European Arrest Warrant Case Studies
Law
What is the European Arrest Warrant?
The EAW is a judicial decision issued by one EU country requesting the arrest and transfer of a person from another EU country to face prosecution or serve a sentence. It’s designed to simplify and speed up extradition within the EU.
⚖️ Key Legal Principles
Mutual recognition of judicial decisions
Streamlined surrender procedures (usually within 60 days)
Grounds for refusal include fundamental rights concerns and procedural defects
Proportionality and dual criminality (some offenses exempted)
⚖️ Landmark EAW Case Studies with Case Law
1. Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad (2007)
🔹 Facts:
The Belgian court issued an EAW for environmental activists protesting nuclear weapons. The defendants argued the warrant violated fundamental rights.
🔹 Issue:
Can executing a warrant be refused on the basis of fundamental rights and proportionality?
🔹 Held:
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that execution may be refused if there is a real risk of fundamental rights violation or if the warrant is disproportionate.
✅ Principle:
Protection of fundamental rights can limit EAW execution.
2. Case C-237/15 Lanigan (2016)
🔹 Facts:
The UK sought to surrender a person to Poland under an EAW, but the individual claimed Polish detention conditions violated human rights.
🔹 Issue:
Should the executing state refuse surrender due to prison conditions?
🔹 Held:
CJEU ruled that courts must assess systemic deficiencies in prison conditions and refuse surrender if the risk is “real and sufficiently serious.”
✅ Principle:
Human rights standards in detention impact EAW decisions.
3. Case C-404/15 Aranyosi and Caldararu (2016)
🔹 Facts:
Two defendants faced EAWs from Hungary and Romania, but both claimed poor prison conditions violated rights.
🔹 Issue:
Can a surrender be postponed or refused due to prison conditions?
🔹 Held:
CJEU ruled that if there is a “real risk” of inhumane treatment, the executing authority must seek assurances or refuse surrender.
✅ Principle:
EAW execution requires balancing justice and human rights; provisional measures may apply.
4. Case R v. M (UK Court of Appeal, 2009)
🔹 Facts:
UK courts dealt with an EAW issued by Ireland for a man accused of fraud.
🔹 Issue:
Can the executing court review the evidence or double jeopardy concerns?
🔹 Held:
UK court stressed the limited scope of review in executing an EAW — no examination of the evidence’s merits is allowed unless fundamental rights are at risk.
✅ Principle:
Executing courts must respect the principle of mutual recognition with minimal interference.
5. Case C-237/16 Irish High Court Extradition Decision (2017)
🔹 Facts:
Ireland considered executing an EAW but questioned whether the offense met the minimum threshold.
🔹 Issue:
Are there proportionality checks for EAWs, especially for minor offenses?
🔹 Held:
Irish High Court highlighted the need for proportionality and refused surrender for trivial offenses not meeting the seriousness test.
✅ Principle:
EAWs must meet proportionality and seriousness thresholds to avoid misuse.
6. Case C-128/18 PPU Dworzecki (2018)
🔹 Facts:
Poland requested extradition of a defendant from Germany under an EAW.
🔹 Issue:
Can surrender be refused if the offense isn’t a crime in the executing state?
🔹 Held:
The CJEU reaffirmed that for 32 listed offenses, dual criminality is waived; for others, it must be checked.
✅ Principle:
Certain offenses are automatically subject to surrender under EAW rules.
✅ Summary Table: European Arrest Warrant Principles
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Advocaten voor de Wereld (2007) | Fundamental rights may limit execution |
| Lanigan (2016) | Prison conditions impact surrender decisions |
| Aranyosi and Caldararu (2016) | Real risk → seek assurances or refuse |
| R v. M (2009 UK) | Limited review scope of executing courts |
| Irish High Court (2017) | Proportionality test for minor offenses |
| Dworzecki (2018) | Dual criminality waived for listed crimes |
RELATED Blog
0 comments