DelegationswillfindintheAnnextheEuropeanhandbookonhowtoissueaEuropeanArrest Warrant. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 2 DGH2B LIMITE E

Transcription

1 ConseilUE PUBLIC

2 TheEuropeanJudicialNetworkdiscussedtheinitiativeinitsmeetingon28February2008. Furthermore,atitsmeetingon30April2008,theexpertsontheEuropeanArrestWarrant(Working PartyonCooperationinCriminalMatters)discussedtheinitiativeindetail.Atitsmeetingon14? 15May2008,theArticle36CommitteeendorsedthisHandbook,ontheunderstandingthatan evaluationofitsuseshouldbemadeafter18months. DelegationswillfindintheAnnextheEuropeanhandbookonhowtoissueaEuropeanArrest Warrant. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 2 DGH2B LIMITE E

3 AEX EUROPEAHADBOOK OHOWTOISSUE AEUROPEAARRESTWARRAT 1 1 Thecommentscontainedherearenotbindinganddonotaffectdomesticlegislation implementingtheframeworkdecision.commentsaremerelyrecommendations.judicial authoritiesare,however,remindedoftheirobligationtointerprettheirnationallawin conformitywiththeframeworkdecision(seethepupinocaseintheeuropeancourtof JusticeC?105/03). 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 3 ANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

4 ITRODUCTIO Theaimofthispublicationistoprovideguidelinesfortheadoptionofgoodpracticeinthe lightofexperienceacquired,whilesupplyingthecompetentjudgesandprosecutorswith specificinformationonhoweawformsshouldideallybefilledin.forthatpurpose,the textincludesspecificexamplesofhowtodrawupaneaw. TheEuropeanArrestWarrantisthefirstlegalinstrumentbaseduponmutualrecognitionof decisionsincriminalmatters.itimpliesaradicalchangefromtheoldextraditionsystem, whichhasbeenreplacedbyasystemofsurrenderwithinanareaoffreedom,securityand Justice,withanimpact,inparticular,onprocedures,timelimitsandgroundsfornon? surrenderofaperson.theeawisthusintimatelylinkedwiththetreatyobjectivelaid downinarticle29ofthetreatyoneuropeanunion. TheEAWshouldbeusedinanefficient,effectiveandproportionatemannerasatoolforthe preventionandrepressionofcrime,whilesafeguardingthehumanrightsofsuspectsand convictedpersons.theinstrument,whichisbaseduponthedeprivationofpersonalliberty, isinprincipledesignedtofurthertheprosecutionofmoreseriousormoredamagingcrime whichmaysubstantiallyjustifyitsuse,orforpurposesofenforcementofconvictions.itis onlyintendedtobeusedifanarrestwarrantoranyotherenforceablejudicialdecision havingthesameeffecthasbeenissuedatnationallevel. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 4 DGH2B LIMITE E

5 "TheEuropeanarrestwarrantisdesignedtohaveauniformeffectthroughouttheEuropean Union.Theeffectatwhichitaimsisthatofswift,speedysurrender.Itmustbebornein mindtoothat,forobviouspracticalreasons,alargenumberofeuropeanarrestwarrantsare notdirectedatonlyonememberstate:seethehouseoflordseuropeanunioncommittee Report,"EuropeanArrestWarrant?RecentDevelopments"(HLPaper156),para21.The formintheannextotheframeworkdecisionhasbeendesignedonthisassumption.the personwhoissuesaeuropeanarrestwarrantisnotrequiredtoaddressittoanyparticular MemberState.Onceissued,itisavailabletobeusedwherevertherequestedpersonhappens tobewhenitisexecuted" 1. ThehandbookwasdrawnupduringthePortugueseandSlovenianPresidencieswiththe assistanceofanumberofpractitionersworkingwiththeeawacrosseurope,andalsowith theassistanceoftheeuropeanjudicialnetwork,eurojust,thegeneralsecretariatofthe CounciloftheEUandtheEuropeanCommission.ItwasapprovedbytheArticle36 Committeeatitsmeetingon14and15May2008.ThatCommitteewastheonewhich discussedtheprovisionsoftheframeworkdecisionontheeawduringthebelgian Presidencyin2001. Thishandbookmaybeupdatedinfutureasnecessaryinthelightofpracticalexperience, amendmentstotheframeworkdecisionordevelopmentsincourtdecisions. AnysuggestionsonthetextofthishandbookshouldbesenttotheCounciloftheEU, GeneralSecretariat,UnitforJudicialCooperationinCriminalMatters,RuedelaLoi175, JLS,UnitforJudicialCooperationinCriminalMatters,EuropeanCommission,B?1049 Brussels. 1 LordHopeofCraighead'sOpinioninthecaseofDabasvsTheHighCourtofJustice,Madrid [HouseofLords,2007UKHL6]. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 5 DGH2B LIMITE E

6 TABLEOFCOTETS 1. FrameworkDecisionontheEuropeanArrestWarrant DefinitionandmainfeaturesoftheEAW TheEAWform ImplementationoftheEuropeanArrestWarrantintheEUMemberStates StatementsmadebytheMemberStatesconcerningthespecialregimeregardingthe datewhenactswerecommitted Surrenderofnationals CriteriatoapplywhenissuinganEAW principleofproportionality TranslationofanEAW LanguagesacceptedbyEUMemberStateswhenreceivinganEAW DeadlinefortheexecutingauthoritytoreceivetheEAWafterthedetention ofaperson HowtofillintheEAWform HowtotransmitanEAW Incaseswherethepersontoarresthasbeenlocated Incaseswherethelocationoftherequestedpersonisnotknown /2/08REV2 TK/ld 6 DGH2B LIMITE E

7 7.3. SchengenInformationSystem?SIS EuropeanarrestwarrantinSISone4all TransmissionviaInterpol TheroleofEurojust EuropeanJudicialNetwork "FichesFrançaises"?guidelinesbyeachMemberState AgreementbetweenNorwayandIcelandandtheEuropeanUnion RelevantdecisionsbytheCourtofJustice DecisionsbysomeSupremeCourts(insummary) LinkstomoreinformationontheEAW ExampleofhowtofillintheEAWform /2/08REV2 TK/ld 7 DGH2B LIMITE E

8 AEXES AnnexI FrameworkDecision(2002/584/JHA)of13June2002ontheEAWandsurrender proceduresbetweenmemberstates..25 AnnexII TheEuropeanArrestWarrantform..49 AnnexIII GuidelinesonhowtofillintheEAWform...55 AnnexIV LanguagesacceptedbytheMemberStateswhenreceivinganEAW AnnexV TimelimitsafterthearrestofthepersonsoughtforthereceiptoftheEAW..78 AnnexVI JudgmentoftheCourtofJustice(C105/03)Pupino?case..80 JudgmentoftheCourtofJustice(C303/05)AdvokatenvoordeWereld?case 99 AnnexVII DecisionsbysomeSupremeCourts(insummary). 119 AnnexVIII ListofContactPointsandcontactdetailsofEAWexperts /2/08REV2 TK/ld 8 DGH2B LIMITE E

9 1. FrameworkDecisionontheEuropeanArrestWarrant On13June2002theCounciladoptedtheFrameworkDecisionontheEuropeanarrestwarrant 1. InaccordancewithArticle34(1)thereof,MemberStatesshalltakethenecessarymeasuresto complywiththeprovisionsoftheframeworkdecisionby31december2003.from1january 2004,thisnewsystemhas,withafewexceptions,replacedextraditionarrangementswiththenew surrenderregime.asfarassurrenderbetweenmemberstatesisconcerned,thecorresponding provisionsofthefollowingconventionshavebeenreplaced:? theeuropeanconventiononextraditionof13december1957,itsadditionalprotocolof15 October1975,itssecondadditionalprotocolof17March1978,andtheEuropeanConvention onthesuppressionofterrorismof27january1977asfarasextraditionisconcerned;? theagreementbetweenthe12memberstatesoftheeuropeancommunitiesonthe simplificationandmodernisationofmethodsoftransmittingextraditionrequestsof26may 1989;? theconventionof10march1995onsimplifiedextraditionprocedurebetweenthemember StatesoftheEuropeanUnion;? theconventionof27september1996relatingtoextraditionbetweenthememberstatesof theeuropeanunion;? TitleIII,Chapter4oftheConventionof19June1990implementingtheSchengenAgreement of14june1985onthegradualabolitionofchecksatcommonborders. TheEuropeanarrestwarrantisajudicialdecisionenforceableintheEuropeanUnion,issuedbya MemberStateandexecutedinanotherMemberStateonthebasisoftheprincipleofmutual recognition. 1 OJL190, ,p /2/08REV2 TK/ld 9 DGH2B LIMITE E

10 1.1. DefinitionandmainfeaturesoftheEAW TheEuropeanarrestwarranthasreplacedthetraditionalsystemofextraditionwithasimplerand quickermechanismofsurrenderofrequestedpersonsforthepurposesofconductingacriminal prosecutionorexecutingacustodialsentenceordetentionorder.awarrantmaybeissuedfor purposesofcriminalprosecutioninrelationtoactspunishableunderdomesticlawbyacustodial sentenceordetentionorderforamaximumperiodofatleast12months 1 (duringtheinvestigation, examiningandtrialstages,untiltheconvictionisfinal)ormaybeissuedforexecutionofasentence ordetentionorderofatleast4months.thesecriteriaarenotcumulative. CentralAuthorities,whichusedtoplayasignificantroleintheextraditionprocess,arenow excludedfromtheeawprocessasarule,althoughtheymaystillworkassupport,transmission andinformationunitsingeneral.tomakerequestssimplerandeasiertocomplywith,theyarenow issuedinauniformwaybyfillinginaneawform. TheFrameworkDecisionreflectsaphilosophyofintegrationinacommonjudicialareaand involvesanewpatternofcooperationbaseduponmutualtrustbetweenmemberstates.the surrenderofnationalsisnowaprincipleandageneralrule,withfewexceptions.theseexceptions relatetotimelimitsandtorequirementsconnectedwithenforcement. 2 Practicehasshownthat aboutonefifthofallsurrendersintheunionconcernacountry'sownnationals,althoughconditions forreturnorforenforcementofthesentenceareoftenstipulated,inaccordancewiththeframework Decision,wheneffectingthesurrender. 1 Itshouldbenotedthat"maximumperiodofatleast12months"assetoutinArticle2(1)of theframeworkdecisionshouldbeinterpretedinconformitywiththeformerextradition regime(i.e.europeanconventiononextradition1957,euextraditionconvention1995). Therefore,inthelegislationimplementingArticle2(1)oftheFrameworkDecision,itshould beindicatedthataneawmaybeissuedincaseswherethepenaltywhichmaybeimposed fortheoffenceis12monthsormore. 2 Seechapter2.2.concerningthesurrenderofacountry'sownnationals. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 10 DGH2B LIMITE E

11 Thegroundsforrefusalofcooperationhavebeenreduced.TheFrameworkDecisionhassuppressed verificationofdoublecriminalityasagroundfornon?executionandnon?surrenderwithregardtoa listof32categoriesofoffences,asdefinedbytheissuingstate,wherethesearepunishableinthe issuingstatebyacustodialsentenceoradetentionorderforamaximumperiodofatleast3years. Iftheoffenceinquestionispunishablebylessthan3years,orisnotincludedonthelist,double criminalitywouldstillapply. Asaconsequence,wheretheinvestigatedoradjudgedoffencescorrespond,inthespecificcase,to theirtypicaldescriptioninthelawoftheissuingstate,thentheexecutingjudicialauthoritymaynot controlthedoublecriminalityoftheoffence TheEAWform TheEAWisajudicialdecisionissuedintheformprescribedbytheFrameworkDecision.The EAWformisanannextotheEAWFrameworkDecision.Theformmustbeused,althoughthis maynotalwaysbeclearfromthelegislationofsomememberstates.theintentionofthecouncil wastoimplementaworkingtoolthatmighteasilybefilledinbytheissuingjudicialauthoritiesand recognisedbytheexecutingjudicialauthorities.oneoftheaimsoftheformistoavoidlengthyand expensivetranslationsandtofacilitatetheaccessibilityoftheinformation.onlythisformshouldbe used;itmaynotbealtered.sincethisformwillinprincipleconstitutethesolebasisforthearrest andsubsequentsurrenderoftherequestedperson,itshouldbefilledinwithparticularcareinorder toavoidunnecessaryrequestsforsupplementaryinformation.theformcanbefilledinandprinted ontheeuropeanjudicialnetwork(ejn)websitehttp:// crimjust.europa.eu/documents.aspx. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 11 DGH2B LIMITE E

12 2. ImplementationoftheEuropeanArrestWarrantintheEUMemberStates 2.1. StatementsmadebyMemberStatesconcerningthespecialregimeregardingthedate whenactswerecommitted InaccordancewithArticle32(1)oftheEAWFrameworkDecision,anyMemberStatemay,atthe timeoftheadoptionoftheframeworkdecision,makeastatementindicatingthat,asexecuting MemberState,itwillapplytheEAWFrameworkDecisiononlytoactscommittedafteracertain date,tobespecified,whichmaynotbelaterthan7august2002.ifactswerecommittedbeforethe datesindicatedbelow,atraditionalextraditionrequestisneededinorderfortherequestedpersonto besurrendered. SuchastatementhasbeenmadebythefollowingMemberStates:? Austria: actscommittedafter7august2002? CzechRepublic: actscommittedbyczechnationalsbefore1november ? France: actscommittedafter1november1993? Italy: actscommittedafter7august2002.underitalianlegislation,italy cannotexecuteeawsissuedbefore14may2005.? Luxembourg: actscommittedafter7august2002(abillwillbebroughtbefore Parliament) OnlyAustria,FranceandItalyhavenotifiedtheCouncilincompliancewiththeFramework Decision.AsregardsItaly,thelegislationdiffersfromtheStatement. Hence,ifactswerecommittedbeforethedatesindicatedabove,theprocedurefortherequested persontobesurrenderedwillbecarriedoutbysubmittingatraditionalextraditionrequest,notan EAWform /06COPEN69EJN17EUROJUST /2/08REV2 TK/ld 12 DGH2B LIMITE E

13 2.2. Surrenderofnationals TheEuropeanarrestwarrantabolishestheoldextraditionsystem'snon?executionofsurrenderon groundsofthewantedperson snationality.thisgeneralisationofthesurrenderofnationalsisone oftheframeworkdecision smostsignificantachievements.however,itwasattheexpenseof someconstitutionaldifficultiesinsomememberstates. InGermany,thetranspositionlawwasannulledbyadecisionoftheFederalConstitutionalCourt dated18july2005;thedecisionpreventedthesurrenderofgermancitizens,butnottheextradition offoreignnationals,untilthenewlawof20july2006enteredintoforceon2august2006. InPoland,byadecisiondated27April2005,theConstitutionalTribunaldeferredtheeffectsofthe partialannulmentofthetranspositionlawuntil6november2006.theamendmentsweremadein timeand,since7november2006,polandhassurrendereditsnationalsonconditionthattheoffence forwhichsurrenderisrequestedwascommittedoutsidepolandandisanoffenceunderpolishlaw. InCyprus,byadecisiondated7November2005,theSupremeCourtofCyprusdeclaredthelaw transposingtheeawcontrarytothecypriotconstitution.arevisionenteredintoforceon28july 2006;however,thenewArticle11asthusamendedplacesatimeconstraintonsurrendering nationalsinasmuchasthisispossibleonlyforactscommittedafterthedateofaccessionofcyprus totheunion,i.e.1may2004. InaccordancewithArticle33oftheFrameworkDecision,aslongasAustriahasnotamendedits nationallegislationandatthelatestuntil31december2008,austriamayrefusetheexecutionofa warrantinthecaseofaustriannationals,wheretheactsconcernedarenotpunishableunder Austrianlaw. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 13 DGH2B LIMITE E

14 TheCzechRepublicwillcontinuetodealwithrequestsrelatingtoactscommittedbyCzech nationalsbefore1november2004inaccordancewiththeextraditionsystemapplicablebeforethe dateofaccessionoftheczechrepublictotheeuropeanunion,i.e.inaccordancewiththe EuropeanConventiononExtraditionof12December1957,itstwoAmendingProtocolsof15 October1975and17March1978,theSchengenImplementingConventionandtheapplicable bilateralagreements.accordingtotheprovisionofsec.403para2ofthecriminalprocedurecode (ActNo.141/1961Coll.,asamended)theCzechRepublicmaysurrenderitsnationaltoanotherEU MemberStatesonlyontheconditionofreciprocity. 3. CriteriatoapplywhenissuinganEAW principleofproportionality ItisclearthattheFrameworkDecisionontheEAWdoesnotincludeanyobligationforanissuing MemberStatetoconductaproportionalitycheck.Itwillbethelegislationandjudicialpracticeof thememberstatesthatwillultimatelydecidethisquestion.see,however,theadvocatenvoorde WereldcaseinAnnexVIIandArticle49oftheEUCharteronFundamentalRights. ConsideringthesevereconsequencesoftheexecutionofanEAWasregardsrestrictionson physicalfreedomandthefreemovementoftherequestedperson,thecompetentauthoritiesshould, beforedecidingtoissueawarrant,bearinmind,wherepossible,considerationsofproportionality byweighingtheusefulnessoftheeawinthespecificcaseagainstthemeasuretobeappliedand itsconsequences.therefore,theeawshouldnotbechosenwherethecoercivemeasurethatseems proportionate,adequateandapplicabletothecaseinhandisnotpreventivedetention. Thewarrantshouldnotbeissued,forinstance,where,althoughpreventivedetentionisadmissible, anothernon?custodialcoercivemeasuremaybechosen suchasprovidingastatementofidentity andplaceofresidence oronewhichwouldimplytheimmediatereleaseofthepersonafterthe firstjudicialhearing. ThisinterpretationisconsistentwiththeprovisionsoftheFrameworkDecisionontheEAWand withthegeneralphilosophybehinditsimplementation,withaviewtomakingtheeawan effectivetoolforcombatingseriousandorganisedcrimeinparticular. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 14 DGH2B LIMITE E

15 WhenitcomestoissuinganEAW,ineachcaseanevaluationshouldbemadewhichtakesinto accountallthevariouselements,includingtheseriousnessoftheoffence,themeasure,resourcesto bedeployedintheexecutingstateand,inparticular,thefactthatthemeasureinvolvesdeprivingan individualoffreedom. 4. TranslationofanEAW TheEAWshouldbesent,togetherwithatranslationintothelanguageoftheexecutingStateorinto anotherofficiallanguageoftheinstitutionsoftheeuropeanunionacceptedbythatstate,by meansofadeclarationdepositedwiththegeneralsecretariatofthecounciloftheeuropeanunion (seeannexv). GiventheshortdeadlinesforexecutionofaEuropeanarrestwarrant,itisdesirable,iftherequested person'swhereaboutsareknown,totranslatethesaidarrestwarrant,inadvance,intothelanguage ofthecountrywhereheislikelytobe.whenaneawistransmitteddirectlytoanexecuting judicialauthorityorcentralauthority,itmustbeaccompaniedbyatranslation. Inothercases,thewarrantshouldbetranslatedasamatterofurgencyintooneofthelanguages acceptedbytheexecutingmemberstateinwhichthepersonhasbeenarrested,withinthedeadline setbythememberstatewhenreceivinganeaw. MostMemberStatesusingtheSchengenInformationSystemhavespecialpractices.Since1 September2007,theSISone4allsystemhasbeenoperatinginprincipleinmostMemberStates, exceptbulgaria,cyprus,romania,irelandandtheunitedkingdom.thismeansthatwhatare knownas"sirene'sformsaandm"willcontainbasicallythesameinformationasaneawand thatprovisionaltranslationswillhavebeencarriedoutintoenglish.thesystemisoperationalsince September2007. WhentheSchengenInformationSystem,secondgeneration(SISII),becomesoperational,whichis expectedtobein2009,theoriginaleawwillbescannedintothesystemandwillbeimmediately available.thisdoesnotaffecttheobligationssetoutinarticle8(2)oftheframeworkdecision. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 15 DGH2B LIMITE E

16 4.1. LanguagesacceptedbyEUMemberStateswhenreceivinganEAW SeeAnnexV. 5. DeadlinefortheexecutionauthoritytoreceivetheEAWafterthedetentionofaperson Whenapersonisarrested,theexecutingauthoritymust,withinaspecifiedtime?limit,receivethe Europeanarrestwarrantaccompaniedbyatranslationintooneofthelanguagesacceptedbythat state,inordertoconductthesurrenderproceedingsand/ordetaintheapprehendedperson.time limitsandlanguagesacceptedbymemberstatesvaryaccordingtonationallegislation.non? compliancewiththetimelimitsorlanguageregimesmayhavevariousconsequences,suchasthe releaseofthearrestedperson,dependingonlegislationorcourtpractice. FortheapplicabletimelimitsseeAnnexVI. 6. HowtofillintheEAWform DetailedguidelinesaregiveninAnnexIII. WhenfillinginanEAW,particularcareshouldbetakenwiththedescriptionofthecircumstances oftheoffence(box(e)),sincethecourtexecutingtheeuropeanarrestwarrantisnotallowedto verifydoublecriminalityinrespectofoffencesonthelistofthirty?twocategoriesofoffences,ifthe offenceispunishablebyapenaltyofimprisonmentofamaximumofatleastthreeyears. Thislist,whichistakenfromArticle2(2)oftheFrameworkDecision,ispartlybasedoncategories ofoffenceharmonisedbytextsadopted,orintheprocessofbeingadopted,undereulaw.mostof thesecategoriescorrespondtooffenceswhichareeasilyidentifiableinthedomesticlawoftheeu MemberStatesandsodonotrequireanyparticularexplanation.Itshouldhoweverbestressedthat itistheissuingmemberstate'sdefinitionoftheoffencewhichapplies.thislistshouldnotbe interpretedasreferringtopreciseoffences,buttocategoriesofoffenceofthetypementionedinthe list. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 16 DGH2B LIMITE E

17 Incasesofabolitionofdoublecriminality,itisthedefinitionoftheoffenceintheissuingMember States'CriminalCode(generalorspecific)thatapplies.Theoriginalintentionoftheauthorsofthe FrameworkDecisionwasthatitshouldnotbenecessarytoincorporatethetextoftheCodeintothe EAW(ortoattachit,asisthepracticeofsomejudicialauthorities),thusavoidingunnecessary translationoflegaltexts.thecircumstancesofthecasemustalwaysbedescribedfullyand exhaustively,sothattheapplicationoftheruleofspecialty,nebisinidemandprescriptioncanbe assessed.itisalwaysnecessarytostatethetime,placeanddegreeofparticipationintheoffence(s) bytherequestedperson.iftheoffenceisnon?listed,thedescriptionoftheoffenceshouldbesuch thattheexecutingjudicialauthoritymustbeabletoassessdoublecriminality. Surrenderofaccessoryoffencesmeanssurrenderforoneorseveraloffencespunishablebyalower sanctionthanthethresholdsetoutinarticle2(1)oftheframeworkdecision.theframework Decisionitselfdoesnotexplicitlyprovideforawaytodealwiththeissueofaccessorysurrender. SomeMemberStatesallowit,whereasothersdonot.BeforeanEAWisissued,itshouldbenoted thatthissituationmayrendertheeawinvalid,inparticularinconvictioncaseswhereacumulative prisonsentenceistheobjectiveoftheeawandpartsoftheoffencesarenotcoveredbythe threshold. Theformmaybeprintedandfilledinbutnochangesordeletionsmaybemadetoanyofitstables. Ifaparticularmatterisnotapplicable,alwaysindicate"Notapplicable"butdonotdeletethebox. TheEAWformmaybeprintedandfilledinafterbeingdownloadedfromthefollowingwebsite: Thisformwaschangedrecently(November2007)sothattheboxescanexpandincasea largequantityofinformationneedstobeinserted. ItisadvisabletodownloadtheformandsaveitinapersonalcomputerfileoronCD,incasethere isnoaccesstothewebsitewhenneeded. TheEAWformdoesnotrequireanyadditionaldocumentsifproperlyfilledin.However,where applicable,therelevantidentificationdatashouldbetransmittedviainterpolorsirene,asnoted intheformattheendofbox(a). 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 17 DGH2B LIMITE E

18 Itisimportanttoindicatetheexistenceofphotographsandfingerprintsoftherequestedperson, wheretheyareavailable.furthermore,thecontactdetailsandthemobilephonenumberoftheduty officeandpersonresponsibleshouldalwaysbegiven,sothattheycanbenotifiedimmediately whentherequestedpersonisfound. InAnnexesIIIandIV,detailedguidelinesaregivenonhowtousecertainboxes.Theseguidelines arenotbindingonmemberstates'judicialauthoritiesbutcarryacertainweightbecausetheywere drawnupbyexpertsandotherpeopleinvolvedinthedraftingoftheeawframeworkdecision. 7. HowtotransmitanEAW 7.1. Incaseswherethepersontoarresthasbeenlocated Wherethepersontoarresthasbeenlocated,anEAWshouldbeforwardeddirectlytothecompetent authorityofthestatewherethepersonislocated,forexecution.allinformationconcerningthe issuingandexecutingauthoritiesofthememberstatescaneasilybefoundontheejnwebsite: Atthesametime,inordertoensurethatthepersoninquestionstaysinthesameplace,theissuing authorityusuallyalsosendstheeawdirectlytothesirenenationalofficeconcernedfor distributiontotheeumemberstatesthatarepartoftheschengeninformationsystem.thiswill enablethepoliceauthoritiesinthememberstatestoidentifythepersontobearrested. TheEAWissentbytherelevantInterpolNationalOfficefordistributiontothoseEUMember StatesthatarenotpartoftheSISforthetimebeing:Bulgaria,Cyprus,Ireland,RomaniaandUnited Kingdom.However,itshouldbenotedthatinsomeMemberStatesanInterpolalertdoesnot constituteagroundforanarrest.inthiscase,itisimportanttospecificallyindicatetheexistenceof theeaw,whichmaybenecessarytoallowthedeprivationofliberty. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 18 DGH2B LIMITE E

19 7.2. Incaseswherethelocationoftherequestedpersonisnotknown Incaseswherethelocationoftherequestedpersonisnotknown,theEAWshouldbesenttothe relevantsirenenationalofficefordistributiontothoseeumemberstatesthatarepartofthe SIS.TheINTERPOLchannelsareusedfordistributiontothoseEUMemberStateswhicharenot partofthesisforthetimebeing:bulgaria,cyprus,ireland,romaniaandtheunitedkingdom SchengenInformationSystem=SIS Article9(1)oftheFrameworkDecisionallowsfordirecttransmissionoftheEuropeanArrest warranttotheexecutingauthoritywhenthelocationoftherequestedpersonisknown.article9(2) providesthattheissuingjudicialauthoritymay,inanyevent,decidetoissueanalertforthe requestedpersonintheschengeninformationsystem(sis). AnalertintheSchengenInformationSystemwillbeequivalenttoanEAWaccompaniedbythe informationsetoutinarticle8(1).foratransitionalperiod,untilthesisiscapableoftransmitting alltheinformationdescribedinarticle8,thealertwillbeequivalenttoaneawpendingreceiptof theoriginalindueandproperformbytheexecutingjudicialauthority EuropeanarrestwarrantinSISone4all AttheJHACouncilon4and5December2006theCouncildecided 1 togoaheadwiththe PortugueseproposalfortheSISone4ALLproject,aimingtofindatemporarysolutiontothedelays andotherproblemsexperiencedinrunningthesisiiproject.theobjectivewastoconnectthe MemberStatesthatjoinedtheEUinMay2004tothepresentSIS1+.AccesstoSIS1+wouldthen leadtotheabolitionofinternalborderchecks.allmemberstatesconcerned,withtheexceptionof Cyprus,decidedtojointheproject(9countriesintotal). 1 CouncilconclusionsontheSISII,theSIS1+andtheenlargementoftheSchengenarea, 16391/1/ /2/08REV2 TK/ld 19 DGH2B LIMITE E

20 TechnicalpreparationsanddataprotectionevaluationsintheMSconcernedhaveledtoan exchangeofaandmformsinviewofrequestsbythedifferentmemberstatesforschengen "flags"tobeaddedtoarticle95alerts.thisworkstartedon21may2007andisprogressing steadily. Onthelegalside,theCounciltooktwoDecisions:? 2007/471/EC:CouncilDecisionof12June2007ontheapplicationoftheprovisionsofthe SchengenacquisrelatingtotheSchengenInformationSystemintheCzechRepublic,theRepublic ofestonia,therepublicoflatvia,therepublicoflithuania,therepublicofhungary,the RepublicofMalta,theRepublicofPoland,theRepublicofSloveniaandtheSlovakRepublic 1? 2007/472/EC:CouncilDecisionof25June2007amendingtheDecisionoftheExecutive Committeesetupbythe1990SchengenConvention,amendingtheFinancialRegulationonthe costsofinstallingandoperatingthetechnicalsupportfunctionfortheschengeninformation System(C.SIS) 2 ThefirstDecision? allowsrealsisdatatobetransferredtothememberstatesconcernedfrom7july2007. ThisfirstprovisionmeansthatMemberStates'nationalcopiesofSISmaybeloadedwithoutactual beingused.itsmainpurposeistechnical.? allowsthememberstatesconcerned,from1september2007,toenterdataintothesisand usesisdata,subjecttocertainconditions.theconditionsarelinkedtothefactthataslongasthe bordercontrolsarenotliftedtheprovisionsonrefusalofentrymustnotbeimplemented.this secondprovisiongivesthe9memberstatesconcernedpermissionactuallytousethesisonthe samebasisastheothercountrieswhicharealreadyoperational 1 OJL179of p OJL179of p /2/08REV2 TK/ld 20 DGH2B LIMITE E

21 7.5. TransmissionviaInterpol Article10(3)oftheFrameworkDecisioncreatesalegalbasisforaskingInterpoltotransmita EuropeanarrestwarrantincaseswhereitisnotpossibletotransmititviatheSchengenInformation System. TheuseoftheInterpolnetworkisseenasonepossiblewaytotransmitEuropeanarrestwarrantsin relationtothosememberstatesthatdonotcurrentlyparticipateinthesis(bulgaria,cyprus, Ireland,RomaniaandtheUnitedKingdom). 8. TheroleofEurojust InaccordancewithArticle3oftheCouncilDecisionofFebruary2002(2002/187/JHA) 1,oneofthe objectivesofeurojustistoimprovecooperationbetweenthecompetentauthoritiesofthemember States,inparticularbyfacilitatingtheexecutionofinternationalmutuallegalassistanceandthe implementationofextraditionrequests.thus,eurojustcanactasfacilitatorandcoordinatorin EAWandextraditioncases. PursuanttoArticle16oftheEAWFrameworkDecision,iftwoormoreMemberStateshaveissued aneawforthesameperson,thedecisionastowhichoftheeawistobeexecutedmustbetaken bytheexecutingjudicialauthoritywithdueconsiderationofallthecircumstancesandespecially therelativeseriousnessandplaceoftheoffences,therespectivedatesoftheeuropeanarrest warrantsandwhetherthewarranthasbeenissuedforthepurposesofprosecutionorforexecution ofacustodialsentenceordetentionorder.theexecutingauthoritymayseektheadviceofeurojust whenmakingthedecisionintheeventofmultiplerequests. Article17oftheFrameworkDecisionstipulatesthetimelimitsandproceduresforthedecisionto executetheeaw.whereinexceptionalcircumstancesamemberstatecannotobservethetime limitsprovidedforinthisarticle,isshouldinformeurojustofthereasonsforthedelay. 1 OJL63, ,p /2/08REV2 TK/ld 21 DGH2B LIMITE E

22 9. EuropeanJudicialetwork TheEuropeanJudicialNetwork(EJN)hassetupanITtool(theEuropeanJudicialAtlas)that permitsidentificationoftheexecutingjudicialauthoritytowhichtheeawshouldbedirectly transmitted( contactdetailsofexecutingauthorities; languageinwhichthewarrantshouldbeissued; timelimitforreceivingtheoriginalwarrantasofthedatewhenthepersontosurrenderhas beenarrested,wherethearresthasfollowedanalertinthesis; contactdetailsoftheissuingauthorities; contactdetailsofcentralauthoritiesandtheirpowers(i.e.forreceiptandtransmissionofan EAW;assistancetocompetentauthorities;requestsfortransit;urgentcases). TheEuropeanArrestWarrantAtlasisavailableontheEJNwebsitehttp:// crimjust.europa.eu.theeawatlasprovidestheinformationrequestedwhendataisenteredonthe locationtowhichtheeawistobetransmitted(country,district,region,sub?region,locality,zip code/postcode).ejncontactpointscanalsobecontacted. 10. "FichesFrançaises"=guidelinesbyeachMemberState AtthemomentthebackgroundinformationaboutEAW,suchasDeclarationsbytheMemberStates onthescopeoftheframeworkdecision,informationonthelegalprocedureandotherpractical detailsknownas FichesFrançaises,EAWformsinallEUofficiallanguagesandnational legislationcanbefoundonthefollowingwebsites: EJ()Website)documentdatabase? (Clickon"Documentbycategory"andselect"EAWnotifications"and"EAWreportsand documents.) 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 22 DGH2B LIMITE E

23 GeneralSecretariatoftheCouncilwebsite = &cmsid=545&id=66 GeneralInformationontheEuropeanCommissionwebsite? AgreementbetweenorwayandIcelandandtheEuropeanUnion On28June2006,asurrenderagreementbetweenNorwayandIcelandandtheEuropeanUnion wassigned.theagreementextends,withsomemodifications,themechanismforsurrenderto NorwayandIceland.Thisagreementisnotyetinforce. 12. RelevantdecisionsoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice TwoEuropeanCourtofJusticerulingswhichmaybeofinteresttothejudicialauthoritiesof MemberStates,i.e.Pupinocase(C?105/03)andAdvocatenvoordeWereld(C?303/05),arein AnnexVII. 13. DecisionsbysomeSupremeCourts(insummary) DecisionsbysomeSupremeCourtsoftheMemberStatesaresummarisedinAnnexVIII. 14. LinkstomoreinformationontheEAW MoreinformationconcerningtheapplicationoftheFrameworkDecisionoftheEuropeanArrest Warrantaswellascaselawcanbefoundontheweb?sitesbelow:? WebsiteoftheEuropeanJudicialNetwork 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 23 DGH2B LIMITE E

24 ? EAWAtlasontheEJNwebsite? InformationontheEAWavailableontheEJNwebsite 15. ExampleofhowtofillintheEAWform InAnnexIII,anexampleisgivenwithaviewtoprovidingguidanceonhowtofillintheEAW form.theexampleisdividedintotwocategoriesconcerningcaseswhereaneawisissuedforthe purposesofconductingacriminalprosecution/investigation(pre?trialstage)andcasesofexecution ofasentenceandwherethesentencehasbeenrenderedinabsentia. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 24 DGH2B LIMITE E

25 AEXI FrameworkDecision(2002/584/JHA)of13June2002ontheEAW andthesurrenderproceduresbetweenmemberstates 1 THECOUNCILOFTHEEU, HavingregardtotheTEU,andinparticularArt.31(a)and(b)andArt.34(2)(b)thereof, HavingregardtotheproposalfromtheCommission, HavingregardtotheopinionoftheEuropeanParliament, Whereas: (1) AccordingtotheConclusionsoftheTampereEuropeanCouncilof15and16October1999, andinparticularpoint35thereof,theformalextraditionprocedureshouldbeabolished amongthememberstatesinrespectofpersonswhoarefleeingfromjusticeafterhavingbeen finallysentencedandextraditionproceduresshouldbespeededupinrespectofpersons suspectedofhavingcommittedanoffence. (2) Theprogrammeofmeasurestoimplementtheprincipleofmutualrecognitionofcriminal decisionsenvisagedinpoint37ofthetampereeuropeancouncilconclusionsandadopted bythecouncilon30november2000,addressesthematterofmutualenforcementofarrest warrants. (3) AllorsomeMemberStatesarepartiestoanumberofconventionsinthefieldofextradition, includingtheeuropeanconventiononextraditionof13december1957andtheeuropean Conventiononthesuppressionofterrorismof27January1977.TheNordicStateshave extraditionlawswithidenticalwording. 1 OJL190, ,page /2/08REV2 TK/ld 25 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

26 (4) Inaddition,thefollowingthreeConventionsdealinginwholeorinpartwithextraditionhave beenagreeduponamongmemberstatesandformpartoftheunionacquis:theconvention of19june1990implementingtheschengenagreementof14june1985onthegradual abolitionofchecksattheircommonborders(regardingrelationsbetweenthememberstates whicharepartiestothatconvention),theconventionof10march1995onsimplified extraditionprocedurebetweenthememberstatesoftheeuandtheconventionof27 September1996relatingtoextraditionbetweentheMemberStatesoftheEU. (5) TheobjectivesetfortheUniontobecomeanareaoffreedom,securityandjusticeleadsto abolishingextraditionbetweenmemberstatesandreplacingitbyasystemofsurrender betweenjudicialauthorities.further,theintroductionofanewsimplifiedsystemofsurrender ofsentencedorsuspectedpersonsforthepurposesofexecutionorprosecutionofcriminal sentencesmakesitpossibletoremovethecomplexityandpotentialfordelayinherentinthe presentextraditionprocedures.traditionalcooperationrelationswhichhaveprevaileduptill nowbetweenmemberstatesshouldbereplacedbyasystemoffreemovementofjudicial decisionsincriminalmatters,coveringbothpre?sentenceandfinaldecisions,withinanarea offreedom,securityandjustice. (6) TheEAWprovidedforinthisFrameworkDecisionisthefirstconcretemeasureinthefield ofcriminallawimplementingtheprincipleofmutualrecognitionwhichtheeuropeancouncil referredtoasthecornerstoneofjudicialcooperation. (7) SincetheaimofreplacingthesystemofmultilateralextraditionbuiltupontheEuropean ConventiononExtraditionof13December1957cannotbesufficientlyachievedbythe MemberStatesactingunilaterallyandcantherefore,byreasonofitsscaleandeffects,be betterachievedatunionlevel,thecouncilmayadoptmeasuresinaccordancewiththe principleofsubsidiarityasreferredtoinart.2oftheteuandart.5ofthetec.in accordancewiththeprincipleofproportionality,assetoutinthelatterarticle,this FrameworkDecisiondoesnotgobeyondwhatisnecessaryinordertoachievethatobjective. (8) DecisionsontheexecutionoftheEAWmustbesubjecttosufficientcontrols,whichmeans thatajudicialauthorityofthememberstatewheretherequestedpersonhasbeenarrested willhavetotakethedecisiononhisorhersurrender. (9) TheroleofcentralauthoritiesintheexecutionofaEAWmustbelimitedtopracticaland administrativeassistance. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 26 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

27 (10) ThemechanismoftheEAWisbasedonahighlevelofconfidencebetweenMemberStates. Itsimplementationmaybesuspendedonlyintheeventofaseriousandpersistentbreachby oneofthememberstatesoftheprinciplessetoutinart.6(1)oftheteu,determinedbythe CouncilpursuanttoArt.7(1)ofthesaidTreatywiththeconsequencessetoutinArt.7(2) thereof. (11) InrelationsbetweenMemberStates,theEAWshouldreplaceallthepreviousinstruments concerningextradition,includingtheprovisionsoftitleiiioftheconventionimplementing theschengenagreementwhichconcernextradition. (12) ThisFrameworkDecisionrespectsfundamentalrightsandobservestheprinciplesrecognised byart.6oftheteuandreflectedinthecharteroffundamentalrightsoftheeu,in particularchaptervithereof.nothinginthisframeworkdecisionmaybeinterpretedas prohibitingrefusaltosurrenderapersonforwhomaeawhasbeenissuedwhenthereare reasonstobelieve,onthebasisofobjectiveelements,thatthesaidarrestwarranthasbeen issuedforthepurposeofprosecutingorpunishingapersononthegroundsofhisorhersex, race,religion,ethnicorigin,nationality,language,politicalopinionsorsexualorientation,or thatthatperson'spositionmaybeprejudicedforanyofthesereasons.thisframework DecisiondoesnotpreventaMemberStatefromapplyingitsconstitutionalrulesrelatingto dueprocess,freedomofassociation,freedomofthepressandfreedomofexpressioninother media. (13) Nopersonshouldberemoved,expelledorextraditedtoaStatewherethereisaseriousrisk thatheorshewouldbesubjectedtothedeathpenalty,tortureorotherinhumanordegrading treatmentorpunishment. (14) SinceallMemberStateshaveratifiedtheCoEConventionof28January1981forthe protectionofindividualswithregardtoautomaticprocessingofpersonaldata,thepersonal dataprocessedinthecontextoftheimplementationofthisframeworkdecisionshouldbe protectedinaccordancewiththeprinciplesofthesaidconvention, HASADOPTEDTHISFRAMEWORKDECISION: 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 27 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

28 CHAPTER1 GENERALPRINCIPLES Article1 DefinitionoftheEAWandobligationtoexecuteit 1. TheEAWisajudicialdecisionissuedbyaMemberStatewithaviewtothearrestand surrenderbyanothermemberstateofarequestedperson,forthepurposesofconductinga criminalprosecutionorexecutingacustodialsentenceordetentionorder. 2. MemberStatesshallexecuteanyEAWonthebasisoftheprincipleofmutualrecognitionand inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisframeworkdecision. 3. ThisFrameworkDecisionshallnothavetheeffectofmodifyingtheobligationtorespect fundamentalrightsandfundamentallegalprinciplesasenshrinedinart.6oftheteu. Article2 ScopeoftheEAW 1. AEAWmaybeissuedforactspunishablebythelawoftheissuingMemberStatebya custodialsentenceoradetentionorderforamaximumperiodofatleast12monthsor,where asentencehasbeenpassedoradetentionorderhasbeenmade,forsentencesofatleastfour months. 2. Thefollowingoffences,iftheyarepunishableintheissuingMemberStatebyacustodial sentenceoradetentionorderforamaximumperiodofatleastthreeyearsandastheyare definedbythelawoftheissuingmemberstate,shall,underthetermsofthisframework Decisionandwithoutverificationofthedoublecriminalityoftheact,giverisetosurrender pursuanttoaeaw:? participationinacriminalorganisation,? terrorism,? traffickinginhumanbeings,? sexualexploitationofchildrenandchildpornography,? illicittraffickinginnarcoticdrugsandpsychotropicsubstances,? illicittraffickinginweapons,munitionsandexplosives,? corruption, 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 28 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

29 ? fraud,includingthataffectingthefinancialinterestsoftheeur.communitieswithinthe meaningoftheconventionof26july1995ontheprotectionoftheeur.communities' financialinterests,? launderingoftheproceedsofcrime,? counterfeitingcurrency,includingoftheeuro,? computer?relatedcrime,? environmentalcrime,includingillicittraffickinginendangeredanimalspeciesandin endangeredplantspeciesandvarieties,? facilitationofunauthorisedentryandresidence,? murder,grievousbodilyinjury,? illicittradeinhumanorgansandtissue,? kidnapping,illegalrestraintandhostage?taking,? racismandxenophobia,? organisedorarmedrobbery,? illicittraffickinginculturalgoods,includingantiquesandworksofart,? swindling,? racketeeringandextortion,? counterfeitingandpiracyofproducts,? forgeryofadministrativedocumentsandtraffickingtherein,? forgeryofmeansofpayment,? illicittraffickinginhormonalsubstancesandothergrowthpromoters,? illicittraffickinginnuclearorradioactivematerials,? traffickinginstolenvehicles,? rape,? arson,? crimeswithinthejurisdictionoftheinternationalcriminalcourt,? unlawfulseizureofaircraft/ships,? sabotage. 3. TheCouncilmaydecideatanytime,actingunanimouslyafterconsultationoftheEuropean ParliamentundertheconditionslaiddowninArt.39(1)oftheTEU,toaddothercategoriesof offencetothelistcontainedin 2.TheCouncilshallexamine,inthelightofthereport submittedbythecommissionpursuanttoart.34(3),whetherthelistshouldbeextendedor amended. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 29 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

30 4. Foroffencesotherthanthosecoveredby 2,surrendermaybesubjecttotheconditionthat theactsforwhichtheeawhasbeenissuedconstituteanoffenceunderthelawofthe executingmemberstate,whatevertheconstituentelementsorhoweveritisdescribed. Article3Groundsformandatorynon=executionoftheEAW ThejudicialauthorityoftheMemberStateofexecution(hereinafter executingjudicialauthority) shallrefusetoexecutetheeawinthefollowingcases: 1. iftheoffenceonwhichthearrestwarrantisbasediscoveredbyamnestyintheexecuting MemberState,wherethatStatehadjurisdictiontoprosecutetheoffenceunderitsown criminallaw; 2. iftheexecutingjudicialauthorityisinformedthattherequestedpersonhasbeenfinally judgedbyamemberstateinrespectofthesameactsprovidedthat,wheretherehasbeen sentence,thesentencehasbeenservedoriscurrentlybeingservedormaynolongerbe executedunderthelawofthesentencingms; 3. ifthepersonwhoisthesubjectoftheeawmaynot,owingtohisage,beheldcriminally responsiblefortheactsonwhichthearrestwarrantisbasedunderthelawoftheexecuting State. Article4 Groundsforoptionalnon=executionoftheEAW TheexecutingjudicialauthoritymayrefusetoexecutetheEAW: 1. if,inoneofthecasesreferredtoinart.2(4),theactonwhichtheeawisbaseddoesnot constituteanoffenceunderthelawoftheexecutingms;however,inrelationtotaxesor duties,customsandexchange,executionoftheeawshallnotberefusedonthegroundthat thelawoftheexecutingmemberstatedoesnotimposethesamekindoftaxordutyordoes notcontainthesametypeofrulesasregardstaxes,dutiesandcustomsandexchange regulationsasthelawoftheissuingms; 2. wherethepersonwhoisthesubjectoftheeawisbeingprosecutedintheexecutingmember StateforthesameactasthatonwhichtheEAWisbased; 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 30 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

31 3. wherethejudicialauthoritiesoftheexecutingmemberstatehavedecidedeithernotto prosecutefortheoffenceonwhichtheeawisbasedortohaltproceedings,orwhereafinal judgmenthasbeenpassedupontherequestedpersoninamemberstate,inrespectofthe sameacts,whichpreventsfurtherproceedings; 4. wherethecriminalprosecutionorpunishmentoftherequestedpersonisstatute?barred accordingtothelawoftheexecutingmemberstateandtheactsfallwithinthejurisdictionof thatmemberstateunderitsowncriminallaw; 5. iftheexecutingjudicialauthorityisinformedthattherequestedpersonhasbeenfinally judgedbyathirdstateinrespectofthesameactsprovidedthat,wheretherehasbeen sentence,thesentencehasbeenservedoriscurrentlybeingservedormaynolongerbe executedunderthelawofthesentencingcountry; 6. iftheeawhasbeenissuedforthepurposesofexecutionofacustodialsentenceordetention order,wheretherequestedpersonisstayingin,orisanationaloraresidentoftheexecuting MemberStateandthatStateundertakestoexecutethesentenceordetentionorderin accordancewithitsdomesticlaw; 7. wheretheeawrelatestooffenceswhich: (a) areregardedbythelawoftheexecutingmemberstateashavingbeencommittedin wholeorinpartintheterritoryoftheexecutingmemberstateorinaplacetreatedas such;or (b) havebeencommittedoutsidetheterritoryoftheissuingmemberstateandthelawof theexecutingmemberstatedoesnotallowprosecutionforthesameoffenceswhen committedoutsideitsterritory. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 31 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

32 Article5 GuaranteestobegivenbytheissuingMemberStateinparticularcases TheexecutionoftheEAWbytheexecutingjudicialauthoritymay,bythelawoftheexecuting MemberState,besubjecttothefollowingconditions: 1. wheretheeawhasbeenissuedforthepurposesofexecutingasentenceoradetentionorder imposedbyadecisionrenderedinabsentiaandifthepersonconcernedhasnotbeen summonedinpersonorotherwiseinformedofthedateandplaceofthehearingwhichledto thedecisionrenderedinabsentia,surrendermaybesubjecttotheconditionthattheissuing judicialauthoritygivesanassurancedeemedadequatetoguaranteethepersonwhoisthe subjectoftheeawthatheorshewillhaveanopportunitytoapplyforaretrialofthecasein theissuingmemberstateandtobepresentatthejudgment; 2. iftheoffenceonthebasisofwhichtheeawhasbeenissuedispunishablebycustodiallife sentenceorlife?timedetentionorder,theexecutionofthesaidarrestwarrantmaybesubject totheconditionthattheissuingmemberstatehasprovisionsinitslegalsystemforareview ofthepenaltyormeasureimposed,onrequestoratthelatestafter20years,orforthe applicationofmeasuresofclemencytowhichthepersonisentitledtoapplyforunderthelaw orpracticeoftheissuingmemberstate,aimingatanon?executionofsuchpenaltyor measure; 3. whereapersonwhoisthesubjectofaeawforthepurposesofprosecutionisanationalor residentoftheexecutingmemberstate,surrendermaybesubjecttotheconditionthatthe person,afterbeingheard,isreturnedtotheexecutingmemberstateinordertoservetherethe custodialsentenceordetentionorderpassedagainsthimintheissuingmemberstate. Article6 Determinationofthecompetentjudicialauthorities 1. TheissuingjudicialauthorityshallbethejudicialauthorityoftheissuingMemberState whichiscompetenttoissueaeawbyvirtueofthelawofthatstate. 2. TheexecutingjudicialauthorityshallbethejudicialauthorityoftheexecutingMemberState whichiscompetenttoexecutetheeawbyvirtueofthelawofthatstate. 3. EachMemberStateshallinformtheGeneralSecretariatoftheCouncilofthecompetent judicialauthorityunderitslaw. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 32 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

33 Article7 Recoursetothecentralauthority 1. EachMemberStatemaydesignateacentralauthorityor,whenitslegalsystemsoprovides, morethanonecentralauthoritytoassistthecompetentjudicialauthorities. 2. AMemberStatemay,ifitisnecessaryasaresultoftheorganisationofitsinternaljudicial system,makeitscentralauthority(ies)responsiblefortheadministrativetransmissionand receptionofeawsaswellasforallotherofficialcorrespondencerelatingthereto. MemberStatewishingtomakeuseofthepossibilitiesreferredtointhisarticleshall communicatetothegeneralsecretariatofthecouncilinformationrelatingtothedesignated centralauthorityorcentralauthorities.theseindicationsshallbebindinguponallthe authoritiesoftheissuingmemberstate. Article8 ContentandformoftheEAW 1. TheEAWshallcontainthefollowinginformationsetoutinaccordancewiththeform containedintheannex: (a) theidentityandnationalityoftherequestedperson; (b) thename,address,telephoneandfaxnumbersande?mailaddressoftheissuingjudicial authority; evidenceofanenforceablejudgment,anarrestwarrantoranyotherenforceablejudicial decisionhavingthesameeffect,comingwithinthescopeofart.1and2; (d) thenatureandlegalclassificationoftheoffence,particularlyinrespectofart.2; (e) adescriptionofthecircumstancesinwhichtheoffencewascommitted,includingthe time,placeanddegreeofparticipationintheoffencebytherequestedperson; (f) thepenaltyimposed,ifthereisafinaljudgment,ortheprescribedscaleofpenaltiesfor theoffenceunderthelawoftheissuingmemberstate; (g) ifpossible,otherconsequencesoftheoffence. 2. TheEAWmustbetranslatedintotheofficiallanguageoroneoftheofficiallanguagesofthe executingmemberstate.anymemberstatemay,whenthisframeworkdecisionisadopted oratalaterdate,stateinadeclarationdepositedwiththegeneralsecretariatofthecouncil thatitwillacceptatranslationinoneormoreotherofficiallanguagesoftheinstitutionsofthe EuropeanCommunities. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 33 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

34 CHAPTER2 SURRENDERPROCEDURE Article9 TransmissionofaEAW 1. Whenthelocationoftherequestedpersonisknown,theissuingjudicialauthoritymay transmittheeawdirectlytotheexecutingjudicialauthority. 2. Theissuingjudicialauthoritymay,inanyevent,decidetoissueanalertfortherequested personintheschengeninformationsystem(sis). 3. SuchanalertshallbeeffectedinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofArt.95oftheConvention of19june1990implementingtheschengenagreementof14june1985onthegradual abolitionofcontrolsatcommonborders.analertintheschengeninformationsystemshall beequivalenttoaeawaccompaniedbytheinformationsetoutinart.8(1).fora transitionalperiod,untilthesisiscapableoftransmittingalltheinformationdescribedin Art.8,thealertshallbeequivalenttoaEAWpendingthereceiptoftheoriginalindueand properformbytheexecutingjudicialauthority. Article10 DetailedproceduresfortransmittingaEAW 1. Iftheissuingjudicialauthoritydoesnotknowthecompetentexecutingjudicialauthority,it shallmaketherequisiteenquiries,includingthroughthecontactpointsoftheejn,inorderto obtainthatinformationfromtheexecutingmemberstate. 2. Iftheissuingjudicialauthoritysowishes,transmissionmaybeeffectedviathesecure telecommunicationssystemoftheejn. 3. IfitisnotpossibletocallontheservicesoftheSIS,theissuingjudicialauthoritymaycallon InterpoltotransmitaEAW. 4. TheissuingjudicialauthoritymayforwardtheEAWbyanysecuremeanscapableof producingwrittenrecordsunderconditionsallowingtheexecutingmemberstatetoestablish itsauthenticity. 5. Alldifficultiesconcerningthetransmissionortheauthenticityofanydocumentneededforthe executionoftheeawshallbedealtwithbydirectcontactsbetweenthejudicialauthorities involved,or,whereappropriate,withtheinvolvementofthecentralauthoritiesofthemember States. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 34 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

35 6. IftheauthoritywhichreceivesaEAWisnotcompetenttoactuponit,itshallautomatically forwardtheeawtothecompetentauthorityinitsmemberstateandshallinformtheissuing judicialauthorityaccordingly. Article11 Rightsofarequestedperson 1. Whenarequestedpersonisarrested,theexecutingcompetentjudicialauthorityshall,in accordancewithitsnationallaw,informthatpersonoftheeawandofitscontents,andalso ofthepossibilityofconsentingtosurrendertotheissuingjudicialauthority. 2. ArequestedpersonwhoisarrestedforthepurposeoftheexecutionofaEAWshallhavea righttobeassistedbyalegalcounselandbyaninterpreterinaccordancewiththenational lawoftheexecutingmemberstate. Article12 Keepingthepersonindetention WhenapersonisarrestedonthebasisofaEAW,theexecutingjudicialauthorityshalltakea decisiononwhethertherequestedpersonshouldremainindetention,inaccordancewiththelawof theexecutingmemberstate.thepersonmaybereleasedprovisionallyatanytimeinconformity withthedomesticlawoftheexecutingmemberstate,providedthatthecompetentauthorityofthe saidmemberstatetakesallthemeasuresitdeemsnecessarytopreventthepersonabsconding. Article13 Consenttosurrender 1. Ifthearrestedpersonindicatesthatheorsheconsentstosurrender,thatconsentand,if appropriate,expressrenunciationofentitlementtothe specialityrule,referredtoin Art.27(2),shallbegivenbeforetheexecutingjudicialauthority,inaccordancewiththe domesticlawoftheexecutingmemberstate. 2. EachMemberStateshalladoptthemeasuresnecessarytoensurethatconsentand,where appropriate,renunciation,asreferredtoin 1,areestablishedinsuchawayastoshowthat thepersonconcernedhasexpressedthemvoluntarilyandinfullawarenessofthe consequences.tothatend,therequestedpersonshallhavetherighttolegalcounsel. 3. Theconsentand,whereappropriate,renunciation,asreferredtoin 1,shallbeformally recordedinaccordancewiththeprocedurelaiddownbythedomesticlawoftheexecuting MemberState. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 35 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E

36 4. Inprinciple,consentmaynotberevoked.EachMemberStatemayprovidethatconsentand, ifappropriate,renunciationmayberevoked,inaccordancewiththerulesapplicableunderits domesticlaw.inthiscase,theperiodbetweenthedateofconsentandthatofitsrevocation shallnotbetakenintoconsiderationinestablishingthetimelimitslaiddowninart.17.a MemberStatewhichwishestohaverecoursetothispossibilityshallinformtheGeneral SecretariatoftheCouncilaccordinglywhenthisFrameworkDecisionisadoptedandshall specifytheprocedureswherebyrevocationofconsentshallbepossibleandanyamendmentto them. Article14 Hearingoftherequestedperson WherethearrestedpersondoesnotconsenttohisorhersurrenderasreferredtoinArt.13,heor sheshallbeentitledtobeheardbytheexecutingjudicialauthority,inaccordancewiththelawof theexecutingmemberstate. Article15 Surrenderdecision 1. Theexecutingjudicialauthorityshalldecide,withinthetime?limitsandundertheconditions definedinthisframeworkdecision,whetherthepersonistobesurrendered. 2. IftheexecutingjudicialauthorityfindstheinformationcommunicatedbytheissuingMember Statetobeinsufficienttoallowittodecideonsurrender,itshallrequestthatthenecessary supplementaryinformation,inparticularwithrespecttoart.3to5andart.8,befurnishedas amatterofurgencyandmayfixatimelimitforthereceiptthereof,takingintoaccountthe needtoobservethetimelimitssetinart Theissuingjudicialauthoritymayatanytimeforwardanyadditionalusefulinformationto theexecutingjudicialauthority. 8216/2/08REV2 TK/ld 36 ANNEXITOANNEX DGH2B LIMITE E