Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-06-08-Speech-3-629-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110608.25.3-629-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Madam President, you might know that the Commission adopted a report on the implementation of the Arrest Warrant on 11 April this year. This report focuses on the fundamental aspects of the operation of the Arrest Warrant, highlighting for the first time since it became operational in January 2004 not only its successes but also its shortcomings.
I would also like to answer the specific question which has been raised by the authors. The Commission is not aware of any evidence that the request from Sweden to the United Kingdom for the surrender of Mr Assange to face allegations of sexual offences indicates that the European Arrest Warrant system is being used for other than its purpose.
Surrender under the Council Framework Decision creating the European Arrest Warrant is an entirely judicial procedure where the governments have absolutely no possibility of interfering in the process. In the specific case mentioned by Parliament, the procedure has been handled by the UK and Swedish judicial authorities without intervention of governments.
As for the other question concerning possible extradition to the United States, I would like to underline that we are not aware of any request so far in respect of potential extradition to the United States. But if there were a request, this could only happen with the consent of the surrendering Member State, the UK in that case. Because pursuant to Article 28 of the Council Framework Decision, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. This is just to underline the legal basis of the question but, of course, the whole question is a ‘what if’ question, because nothing concrete is on the table.
A lot has already been said about the successes. Let me just underline that between 2005 and 2009, almost 55 000 European Arrest Warrants were issued, about 12 000 were executed, and during that period, roughly 60% of the requested persons consented to their surrender, on average within 14 to 17 days. The average surrender time for those who did not consent was 48 days and this contrasts very favourable with the pre-European Arrest Warrant position of a one year average for the extradition of requested persons and has undoubtedly reinforced the free movement of persons.
That is why, and I think that everybody in this House agrees, the Arrest Warrant is an important tool to catch criminals and to render our criminal justice systems more effective. It has been instrumental in smashing paedophile rings, and catching murderers and terrorists, and that is what it is there for.
However, and this is a recent movement, we see that the number of Arrest Warrants issued has risen dramatically since 2007. In some cases, it is being used in a less than proportionate manner to extradite suspects of often petty crime: stealing a bike or a piglet. This is unnecessary and may damage the legitimacy of this powerful EU mutual recognition tool. That is the reason why the Commission asks for action.
First, the Commission calls on the EU Member States to exercise a proportionality test when they call for an Arrest Warrant, and to fill the gaps where their legislation fails to fully comply with the framework decision setting up the Arrest Warrant. We also ask the Member States to ensure that judicial practitioners, such as prosecutors, do not issue Arrest Warrants for minor offences.
Therefore, we will set out in a Handbook on the Arrest Warrant the lines to take at that level. We will also come forward with proposals before the end of 2011 to step up training on the Arrest Warrant for police authorities, judicial authorities and legal practitioners in order to ensure consistency and effectiveness in the way it is applied and raise awareness of the new EU safeguards for procedural rights.
Speaking about safeguards for procedural rights, the report also reflects on the overarching importance of fundamental rights and mutual trust in the Member States’ judicial systems. That is why the Commission has started to set up procedural rights for persons who are taken into custody.
Firstly, minimum rules on the right to interpretation and translation, which were adopted already in 2010. Secondly the right to information about rights – the letter of rights – which is going to reach an agreement very soon. Not later than today, the Commission adopted the third proposal on procedural rights, the proposal to ensure access to a lawyer and the right to have a third person notified when a person is deprived of his or her liberty. It will include a provision for access to a lawyer both in the issuing and the executing States in European Arrest Warrant cases.
All these procedural rights apply to the Arrest Warrant. These measures are designed to obviate the possibility that evidence is being obtained in breach of the fundamental rights of suspects."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples