1 / 17

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AS A MEANS OF COMBATING TRANSNATIONAL CRIME?

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AS A MEANS OF COMBATING TRANSNATIONAL CRIME?. Daniel BERNARD Federal Prosecutor of Belgium CICERO FOUNDATION SEMINAR PARIS, 11 DECEMBER 2006. European instruments adopted in the frame of the principle of

marcellus
Download Presentation

HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AS A MEANS OF COMBATING TRANSNATIONAL CRIME?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AS A MEANS OF COMBATING TRANSNATIONAL CRIME? Daniel BERNARD Federal Prosecutor of Belgium CICERO FOUNDATION SEMINAR PARIS, 11 DECEMBER 2006 Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  2. European instrumentsadopted in the frame ofthe principle of MUTUAL RECOGNITION within the European Union « cornerstone » of judicial co-operation (Tampere,1998) Instruments adopted and implemented : 1. Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, 29th May 2000  JOINT INVESTIGATION TEAMS 2. FWD on the EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT13.06.20 (25 MS) 3. FWD on the FREEZING ORDERS 22.07.2003 (14 MS) In project : FWD on the EUROPEAN EVIDENCE WARRANT FWD on the CONFISCATION ORDERS Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  3. ACTORS involved in judicial co-operation concerning the fightagainstorganised crime inside the European Union On a judicial level 1. NATIONAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES 2. CENTRAL AUTHORITIES 3. EUROJUST 4. EUROPEAN JUDICIAL NETWORK 5. LIAISON MAGISTRATES On a police level 1. NATIONAL POLICE AUTHORITIES 2. EUROPOL 3. LIAISON OFFICERS Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  4. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTPRELIMINARIES 1. The mechanism of the EAW is based on a high level of confidence between Member States 2. Main role of the judicial authorities : the role of central authorities in the execution of a EAW is limited to practical and administrative assistance 3. The EAW should replace all the previous instruments concerning extradition in relations between EU MS 4. All the rules relating the respect of the fundamental rights are still applicable : refusal to surrender a person if  serious risk for death penalty or inhuman treatment  EAW based on discrimination Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  5. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTDEFINITION The EAW is : - a judicial decision - issued by a Member State - with a view to the arrest and the surrender by another Member State - For the purpose of :  conducting a criminal prosecution  executing a custodial sentence / detention order Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  6. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTSCOPE The EAW may be issued :  for sentences of at least 4 months  for acts punishable by the law of the issuing MB for a maximum period of at least 12 months but control of double criminality There is no control of double criminality : For 32 offences limitatively listed if they are punishable in the issuing MS for a maximum period of at least 3 years Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  7. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTTHE GROUNDS FOR MANDATORY NON-EXECUTION  OFFENCE COVERED BY AMNESTY IN THE EXECUTING MS  FINAL JUDGMENT or DEFINITIVE DECISION BY A EUROPEAN MEMBER STATE IN RESPECT OF THE SAME FACTS – ne bis in idem  LEGAL MINORITY (under the law of the executing MS) AT THE MOMENT OF THE FACTS Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  8. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTTHE GROUNDS FOR OPTIONAL NON-EXECUTION  Lack of double criminality (except the 32 listed offences)  Judicial proceedings for the same facts in the executing MS  Prosecution or punishment is statute-barred according the law of the executing MS  Judgement for the same facts in a non MS  The requested person is national or resident in the executing MS which undertakes to execute the sentence  Acts committed in the executing MS  Acts committed outside the issuing Stateand proceedings not allowed by the law of the executing State Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  9. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTGUARANTEES TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE ISSUING STATE  EAW ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXECUTING A SENTENCE OR MEASUREIMPOSED BY A DECISION RENDERED IN ABSENTIA AGAINST A PERSON WHO WAS NOT INFORMED ABOUT THE TRIAL  MANDATORY GUARANTEE : ASSURANCE DEEMED ADEQUATE TO GUARANTEE THE PERSON THAT HE OR SHE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A RETRIAL OF THE CASE AND TO BE PRESENT AT THE JUDGMENT  EAW ISSUED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROSECUTIONAGAINST A NATIONAL or RESIDENT IN THE EXECUTING MS  OPTIONAL GUARANTEE : RETURN OF THE PERSON CONCERNED TO THE EXECUTING MS IN ORDER TO SERVE THE CUSTODIAL SENTENCE OR DETENTION ORDER Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  10. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTJUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AND CENTRAL AUTHORITIES The issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the issuing MS, competent to issue an EAW The executing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the executing MS, competent to execute a EAW Each MS may designate a central authority : - to assist the competent judicial authority - for the administrative transmission and reception Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  11. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTIMPLEMENTATION Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  12. THE FRAMEWORKDECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTIMPLEMENTATION Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  13. THE FRAMEWORKDECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTIMPLEMENTATION Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  14. THE FRAMEWORKDECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTIMPLEMENTATION Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  15. THE FRAMEWORK DECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTSURRENDER PROCEDURE TIME LIMITS: 1. for the decision to execute the EAW :  with consent : 10 days  without consent : 60 days after arrest if not : inform immediately the issuing MS + 30 days 2. for the surrender of the person :  ASAP or maximum 10 days after final decision if not : immediat contact with the issuing MS  maximum 10 days after new date Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  16. THE FRAMEWORKDECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTSURRENDER PROCEDURE POSSIBILITY TO POSTPONE THE SURRENDER 1. For serious humanitarian reasons (endanger the life of health of the person) 2. For prosecution of the person in the executing MS or, if already sentenced, for serve a sentence in the executing MS Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

  17. THE FRAMEWORKDECISION ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANTEVALUATION DURING THE YEAR 2005 ARRESTED PERSONS : 1.526 EFFECTIVELY SURRENDERED PERSONS : 1.295 NATIONALS SURRENDED : 309 REFUSALS : 169 DELAY FOR SURRENDER : 30 à 40 DAYS Cicero Foundation - International Seminar for Experts

More Related