Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

European Arrest Warrant pp 31–49Cite as

Legal Basis: Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1346 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with the legal basis of the European arrest warrant—the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. It is divided into five sections and is summarised with concluding observations. Section 301 introduces its legal analysis and answers a principal question as to why the European arrest warrant was introduced by the framework decision. Further, Sect. 3.2 examines its relation to the law of extradition. Subsequently, Sect. 3.3 deals with the compatibility of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant […] with the European Union primary law. Section 3.4 observes the amendments of the Framework Decision. In addition, whereas it has been supplemented, Sect. 3.5 briefly mentions additional legal acts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 34.

  2. 2.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18.7.2002.

  3. 3.

    Article 34(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  4. 4.

    The term ‘European judicial area’ has its origins at the Brussels European Summit of December 1977. The then French President d’Estaing introduced the idea of a so-called ‘European judicial area’ (fr. Espace judiciaire européen; translated also as ‘European legal area’ or ‘European judicial space’). It was intended as an ambitious instrument to combat terrorism in a situation where individual European States were subject to blackmailing pressure from Middle Eastern terrorist groups. However, it only began to become a reality after the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, which entered into force in 1999; see: Bainbridge and Teasdale (1995), p. 141; Anderson and Apap (2002), p. 41; or Tomášek (2009), p. 16.

  5. 5.

    Sinn and Wörner (2007), p. 207.

  6. 6.

    Point 35 of the Tampere conclusions. See: European Council (1999): ‘Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council 15th–16th October 1999, European Council’, available in: Vermeulen (2005), pp. 327–341; see: Recital 6 to the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  7. 7.

    Articles 1–8 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  8. 8.

    Articles 9–25 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  9. 9.

    Articles 26–30 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  10. 10.

    Articles 31–35 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  11. 11.

    Article 31(a)(b) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997; Article 31(a)(b) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321/E/5 of 29.12.2006.

  12. 12.

    Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997; Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321/E/5 of 29.12.2006.

  13. 13.

    Calderoni (2010), p. 5.

  14. 14.

    Grzelak (2008), p. 127.

  15. 15.

    Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10.11.1997; also the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321/E/37 of 29.12.2006.

  16. 16.

    Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

  17. 17.

    Borgers (2007), pp. 1364 and 1365.

  18. 18.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott—Case C-105/03—Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino, para. 36.

  19. 19.

    For example, Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 4th December 1974—Case 41-74—Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.

  20. 20.

    Borgers (2010), p. 104.

  21. 21.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16th June 2005—Case C-105/03—Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino.

  22. 22.

    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Firenze by order of that Court of 3rd February 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino.

  23. 23.

    Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15th March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 82/1 of 22.3.2001.

  24. 24.

    Judgment Pupino, paras 43 and 61 (emphasis added); it should be noted that the doctrine of indirect horizontal direct effect was established by the case of Von Colson—Judgment of the Court Justice of the European Communities of 10th April 1984—Case 14/83—Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen. The Court of Justice emphasised that national judges are obliged to interpret national law in the light of the text and objectives of Community law, which in this particular case was an EC directive; see: Kaczorowska (2008), pp. 309, 310 and 315 et seq.

  25. 25.

    Hamuľák (2011), p. 35.

  26. 26.

    Zurek (2012), p. 68.

  27. 27.

    Fletcher et al. (2008), pp. 35 and 37.

  28. 28.

    Cano (2008), p. 60.

  29. 29.

    Commission of the European Communities (2001): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2001) 522 final/2, p. 4; see: Klimek (2012), pp. 451–458.

  30. 30.

    Calderoni (2010), p. 8.

  31. 31.

    Calderoni (2010), pp. 8 and 9.

  32. 32.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24th October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. Official Journal of the European Union, L 300/42 of 11.11.2008.

  33. 33.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203/1 of 01.08.2002. However, it was repealed by the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101/1 of 15.4.2011.

  34. 34.

    Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22nd December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Official Journal of the European Union, L 13/44 of 20.1.2004. However, it was repealed by the Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/1 of 17.12.2011.

  35. 35.

    Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25th October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/8 of 11.11.2004.

  36. 36.

    Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. Official Journal of the European Union, L 196/45 of 2.8.2003.

  37. 37.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 350/72 of 30.12.2008.

  38. 38.

    Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24th February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Official Journal of the European Union, L 76/16 of 22.3.2005.

  39. 39.

    Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6th October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders. Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/59 of 24.11.2006.

  40. 40.

    Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the EU shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at EU level; see: Article 5(3) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30.3.2010; the institutions of the EU shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on EU and to the Treaty on the functioning of the EU. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/206 of 9.5.2008.

  41. 41.

    Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of EU action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties; see: Article 5(4) of the Treaty on EU as amended by the treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30.3.2010; the institutions of the EU shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on EU and to the Treaty on the functioning of the EU. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/206 of 9.5.2008.

  42. 42.

    Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1283.

  43. 43.

    Article 31(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  44. 44.

    European Convention on Extradition. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 024 [1957]. Paris, 13th December 1957.

  45. 45.

    Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 086 [1975]. Strasbourg, 15th October 1975.

  46. 46.

    Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 098 [1978]. Strasbourg, 17th March 1978.

  47. 47.

    European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 090 [1977]. Strasbourg, 27th January 1977.

  48. 48.

    Convention drawn up on the Basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on a simplified extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 78/2 of 30.3.1995.

  49. 49.

    Convention drawn up on the Basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 313/12 of 23.10.1996.

  50. 50.

    Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14th June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 239/19 of 22.9.2000.

  51. 51.

    Mann (2007), p. 719.

  52. 52.

    Article 31(2) first subparagraph of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  53. 53.

    In Norway: the Nordic Extradition Act—Act No. 27 of 3 February 1960 as amended by Act No. 251 of 12 June 1975, Act No. 433 of 31 May 2000 and Act No. 378 of 6 June 2002; in Finland: the Nordic Extradition Act No. 270/1960; in Sweden: the Act No. 1959:254 concerning extradition to Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway for criminal offences.

  54. 54.

    Statements provided for in Article 31(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedure between Member States. Official Journal of the European Union, L 246/1 of 29.9.2003.

  55. 55.

    Article 31(2) second subparagraph of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  56. 56.

    Vennemann (2003), pp. 105 and 121.

  57. 57.

    Bureš (2009), p. 29.

  58. 58.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/13 of 9.5.2008.

  59. 59.

    Murphy (2011), pp. 230 and 236.

  60. 60.

    Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of … regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 165/22, 24.6.2010.

  61. 61.

    Article 29(1) of the Initiative […] regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters.

  62. 62.

    Article 29(2) of the Initiative […] regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters.

  63. 63.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad.

  64. 64.

    Sarmiento (2008), p. 171.

  65. 65.

    Act of 19th December 2003 on the European arrest warrant [French: Loi du 19 décembre 2003 relative au mandat d’arrêt européen; Dutch: Wet van 19 december 2003 betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel]; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on Belgium’, document No. 16454/2/06, REV2.

  66. 66.

    Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13th July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de Wereld and the Council of Ministers. Official Journal of the European Union, C 271/14, 29.10.2005.

  67. 67.

    Pollicino (2008), p. 1338.

  68. 68.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 30.

  69. 69.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, paras 31, 32, and 36–38.

  70. 70.

    Judgment Advocaten voor de Wereld, rulings.

  71. 71.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 251.

  72. 72.

    Geyer (2008), p. 151.

  73. 73.

    Herlin-Karnell (2007), p. 1153.

  74. 74.

    Guild and Geyer (2008), p. 11.

  75. 75.

    Geyer (2008), p. 151.

  76. 76.

    Geyer (2008), p. 153.

  77. 77.

    Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26th February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Official Journal of the European Union, L 81/24 of 27.3.2009. See: Klimek (2009), pp. 1282–1288.

  78. 78.

    Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 52/1 of 26.2.2008.

  79. 79.

    Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway. Official Journal of the European Union, L 292/13 of 21.10.2006.

  80. 80.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad.

  81. 81.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 18th July 2007—Case C-288/05—Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger.

  82. 82.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17th July 2008—Case C-66/08—Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski.

  83. 83.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 1st December 2008—Case C-388/08 PPU—Criminal proceedings against Artur Leymann and Aleksei Pustovarov.

  84. 84.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12th August 2008—Case C-296/08 PPU—Extradition proceedings against Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea.

  85. 85.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6th October 2009—Case C-123/08—Dominic Wolzenburg.

  86. 86.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello.

  87. 87.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—Case C-306/09—I. B.

  88. 88.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—Case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West.

  89. 89.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—Case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge.

  90. 90.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—Case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu.

  91. 91.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26th February 2013—Case C-399/11—Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal.

  92. 92.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—Case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre.

  93. 93.

    Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 280/1 of 26.10.2010.

  94. 94.

    Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 142/1 of 1.6.2012.

  95. 95.

    Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/1 of 6.11.2013.

  96. 96.

    European Commission (2013): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings’, COM(2013) 822 final, 2013/0408 (COD); see also: European Commission (2013): ‘Proposal for Measures on special safeguards for children and vulnerable adults suspected or accused in criminal proceedings’ (accompanying document), Commission staff working document, Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment, SWD(2013) 481 final.

  97. 97.

    Article 1 of the Proposal for a Directive on procedural safeguards for children.

References

  • Anderson M, Apap J (2002) Striking a balance between freedom, security and justice in an enlarged European Union. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainbridge T, Teasdale A (1995) The Penguin companion to European Union. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers MJ (2007) Implementing framework decisions. Common Mark Law Rev 44:1361–1386

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgers MJ (2010) Mutual recognition and the European Court of Justice: the meaning of consistent interpretation and autonomous and uniform interpretation of Union law for the development of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 18:99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureš O (2009) European arrest warrant: implications for EU counterterrorism efforts. Cent Eur J Int Secur Stud 3:21–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderoni F (2010) Organized crime legislation in the European Union: harmonization and approximation of criminal law, national legislations and the EU framework decision on the fight against organized crime. Springer, Heidelberg/Dordrecht/London/New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cano ES (2008) The Third Pillar and the Court of Justice: a “Praetorian Communitarization” of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters? In: Guild E, Geyer F (eds) Security versus Justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher M, Lööf R, Gilmore B (2008) EU criminal law and justice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham/Northampton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer F (2008) European arrest warrant: Court of Justice of the European communities: judgment of 3 May 2007, Case C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad (Case Note). Eur Const Law Rev 4:149–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Grzelak A (2008) General remarks on the basis of the EAW Framework Decision – framework decision as a legal instrument and constitutional problems. In: Górski A, Hofmañski P (eds) The European arrest warrant and its implementation in the Member States of the European Union. Conference proceedings. International conference, Kraków, 9–12 November 2006. Wydawnictwo C. H. Beck, Warszawa

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild E, Geyer F (2008) The search for EU criminal law – where is it headed? In: Guild E, Geyer F (eds) Security versus justice? Police and judicial cooperation in the European Union. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamuľák O (2011) Eurozatykač, tři ústavní soudy a dominance práva Evropské unie [transl. Eurowarrant, Three Constitutional Courts and the Dominance of European Union Law]. Iuridicum Olomoucense, Olomouc

    Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell E (2007) In the wake of Pupino: Advocaten voor der Wereld and Dell’Orto. German Law J 8:1147–1160

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaczorowska A (2008) European Union law. Routledge-Cavendish, London/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2009) Zmeny európskeho zatýkacieho rozkazu, týkajúce sa konania in absentia [transl.: Amendments of the European arrest warrant concerning the in absentia trial]. Justičná revue 61:1282–1288

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012) Zákon verzus medzinárodná zmluva: ako účel svätí prostriedky v prípade európskeho zatýkacieho rozkazu [transl.: Act versus International Agreement: how the end justifies the means in case of the European arrest warrant]. In: Akademické akcenty 2011 [transl. Academic accents, vol 2011]. Conference proceedings from the international conference for Ph.D. students and young researchers organised by the Faculty of Law, Pan-European University, held on 22nd September 2011 in Bratislava. Eurokódex, Bratislava, pp 451–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann GJ (2007) The European arrest warrant: a short-lived mechanism for extradition? Syracuse J Int Law Commer 34:715–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2006) The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Mark Law Rev 43:1277–1311

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy CC (2011) The European evidence warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis)trust? In: Eckes C, Konstadinides T (eds) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice: a European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2008) European arrest warrant and constitutional principles of the Member States: a case law-based outline in the attempt to strike the right balance between interacting legal systems. German Law J 9:1313–1354

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento D (2008) European Union: the European arrest warrant and the quest for constitutional coherence. Int J Const Law 6:171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinn A, Wörner L (2007) The European arrest warrant and its implementation in Germany – its constitutionality, laws and current developments. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 3:204–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomášek M (2009) Vývoj pojmu “europeizace” trestního práva v systému evropského práva [transl.: Development of the term “Europeanisation” in the system of the European law]. In: Tomášek M et al (eds) Europeizace trestního práva [transl.: Europeanisation of criminal law]. Linde, Praha, pp 13–23

    Google Scholar 

  • van Sliedregt E (2007) The European arrest warrant: between trust, democracy and the rule of law. Introduction. The European arrest warrant: extradition in transition. Eur Const Law Rev 3:244–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennemann N (2003) The European arrest warrant and its human rights implications. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 63:103–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G (2005) Essential texts on international and European criminal law, 4th edn. Maklu, Antwerpen, pp 327–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Zurek J (2012) Against tradition: the European arrest warrant. Educ Sci Without Borders 3:66–70

    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). Legal Basis: Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation