The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.' The EAW is intended to speed up the extradition process between member states of the European Union (EU) by removing the inherent causes of delay under the formal extradition procedure. The major difference between the formal extradition procedure and the surrender process under the EAW is that the court hearings under the new process perform an administrative function to check that the person to be surrendered is the same person in the warrant and that the EAW form is completed correctly, also to check whether any of the bars to extradition applies and whether there is a breach of the defendant's rights under the convention; unlike the formal extradition procedure, the rule on double criminality applies and the court will examine evidence against the defendant before making the decision whether or not to extradite.
[...] Further, as acknowledged by the Commission, the judicial authorities can refuse EAW request where it found breach of ECHR and this requires examining evidence. Furthermore, the UK courts has an obligation as a public body under s6 of the HRA 1998 to hear evidence where rights under the convention is concern therefore delay in this situations is inevitable. Accordingly the Commission reserves the right to submit proposals for amending the Framework Decision in the light of the result of their evaluation reports. [...]
[...] It was argued that the requirements under s2 and of the 2003 were not met that the three warrants did not include particulars of the previous warrant issued as required under subsection( and that the dates when the alleged offences were committed were unclear in breach of subsection They also submitted that if returned to Spain, their rights under Articles 3 and 6 of the ECHR will be breached and so on. It is apparent that the common grounds for appeal under the EAW scheme are based on the requirement stipulated under the 2003 Act that they have not been met and in the alterative breach of the human rights convention. [...]
[...] On the whole, the operation of EAW has some time to go to achieve its purpose; however, it has speeded up extradition and brought about real cooperation within member states of the EU. Bibliography Books Erika Szyszczak and Adam Cygan Understanding EU Law (2nd edn Sweet & Maxwell, London 2008) J Fairhurst Law of the European Union (7th edn Pearson Education 2010) Paul Craig and Grainne De Burca EU Law Text, Cases and Materials (3rd edn OUP, Oxford 2003) Rob Blekxroon and Wouter van Ballegooij eds, Handbook on the European Arrest Warrant (T.M.C Asser Press, CUP, Cambridge 2005) S. [...]
[...] This was answered in the negative and an application for a certificate on a point of law of general public importance was dismissed by the same court on 30 September 2008. The defendants then applied for a writ of Habeas Corpus to the Court, which require no certification on a point of law of public importance and on that same date submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights for an order preventing their extradition to Italy on the ground as stated above. [...]
[...] His appeal was dismissed but it took nearly two years from extradition hearing to appeal, given that he was already in prison in the UK for offences pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, when the request was received. As Lord Bingham observed, Part 1 of the 2003 Act is designed to provide a ‘simpler, quicker more effective procedure' for the extradition of persons between member states of the European Union, which is ‘founded on the Member States' confidence in the integrity of each others' legal and judicial systems'[24]. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
