MUTUAL RECOGNITION AND THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

CENTRAL AUTHORITY EAW Office of the Public Prosecutor at the Amsterdam International Centre for Mutual Legal Assistance (IRC)

Kasper van der Schaft 05/07/2016 BRX

03-03-09 | pagina 2/x

Afdeling Communicatie

International Center for legal assistance (IRC) Amsterdam (5 prosecutors, 11 assistant-prosecutors and 16 administrative assistants)

•  Central authority incoming EAW’s in the Netherlands •  Executing extradition requests •  EJN contact points •  Advising on issuing requests, advising on the Dutch (legal) system •  Acting in cooperation with a unit from the police Amsterdam on all

kind of requests for legal assistance, most common: •  Interview suspects and witnesses (possibly by videoconferencing) •  Searching places, other seizure (e.g. by prosecutor or court order) •  Telecommunications; wire tapping (direct to requesting state possible), historical

records •  Observation, controlled delivery •  Taking fingerprints and sharing them •  Sending exhibits (proof), photos and documents (e.g. files) •  Freezing and confiscation assets, digital data •  Service of judicial documents

Public Prosecutor at IRC Amsterdam (EAW) •  Different function in court, at the IRK (International Court Chamber)

•  No accusation, no burden of proof

•  Representing the position of the Netherlands in court, as well as representing the issuing authority/country

SCHENGEN/EU •  No border controls •  Free movement (stolen) goods and (criminal) people •  Free movement of judicials decisions in criminal matters

BASE OF THE EAW: MUTUAL TRUST and MUTUAL RECOGNITION “TRUST COMES ON FOOT AND LEAVES ON HORSEBACK”

Mutual recognition (5) The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice. High level of confidence and Human Rights (10) The mechanism of the European arrest warrant is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. Its implementation may be suspended only in the event of a serious and persistent breach by one of the Member States of the principles set out in Article 6(1) of the Treaty on European Union (…).

-

•  Directly between judicial authorities •  Relatively quick (60-90 days is prescribed), > 90 free ! •  Less grounds for refusal (MT/HmRi)

•  32 list offences (no check of double criminality) •  Standardized form •  MoJ does not decide and does not communicate

Differences EAW and traditional extradition

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION (and protocols thereto)

•  Member-States: Council of Europe (this is including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukrain, Russia, Turkey, Iceland, Balkan-States, Albania and EU) and outside Council of Europe: Israel, South-Africa and South-Korea (art 30).

•  Predecessor FD-EAW. Very simular refusal grounds, except: … - Offences punishable with at least 12 months in both States - accessory extradition (1 is enough) - Statute of limitation checked regardless of jurisdiction

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Totaal

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Polen

België

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Frankrijk

Groot-Brittannië Italië

Hongarije

Roemenië

Litouwen

10. Overzicht van de landen van wie EAB's zijn ontvangen Land Naam 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Totaal Polen 3 60 83 81 101 216 233 245 278 281 264 277 2122 België 60 88 99 134 84 109 120 171 175 179 196 247 1662 Bondsrepubliek Duitsland 54 140 160 131 125 133 138 143 114 138 134 132 1542 Frankrijk 20 51 53 40 28 44 32 30 45 44 35 35 457 Groot-Brittannië 6 22 10 15 18 35 46 37 38 43 28 36 334 Italië 16 31 43 28 43 48 18 17 34 35 20 333 Hongarije 1 8 4 19 9 11 22 52 38 23 15 14 216 Roemenië 5 15 19 14 18 22 19 29 26 167 Litouwen 2 17 9 8 9 7 18 26 16 23 12 9 156 Spanje 6 13 17 9 15 7 9 9 15 11 14 18 143 Oostenrijk 6 8 11 7 11 10 7 5 10 8 5 10 98 Zweden 5 5 5 1 11 3 10 10 9 3 5 3 70 Bulgarije 3 6 8 13 3 10 8 8 5 64 Tsjechië 1 2 2 6 13 11 9 5 3 2 8 62 Portugal 9 7 3 5 4 6 6 5 4 8 4 61 Letland 1 1 3 12 6 9 3 4 9 4 52 Finland 2 3 2 1 4 6 4 4 6 8 9 49 Denemarken 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 6 2 2 7 4 37 Griekenland 1 3 3 3 8 6 2 4 3 33 Ierland 3 1 1 2 4 4 2 7 4 28 Luxemburg 2 5 3 3 9 1 4 27 Slowakije 1 4 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 4 1 24 Estland 1 1 3 5 1 4 1 2 2 20 Kroatië 0 6 4 10 Slovenië 1 1 1 3 1 7 Malta 1 1 1 1 1 5 Cyprus 1 1 Totaal 177 447 507 512 483 701 753 812 821 845 841 881 7780

Legality principle vs discretionairy principle

•  Mandatory prosecution (PL/D/AT/FI/SVE/IT/ESP/PT/GR) or •  discretionary prosecution (NL/B/FR/DK/IE/UK/LUX)

•  Proportionality •  System proportionality (stelselevenredigheid)

EAW’s sent by NL 2007 - 2013 •  België 507 (1:2) (ratio issued:received)

•  Duitsland 343 (1:2,7) •  Bulgarije 165 (3:1)

•  Spanje 159 (2:1)

•  Frankrijk 137 (1:2)

•  Roemenië 136 (1,2:1)

•  Polen 63 (1:23)

•  Hongarije 53 (1:3,5)

•  Italië 23 (1:10)

•  Portugal 20 (1:1,5)

•  Oostenrijk 19 (1:3)

•  Denemarken 16 (1:1,3)

•  Litouwen 13 (1:8,5)

GB 1323/IER 242/CY 84/LO 262

LOST IN TRANSLATION Importance of speaking the same “legal language” . Translation can make the difference between a surrender or refusal, Yes can be No and No can be Yes Google translation?

Duidelijk? (Clear?)

IRC EUV ETM IRK IVS SIS AIRS 552p EHRM (KB)EAB WETS EVRM WOTS VTBS VOGP ECJ KMAR SUO UNTOC EBB JIT EOB EJN MLA EVIG EGTUL CPT ETC

-

• 

Voorbeeld Polen 3

PROCEDURES Accellerated procedure: •  Only with the consent of the wanted person, consent must be

expressed in front of a investigating judge or a IRC prosecutor •  Consent is binding •  The prosecutor decides within 10 days (refusal grounds art 6, 9, 11) •  Waive of specialty in NL •  Prohibited by Dutch law in case of a running Dutch prosecution/

execution of a sentence

Normal procedure: •  Court of Amsterdam, 3 judges decide, within 60-90 days, > 90 Free ! •  Rule of speciality applies

GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL (optional = mandatory) Based on articles 2, 3 and 4 of FD)

•  Offences punishable with at least 12 months (art. 7 OLW) •  Double criminality (art. 2 en 7 OLW) •  In absentia verdicts (art. 12 OLW) •  Surrender of Dutch Nationals and (EU-)residents (art. 6 OLW) •  Ne bis in idem (art. 9 OLW) •  Statute of limitation (art. 9 OLW) •  Insufficient data (art 2 OLW) •  Territoriality (art. 13 OLW) •  Violation of human rights (art. 11 OLW) (not in FD!) •  Claim of innocence (art. 26 OLW) (not in FD!)

10. Overzicht van de landen van wie EAB's zijn ontvangen Land Naam 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Totaal Polen 3 60 83 81 101 216 233 245 278 277 1577 Bondsrepubliek Duitsland 54 140 160 131 125 133 138 143 114 136 1274 België 60 88 99 134 84 109 120 171 175 178 1218 Frankrijk 20 51 53 40 28 44 32 30 45 44 387 Italië 16 31 43 28 43 48 18 17 34 278 Groot-Brittannië 6 22 10 15 18 35 46 37 38 40 267 Hongarije 1 8 4 19 9 11 22 52 38 23 187 Litouwen 2 17 9 8 9 7 18 26 16 23 135 Roemenië 5 15 19 14 18 22 19 112 Spanje 6 13 17 9 15 7 9 9 15 11 111 Oostenrijk 6 8 11 7 11 10 7 5 10 8 83 Zweden 5 5 5 1 11 3 10 10 9 3 62 Tsjechië 1 2 2 6 13 11 9 5 3 52 Bulgarije 3 6 8 13 3 10 8 51 Portugal 9 7 3 5 4 6 6 5 4 49 Letland 1 1 3 12 6 9 3 4 39 Finland 2 3 2 1 4 6 4 4 6 32 Denemarken 3 1 1 2 2 3 4 6 2 2 26 Griekenland 1 3 3 3 8 6 2 26 Luxemburg 2 5 3 3 9 22 Slowakije 1 4 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 19 Ierland 3 1 1 2 4 4 2 17 Estland 1 1 3 5 1 4 1 16 Malta 1 1 1 1 4 Slovenië 1 1 1 3 Cyprus 1 1 Kroatië 0 0 Totaal 177 447 507 512 483 701 753 812 821 835 6048

“Kidnapped” on their way to court

DOUBLE CRIMINALITY

Two ways to approach double criminality in the FD (art. 2) 1)  List of offences (art. 2 sub 2 FD) ticked:

-  No verification double criminality -  At least punishable by 3 years of imprisonment -  Still double criminality for nationals

2)  No offence from the list (art. 2 sub 1 and 4 FD): - Verification double criminality - Punishable with imprisonment of at least 12 months (in 2 states)? (Verdicts: at least 4 months imprisonment applied) Art. 7 OLW

EXAMPLE 1) “a package of weed”

•  A Polish national (Thomasz D.), living in Poland, travelled by car to the Netherlands and bought in a coffeeshop 25 grams of marihuana. He brought this in his car back to Poland and sells it in a period of 3 weeks to 10 different persons in Poland. The Polish police somehow detects the transactions and the Polish judge issues an EAW, because Thomasz cannot be found in Poland. A year later Thomasz is sitting on a bench in a park in Amsterdam, and - after smoking some joints - is talking in Polish to himself. A Dutch police-officer asks how he is doing and asks him to identify himself. After identification he is arrested on the basis of the EAW.

•  Will the surrender be allowed by the Court in Amsterdam?

EXAMPLE 2) “aiding prostitution”

Estonia issues an EAW. This is the offence: • “Mr. A. has been found guilty of committing an offence by way of him, in a group of persons, working together with others, on the date of 07.08.2007 pimping Anne O. to work as a prostitute in the Federal Republic of Germany”. • Qualification: aiding prostitution • No listed offence is ticked. Can we agree with the surrender under Dutch Law?

EXAMPLE 2) “aiding prostitution”