improving the application of the FD 275
5.2.2.2 FD 2002/584/JHA and other instruments 277
5.2.3 Conclusions 281
5.2.4 Recommendations 282
5.3 Organisation and communication 284
5.3.1 Introduction 284
5.3.2 Observations 284
5.3.3 Conclusions 285
5.3.4 Recommendations 286
5.4 Supplementary information and mutual trust 287
5.4.1 Introduction 287
5.4.2 Observations 287
5.4.3 Conclusions 290
5.4.4 Recommendations 290
5.5 The Handbook (a window of opportunity) 291
5.5.1 Introduction 291
5.5.2 Observations 291
5.5.3 Conclusions 292
5.5.4 Recommendations 292
5.6 COVID-19 293
5.6.1 Introduction 293
5.6.2 Observations 293
5.6.3 Conclusions 294
5.6.4 Recommendations 294

6 An Integrative Approach to Decisions and a Coordinated Application of Legal Instruments 297
6.1 Introduction 297
6.2 Starting point 303
6.3 Debating the need for a national arrest warrant and the need for an EAW 304
6.4 Where to hear the requested person and by whom? 305
6.5 Final stage: the executing authority assessing the EAW 307
6.6 Recommendations to the European Union 308

Annex I: Recommendations per chapter 309
Annex II: Common Practical Guidelines 323
Annex III: Questionnaire Improving Mutual Recognition of European Arrest Warrants through Common Practical Guidelines 349

Biographical notes 401