Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles of Surrender Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Arrest Warrant

  • 1299 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter deals with the principles of the surrender procedure. It is divided into seven sections and is summarised with concluding observations. First, Sect. 5.1 analyses a major principle of the surrender procedure—the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. As the precondition for mutual recognition, Sect. 5.2 introduces mutual trust between European Union Member States. Section 5.3 deals with direct connection between judicial authorities. Section 5.4 introduces another major principle of surrender procedure—the partial removal of double criminality requirement. While Sect. 5.5 deals with the removal of the rule of reciprocity, Sect. 5.6 deals with the rule of speciality. Last, but not least, Sect. 5.7 deals with the execution the European arrest warrant in line with the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States.

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

Access this chapter

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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU.

  2. 2.

    The list of the principles of surrender procedure has been previously elaborated in author’s former works, namely: Klimek (2009); Klimek (2010); Klimek (2013), pp. 535–574.

  3. 3.

    Klimek (2013), p. 542; Klimek (2012), p. 1363.

  4. 4.

    Treaty on the functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30.3.2010.

  5. 5.

    Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU.

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

    Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  8. 8.

    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. 5.

  9. 9.

    Tomuschat (2006), p. 210.

  10. 10.

    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, para. 51; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello, para. 36; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—Case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 29; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—Case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre, para. 36.

  11. 11.

    Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 68.

  12. 12.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—Case C-306/09—I.B., para. 50; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—Case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West, para. 64; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—Case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 30.

  13. 13.

    Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi—Case C-42/11—Joao Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 36.

  14. 14.

    Vermeulen et al. (2011), p. 91.

  15. 15.

    Calderoni (2010), p. 17.

  16. 16.

    European Convention on the Supervision of Conditionally Sentenced or Conditionally Released Offenders. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 051 [1964]. Strasbourg, 30th November 1964.

  17. 17.

    European Convention on the Punishment of Road Traffic Offences. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 052 [1964]. Strasbourg, 30th November 1964.

  18. 18.

    European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 070 [1970]. The Hague, 28th May 1970.

  19. 19.

    European Convention on the Social Protection of Farmers. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 112 [1983]. Strasbourg, 6th May 1974.

  20. 20.

    Gless (2006), p. 124.

  21. 21.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 20th February 1979—Case C-120/78—Cassis de Dijon (Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein).

  22. 22.

    Murphy (2011), p. 225.

  23. 23.

    Hamuľák (2011), p. 35.

  24. 24.

    Peers (2004), p. 5.

  25. 25.

    Asp (2005), p. 31.

  26. 26.

    Harmonisation is frequently mentioned in relation to EU policy in the Third Pillar (1993–2009). However, in the political or scientific debate it is frequently confused and no clear distinction appears. See: Calderoni (2010), pp. 2 et seq.

  27. 27.

    Kaczorowska (2008), p. 123.

  28. 28.

    Herczeg (2009), p. 341.

  29. 29.

    Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 12/10 of 15.01.2001.

  30. 30.

    Details on genesis of the mutual recognition in the area of Criminal law see: Klimek and Klimek (2013), pp. 271–292.

  31. 31.

    Mitsilegas (2006b), p. 279.

  32. 32.

    Allegrezza (2010), pp. 569–579 and 572.

  33. 33.

    Gay (2006).

  34. 34.

    European Commission (2000): ‘Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, COM(2000) 495, p. 4.

  35. 35.

    Apap and Carrera (2004), p. 17.

  36. 36.

    Mitsilegas (2006a), p. 1277.

  37. 37.

    Möstl (2010), p. 418.

  38. 38.

    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.

  39. 39.

    Geyer (2008), p. 151.

  40. 40.

    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.

  41. 41.

    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.

  42. 42.

    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.

  43. 43.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27th November 2008 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, L 327/27, 5.12.2008.

  44. 44.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. Official Journal of the European Union, L 337/102, 16.12.2008.

  45. 45.

    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.

  46. 46.

    Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23rd October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/20 of 11.11.2009.

  47. 47.

    Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on the European protection order. Official Journal of the European Union, L 338/2 of 21.12.2011.

  48. 48.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 248.

  49. 49.

    Cryer et al. (2010), p. 88.

  50. 50.

    Recital 10 of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  51. 51.

    See: Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—Case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, paras 17, 46, 62 and 81; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-288/05—Staatsanwaltschaft Augsburg v Jürgen Kretzinger, para. 12; Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot—Case C-123/08—Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Dominic Wolzenburg, paras 16, 128, 133, 134, 136 and 138; Opinion of Advocate General Bot—Case C-261/09—Criminal proceedings against Gaetano Mantello, paras 1, 14, 73 and 82; Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón—Case C-306/09—I.B. v Conseil des ministres, para. 2; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—Case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, paras 34, 38, 60 and 67; Opinion of Advocate General Bot—Case C-399/11—Criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni, para. 115.

  52. 52.

    See: 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, para. 50; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—Case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello, para. 3; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—Case C-306/09—I.B., para. 5; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—Case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West, paras 5, 53, 62, 68 and 77; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—Case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu, paras 3 and 34; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26th February 2013—Case C-399/11—Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, para. 63; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—Case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre, para. 50.

  53. 53.

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

  54. 54.

    Judgment Jeremy F, para. 50.

  55. 55.

    Vermeulen et al. (2011), p. 91.

  56. 56.

    Gless (2006), p. 130.

  57. 57.

    The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 53/1 of 3.3.2005; see: also Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme. Official Journal of the European Union, C 198/1 of 12.8.2005.

  58. 58.

    Point 3.2 of The Hague Programme (Confidence-building and mutual trust).

  59. 59.

    Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 12/10 of 15.01.2001.

  60. 60.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 11th February 2003—Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01—Criminal proceedings against Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge, para. 33.

  61. 61.

    Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—Cases C-187/01 Criminal proceedings against Hüseyn Gözütok and C-385/01 Criminal proceedings against Klaus Brügge, paras 122–124.

  62. 62.

    Sievers (2007), pp. 8 and 9.

  63. 63.

    Long (2009), p. 11.

  64. 64.

    Recital 9 of the Preamble to the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  65. 65.

    Bureš (2011), p. 153.

  66. 66.

    Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic of 3rd May 2006—Pl. ÚS 66/04 [Czech: Nález Ústavního soudu České republiky ze dne 3. května 2006—Pl. ÚS 66/04], Pt. VI, para. 49.

  67. 67.

    Article 9(1) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  68. 68.

    Article 8(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  69. 69.

    Article 7(1)(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  70. 70.

    van der Wilt (2008), pp. 311 and 313.

  71. 71.

    Vermeulen (2008), pp. 156 and 158.

  72. 72.

    Articles 11(1), 21(2) and 22(1) of the Act of the National Council of the Slovak Republic No. 154/2010 Coll. on the European Arrest Warrant as amended by the Act No. 344/2012 Coll. [Slovak: Zákon Národnej rady Slovenskej republiky č. 154/2010 Z. z. o európskom zatýkacom rozkaze v znení zákona č. 344/2012 Z. z.]; details see: Šramel and Klimek (2011), pp. 64–74.

  73. 73.

    Kloučková (2008), pp. 182 and 184.

  74. 74.

    European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 030 [1959]. Strasbourg, 20th April 1959.

  75. 75.

    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.

  76. 76.

    De Hert et al. (2009), p. 62.

  77. 77.

    Vestergaard (2008), p. 212.

  78. 78.

    Articles 82–86 of the Treaty on the functioning of the EU as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30.3.2010.

  79. 79.

    Article 2 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on EU and to the Treaty on the functioning of the EU. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/299 of 30.3.2010; In order to strengthen procedural rights in surrender procedure, two legislative measures have been adopted, namely the 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; and the 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; pursuant to Denmark’s attitude, Denmark is not taking part in their adoption and is not bound by them or subject to their application (details see Chap. 15).

  80. 80.

    Article 7 of the Protocol (No 22) on the position of Denmark, annexed to the Treaty on EU and to the Treaty on the functioning of the EU. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/299 of 30.3.2010.

  81. 81.

    Klip (2012), pp. 344 and 345.

  82. 82.

    Article 2 of the European Convention of Extradition.

  83. 83.

    Cryer et al. (2010), p. 89.

  84. 84.

    Klip (2012), p. 345.

  85. 85.

    van Sliedregt (2007), p. 248.

  86. 86.

    Mackarel (2007), p. 40.

  87. 87.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  88. 88.

    See: Maritaain (1951), pp. 28–53.

  89. 89.

    van der Wilt (2005), p. 71.

  90. 90.

    Article 4(7) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  91. 91.

    van der Wilt (2005), p. 74.

  92. 92.

    Details see: van der Wilt (2005), pp. 74 et seq.

  93. 93.

    Article 14(1) of the European Convention on Extradition.

  94. 94.

    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 of 10 March 1995. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 78 of 30.3.1995; see: Article 9 of the Convention.

  95. 95.

    Convention of 27th September 1995 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 of 13.10.1996; see: Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention.

  96. 96.

    Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  97. 97.

    Article 27(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  98. 98.

    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, para. 44.

  99. 99.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—Case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West, para. 41.

  100. 100.

    Blekxtoon (2005), pp. 261 and 262.

  101. 101.

    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.

  102. 102.

    Provisions on the rule of speciality see: Pt. 1, Chapter 41, Section 17(1).

  103. 103.

    Mitsilegas (2008), p. 211.

  104. 104.

    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 the United Kingdom’, document No. 9974/2/07, REV 2 EXT 1, p. 49; Commission of the European Communities (2007): ‘Annex to the Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, Commission staff working document, SEC(2007) 979, p. 34.

  105. 105.

    Lagodny and Rosbaud (2009), p. 265.

  106. 106.

    Article 27(3) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  107. 107.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 1st December 2008—C-388/08 PPU—Criminal proceedings against Artur Leymann and Aleksei Pustovarov, para. 68.

  108. 108.

    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.

  109. 109.

    See: Article 10(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Convention relating to Extradition between the Member States of the EU.

  110. 110.

    Article 28(1) of Framework Decision on the EAW; rules for consent are covered in Article 28(3).

  111. 111.

    Council of the European Union (2006): ‘Implementation of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant – Statements by Romania’, document No. 16907/06, p. 6 of the annex (Statements notified to the General Secretariat of the Council in the context of the implementation of the European arrest warrant with reference to Framework Decision 584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States of the EU).

  112. 112.

    Article 28(2) of Framework Decision on the EAW.

  113. 113.

    In accordance with Article 27(3)(a) and Article 27(3)(e–g) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  114. 114.

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

  115. 115.

    Article 28(4) of Framework Decision on the EAW.

  116. 116.

    Article 21 of Framework Decision on the EAW.

  117. 117.

    Blekxtoon (2005), p. 257.

  118. 118.

    Article 1(2) of the Framework Decision on the EAW.

  119. 119.

    Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón—Case C-306/09—I.B. v Conseil des ministres, paras 43 and 45.

  120. 120.

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

  121. 121.

    Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16th June 2005—Case C-105/03—Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino, para. 42.

  122. 122.

    Zurek (2012), pp. 67 and 68.

References

  • Allegrezza S (2010) Critical remarks on the green paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 5:569–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Apap J, Carrera S (2004) European arrest warrant: a good testing ground for mutual recognition in the enlarged EU? Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Asp P (2005) Mutual recognition and the development of criminal law cooperation within the EU. In: Husabø EJ, Strandbakken A (eds) Harmonization of criminal law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen/Oxford, pp 23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Blekxtoon R (2005) Commentary on an article by article basis. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 219–278

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bureš O (2011) EU counterterrorism policy: a paper tiger? Ashgate, Farnham/Burlington

    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 

  • Cryer R, Friman H, Robinson D, Wilmshurst E (2010) An introduction to international criminal law and procedure, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • De Hert P, Weis K, Cloosen N (2009) The framework decision of 18 December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters – a critical assessment. New J Eur Crim Law 0(special edition):55–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Gay C (2006) The European arrest warrant and its application by the Member States. European Issues, No. 16/2006. http://www.asser.nl/upload/eurowarrant-webroot/documents/cms_eaw_id1675_1_EuropeanIssues.16.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2008

  • 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 

  • Gless S (2006) Free movement of evidence in Europe. In: Deu TA, Inchausti FG, Hermen MC et al (eds) El Derecho Procesal Penal en la Union Europea [transl.: Criminal procedural law in the European Union]. Colex, Madrid, pp 121–130

    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 

  • Herczeg J (2009) Evropský zatýkací rozkaz [transl.: European arrest warrant]. In: Tomášek M et al (eds) Europeizace trestního práva [transl.: Europeanisation of criminal law]. Linde, Praha, pp 340–354

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2009) Európsky zatýkací rozkaz [transl. European arrest warrant]. Student research competition held at the Faculty of Law, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2010) European arrest warrant, Diploma work. Faculty of Law, Bratislava College of Law, Bratislava

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2012) Možno pochybovať o vzájomnom uznávaní justičných rozhodnutí v trestných veciach? [transl.: Is it possible to doubt the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters?]. Justičná revue 64:1360–1379

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L (2013) Európsky zatýkací rozkaz [transl. European arrest warrant]. In: Ivor J, Klimek L, Záhora J (eds) Trestné právo Európskej únie a jeho vplyv na právny poriadok Slovenskej republiky [transl.: Criminal law of the European Union and its impact on the legal order of the Slovak Republic]. Eurokódex, Žilina, pp 535–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Klimek L, Klimek, R (2013) Genéza vzájomného uznávania justičných rozhodnutí v trestných veciach v EÚ [transl.: Genesis of the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters in the EU]. Právny obzor 96:271–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2012) European criminal law: an integrative approach, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloučková S (2008) Country report – the Czech Republic. 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, pp 171–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny O, Rosbaud C (2009) Speciality rule. In: Keijyer N, van Sliedregt E (eds) The European arrest warrant in practice. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 265–296

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Long N (2009) Implementation of the European arrest warrant and joint investigation teams at EU and national level. European Parliament, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackarel M (2007) The European arrest warrant – the early years: implementing and using the warrant. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 15:37–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maritaain J (1951) Man and the state. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 28–53

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2006b) Trust-building measures in the European judicial area in criminal matters: issues of competence, legitimacy and inter-institutional balance. In: Balzaq T, Carrera S (eds) Security versus freedom? A challenge for Europe’s future. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 279–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2008) Drafting to implement EU law: the european arrest warrant in the United Kingdom. In: Stefanou C, Xanthaki H (eds) Drafting legislation: a modern approach. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 199–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Möstl M (2010) Preconditions and limits of mutual recognition. Common Mark Law Rev 47:405–436

    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, pp 224–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2004) Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the council got it wrong? Common Mark Law Rev 41:5–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievers J (2007) Managing diversity: the European arrest warrant and the potential of mutual recognition as a mode of governance in EU Justice and Home Affairs. Conference paper presented at the EUSA tenth biennial international conference, Montréal, 17–19 May 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Šramel B, Klimek L (2011) Prokurátor v konaní o európskom zatýkacom rozkaze [transl.: Prosecutor in the European arrest warrant procedure]. Notitiae ex Academia Bratislavensi Iurisprudentiae 5:64–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Inconsistencies – the German Federal Constitutional Court on the European arrest warrant. Eur Const Law Rev 2:209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2005) The principle of reciprocity. In: Blekxtoon R, van Ballegooij W (eds) Handbook on the European arrest warrant. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 71–81

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Wilt H (2008) Country report – The Netherlands. 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, pp 307–318

    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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G (2008) Country report – Belgium. 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, pp 151–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, van Kalmthount A, Paterson N, Knapen M, Verbeke P, De Bondt W (2011) Cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU: overcoming legal and practical problems through flanking measures, vol 40. Maklu, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn/Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestergaard J (2008) Country report – Denmark. In: Górski A, Hofmañski P (eds) (2006) 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, pp 189–232

    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). Principles of Surrender Procedure. In: European Arrest Warrant. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07338-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation