EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 11.4.2011 
SEC(2011) 430 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying document to   
 
the third Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrende r procedures between Member States 
   
{COM(2011) 175 final} 
 
EN 2   EN PART I  Overview of legislative changes in  the Member States since 1 April 2007 
PART II  Overview of the current position in relation to the recommendations of the 
Council of the EU in the fi nal report of the fourth r ound of mutual evaluations 
of Member States concerning the app lication of the Framework Decision on 
the European arrest warrant 
PART III Note on Instruments amending/complementing the Framework Decision on the 
European arrest warrant  
PART IV  Note on the European arrest warran t and the Schengen Information System  
PART V Note on the European arre st warrant and Eurojust 
PART VI Decisions of the European Court of Justice on the Framework Decision on the 
European arrest warrant and on interpreta tion of ne bis in idem in relation to 
Article 54 of the Convention Impl ementing the Schengen Agreement 
PART VII Reference numbers of the individual C ouncil evaluation reports of the Member 
States concerning the application of th e Framework Decision on the European 
arrest warrant 
PART VIII Individual tables in relation to each Member State setting out the current 
position in respect of implementati on of the Framework Decision on the 
European arrest warrant 
PART IX  Statistical charts in relation to the European arrest warrant 
 
EN 3   EN PART I - OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE  CHANGES IN THE MEMBER STATES 
SINCE 1 APRIL 2007  
The responses received by the Commission to it s requests for information of the 30 June 2009 
and 25 June 2010 indicate the following: 
• New legislation was adopted in AT, BG, CZ1, EE, FR, HU, IE, LV, LT, PL PT, RO, SK 
and SI and legislation is proposed and drafted but is not yet adopted (apart from a minor 
amendment to one article of its transposing legislation2) in LU. 
• No legal change had taken pla ce or was announced in BE, CY3 DK, DE, EL, ES, FI, IT, 
MT, NL, SE and the UK. 
A brief descriptive analysis of the amendments is provided herein for the Member States 
where new legislation was adopted. The position in respect of all Member States is set out in 
the Tables, in Part VIII.  
AUSTRIA (Part VIII, Table 1) 
AT changed its legislation with effect from the 1st of January 2008. The legislation comprises 
rules governing all forms of coope ration between judicial authori ties of Austria and those of 
the other Member States. The concept of mutual  recognition is explici tly mentioned and the 
law provides for cooperation th rough Eurojust and EJN. 
Relating to EAWs against Austrian nationals on  the basis of a conviction, the dual criminality 
requirement related to list offe nces came to an end on the 1st of January 2009. However, the 
execution of an EAW against an Austrian nationa l is prohibited when the acts are subject to 
the jurisdiction of Austrian criminal law. Fu rthermore, all optional grounds are implemented 
as mandatory grounds for refusal for Austrian nationals. Surrender for prosecution is prohibited without the guarantee of Art 5(3). The right not to be surrendered may be waived. 
Where there is dual criminality AT will – when refusing to execute an EAW against an 
Austrian national - take over pros ecution in a proceeding that star ts on the basis of the EAW. 
If the act underlying the EAW is a list offence th e sentence will be enforced, even if the act is 
not punishable according to AT law. 
It is noted that in keeping with the old extrad ition regime, AT continue s to require verification 
of the suspicion (if there are cons iderable doubts in this context, in particular if evidence is 
available or can be offered, which woul d dispel the suspicion immediately). 
BULGARIA (Part VIII, Table 3) 
The implementing legislation was most rece ntly amended on 6 June 2008. Part of the 
amendment relates to consequences for the EA W procedures in prepar ation for the Schengen 
regime.  
                                                 
1  Further legislative amendments are currently being prepared in CZ 
2  Part 9 of the Law of 27.10.2010 "Lutte contre le blanchiment et le financement du terrorisme" 
3  The last information received fr om CY in August 2009 was that new legislation was proposed. No 
update on the progress, if any, of proposed legislati on has been received 
 
EN 4   EN The amendment limits the applicat ion of optional grounds for refusal of article 4(2) and (3) 
FD to those cases in which the person was accused or summoned or where the case was 
closed before  reception of the EAW. 
The application of the ground for refusal of articl e 4(6) is now limited to  those cases in which 
the judge grants (in the same court procedure) the execution of  the foreign penalty. The time 
limit for receipt of a (translated)  EAW is extended to 72 hours. 
CZECH REPUBLIC (Part VIII, Table 5) 
The law has been amended on three occasions (on 7 June 2007, on 10 December 2008 and on 
8 January 2009), mainly to adapt CZ law to  "Schengen", which CZ entered on the 21 
December 2007. An Act on International Judicial Co-operation is currently being prepared 
with a view to the parliamentary procedur e beginning in early 2011. 
It is envisaged that the recommendations addr essed to the Czech Republic in the evaluation 
report will be addressed in this upcoming legisla tion including the fact that (as highlighted in 
the Commission implementation report) contra ry to the Framework Decision, requests for 
offences committed by Czech nationals prior to 1 November 2004 are treated by CZ under 
previous extradition arrangements. The provision  of a simplified and speedier procedure for 
surrender in consent cases is also envisaged. 
Other measures that need to be addressed are the removal of the current application of the 
principle of reciprocity to the surrender of C zech nationals and the removal of the grounds of 
refusal identified in the evaluation report as  not having a basis in the Framework Decision. 
ESTONIA (Part VIII, Table 7)  
On 23 May 2008 new legislation wa s enacted expressly asserting that surrender in respect of 
FD list offences is to occur without veri fication of the double criminality of the act. 
The amending legislation designates the competen t issuing judicial authority in EAW cases 
arising in respect of persons who abscond during the course of criminal proceedings. It also 
makes provision for humanitarian grounds as a permissible basis for the postponement of 
surrender in appropriate cases. 
The Commission's 2007 report mentioned that  although not provided for in national 
legislation, as a consequence of  the EE system (in which all ar guments can brought before the 
Judge) a Judicial Authority may refuse surrende r purely on merit grounds rather than pursuant 
to any of the grounds stated in Article 3 and Article 4 of the Framework Decision. No 
refusals, however, are reported on other grounds than grounds in cluded in the FD. 
FRANCE (Part VIII, Table 9)  
The law of 12 May 2009 introduced several improvements. 
In respect of temporary surrender,  the French Ministry of Justice has indicated to the national 
courts that the decision of temporary surrender ha s to be decided by the judicial authorities of 
both states concerned. The French Ministry must not intervene. 
Also, due to legislative changes, in case of re fusal of the execution of a foreign sentence in 
accordance with paragraph 4(6) of the Framew ork Decision, the "chambre d'accusation" can 
 
EN 5   EN now immediately proceed to ta ke over the execution of the fo reign custodial sentence or 
detention order ("mise à execution directe"). A further amendment allows the applicability of 
the measure of conditional release when executing a foreign sentence in these cases. 
The Code of Criminal Procedure has also been  amended regarding the execution of the EAW: 
the General Prosecutor may now also apply altern ative measures to detention. In addition, the 
speciality rules are now in conformity with pa ragraph 27(3) (g) of the FD. It seems however 
that the transposition of the exception to the speciality rule in Article 27(3) (c) remains 
outstanding. 
Concerning the issue of accessory surrender, the legislation envi sages inclusion of accessory 
offenses (that do not meet the thresholds) when  issuing an EAW for offenses that meet the 
criteria. Relating to the seizure and handover of property, a provision ha s been added to allow 
seizure and handover on own initiat ive of the executing authority. 
HUNGARY (Part VIII, Table 12)  
Amendments to the law came into force on 8 January 2009. 
HU reiterates that all EAWs are issued by a judge and are also considered as national arrest 
warrants. For EAWs replacing pre-existing international arrest warrants the date of issue will be clearly indicated. HU also guarantees th at surrender can only be refused on grounds 
expressly provided in the implementing law. 
Amendments relating to refusal on the grounds of prescription and de duction of detention 
served abroad pursuant to the execution of the EAW from the total cust odial sentence brings 
the HU law now in line with respectively articles 4(4) and 26 of the FD. 
However, HU did not amend its legislation protecting HU nationals residing in HU from 
being surrendered for in absentia  sentences, even when re-trial  is guaranteed, nor did it 
introduce a possibility for executing sentences  for offences not punishable under HU law, 
passed against Hungarian nationals that are not surrendered. 
IRELAND (Part VIII, Table 13)  
New legislation which took effect on 25 August 2009 anticipates requiremen ts relating to SIS 
II and has reduced the need for correction/re-issu e of warrants in case of technical and minor 
errors in EAWs to those absolutely necessary. It also reduced the time spent on checking incoming warrants and provides th at fingerprints, palm prints and photographs may be taken 
for identification purposes. 
The provision of an optional ground for refusal in relation to lapse of time has now been 
deleted. The possibilities of appeal to the Supreme Court on points of law of exceptional 
public importance are limited. Wh ere surrender is subj ect to the condition that the person be 
returned to the executing state to serve any se ntence imposed in the issuing state, and where 
the person consents to his retur n, the new legislation empowers th e Minister to issue a warrant 
for the transfer of that person to the executi ng state following final determination of the 
proceedings. Ireland, therefore, no longer relies on  the Transfer of Sentenced Persons regime. 
However, Irish legislation cont inues to require that  an incoming warrant be endorsed by the 
High Court before execution. In addition, Irel and as an issuing st ate has not explicitly 
 
EN 6   EN transposed Article 24(2) on temporary surrender and Articles 27(3) (g) and 27(4) on consent 
for prosecution for other offences. 
LATVIA (Part VIII, Table 15) 
Four amendments to the law were made in  2008, 2009 and 2010 (29 Ju ly 2008, 1 and 9 July 
2009 and 21 October 2010). The law is now in line with Articles 2(4) and 4(6) of the Framework Decision as regards respectively the a bolition of the dual criminality check for list 
offences and the undertaking that LV will execut e the sentence passed in the issuing State. 
Legislative gaps have been fill ed relating to Article 20(2) a nd 29(2) of the FD, as regards 
respectively time limits in case of privileges  and immunities and the handing over of 
properties in case surrender is impossible due to the escape or the death of the requested 
person. A provision for temporary surrender acc ording to Article 24(2)  FD was introduced. 
The amended legislation is furthermore brought in  conformity with the Articles 27(3) b and c 
and 28(2) and (3) and the form contains a possibility to include aliases. Pursuant to the law of 21 October 2010, the Prosecutor-General's Office w ill be the competent authority in respect of 
the issue of EAWs. 
Some small gaps in transposition remain in re spect of Article 17(7), informing Eurojust of 
breach of time limits and Artic le 29(4), return of property seized to the executing Member 
State at the conclusion of criminal proceedings. 
LITHUANIA (Part VIII, Table 16)  
Since 1 April 2007, Lithuania has made severa l amendments to the law relating to the 
implementation of the EAW. In particular, Article  70(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic 
of Lithuania has been amended by Law No X-1236 of 28 June 2008. 
The amendments relate to the competence of regi onal or district courts to decide on issues 
relating to detention in EAW cases and to the c onsent of the executing state to re-extradition 
or surrender of a person from LT  to a third state, the latter bringing the implementing law into 
line with Article 28(4) of the FD. In addition, Lithuania has made amendments to the law 
relating to the Rules for issuing EAWs, setting out criteria to apply when issuing an EAW 
taking into account the pr inciple of proportionality . 
Outstanding issues include the transpostions of Articles 27(3) c and d and the reconsideration 
of the inclusion of a breach of fundametnal ri ghts and (or) liberty as an express mandatory 
ground of refusal. 
POLAND (Part VIII, Table 20)  
PL has modified its legislation on the EA W on 5 November 2009 and the legislation took 
effect on 8 June 2010. 
The new legislation makes provision for the co mpetent Court to issue an EAW on its own 
initiative in trial and post-trial cases and exte nded the possibility to issue an EAW in cases 
where the Court has jurisdiction over the case even though the offence was not committed in 
Poland. Provisions have been made for provisional ar rest up to seven days before receipt of an 
EAW (where there is final custodial sentence and detention order in place), for temporary 
surrender based on agreement be tween issuing and executing authorities and for a final 
decision on surrender within 60 days. 
 
EN 7   EN Poland has not however addressed th e fact that its legislation c ontains a number of mandatory 
grounds for refusal not provided for in the Framework Decision. In addition, the partial 
abolition of double criminality ch eck in the FD continues not to  apply to Polish nationals and 
refusal of the execution of the EAW on the basis of territoriality remains mandatory. 
PORTUGAL (Part VIII, Table 21) 
A Penal Code amendment of September 2007 provided that PT na tionals and persons 
customarily resident in PT will be subject to PT jurisdiction for certain crimes committed 
outside the national territory. 
However there have been no amendments to the EA W law to address the fact that Articles in 
relation to mandatory non-executio n grounds and the decision in respect of competing EAWs 
have been transposed contrary to the Framew ork Decision and that a number of transposed 
provisions lack legal certaint y including the provisions on temporary surrender, speciality, 
optional non-execution grounds, competing inte rnational obligatons, time limits for final 
surrender decision, and time limits for appeals. 
ROMANIA (Part VIII, Table 22)  
New legislation was adopted in Romania w ith effect from 10 November 2008 (Law no. 
222/2008). The amending legislation (which al so implemented three other framework 
decisions) was introduced in respect of the EAW to adjust some procedural aspects and did not amend the substance of the original implementing law on the EAW. 
This amendment prepares RO for entering the Schengen area and brings the RO law almost 
fully in line with the FD. It furthermore takes stock of good practices and streamlines 
domestic procedures. 
The amendments to the law in 2008 addresses prev ious defects in the tr ansposition of the list 
provided for in Article 2(2) of the Fram ework Decision. In addition the 2008 amendment 
provides that in case of refusal on the ground of Article 4(6) FD, the c ourt will proceed (in the 
same court procedure) to the ex ecution of the foreign penalty. 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC (Part VIII, Table 23)  
The Slovak Republic has adopted Act No 154/2010 on the EAW, due to en ter into force on 
1 September 2010. This Act repeals the original  transposing legislation on the EAW, as 
amended. 
The new Act includes a legisla tive provision to ensure proportio nality in issuing EAWs. It 
addresses previous defects in the transposition of Article 2 of the FD; sets a time limit of 40 days for the receipt of a language-complaint EAW; converts the previously-mandatory ground 
for refusal based on territoriality into an optional ground; makes provision for temporary 
surrender in accordance with Article 24(2) and pr ovides for additional consent and consent to 
subsequent surrender pursuant to Article 28. 
The new legislation thus adresses almo st all of the Council and Commisson 
recommendations. Matters outstanding include pr ovision of a deadline for decisions in the 
highest court of appeal (Supreme Court) and provision for transit from a third state in 
accordance with Article 25(5). 
 
EN 8   EN SLOVENIA (Part VIII, Table 24)  
In February 2008 a new single act came into forc e, comprising all instruments of cooperation 
in the field of criminal law within the EU. 
The new legislation addresses previous tran sposition defects by implementing the penalty 
threshold and entire list of criminal offences referred to in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision; providing for the enfor ceability of sentences passed in the issuing Member State 
against nationals and residents of SI for of fences not punishable under SI law; making 
additional provisions on the seiz ure and handing over of property  in accordance with Article 
29; and making provision for transit from third states to another Member State. 
In addition Article 26 on deducting the period of  detention served in the executing Member 
State is now transposed and Slovenia has removed any limitation on the operation of the EAW (previously only for offences committed af ter 7 August 2002) regarding the date of the 
commission of the alleged offence.  
 
EN 9   EN PART II - COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS  
General information in relation to the practical  application of the EAW is set out in the 
"General Information" Table in respect of each Member State in Part VI II, drawing largely on 
the issues raised in the Council Recommendations4 and including some other EAW issues. 
Given the variation in content and quality of re plies from Member States, the information is 
not fully comprehensive but it is hoped that th e collation and presentation in table format of 
this material will be a useful tool for practitioners and of assistance to Member States in the follow up to the recommendations to be submitted to the Council by mid 2011.
5 An overview 
of some of the detail in the individual Memb er State tables in th e context of the Council 
recommendation follows. 
The Council has recommended that Member Stat es adopt a flexible approach to language 
requirements.6 The Commission endorses this recommendati on in the light of Article 8(2) of 
the Framework Decision. Where EAWs and add itional information in languages other than 
the Member State's own official languages are accepted the procedure is speeded up and the 
need for translation and attendant costs are redu ced. Replies from Member  States on this issue 
show that there is some limited element of langu age flexibility in most Member States with 
the norm being that EAWs are accepted in the la nguage of the executing state and either one 
or two other languages. Language  flexibility is base d on reciproc ity in a numbe r of States 
(AT, CZ, DE, SK). It is regret table that in six Member States  (BG, FR, IE, IT, PL, UK) there 
is no flexibility in relation to the language accepted. 
The fourteen responses on time limits for receipt  of a language-compliant EAW indicate that 
where time limits exist, they range from 48 hours to 40 days. The Council has recommended a time limit of around 6 working days
7 and the Commission finds this acceptable. 
In respect of provisional arrest, the Comm ission agrees with the recommendation of the 
Council that Member States should take legisl ative action at national level insofar as this 
creates particular difficulties in practice8. It appears that provisiona l arrest is possible in all 
Member States except CY and IE and the time limits for receipt of the EAW range from 24 
hours to 40 days (SK). However apart from NL (22 days) and Poland (7 days) the time limits 
in all other Member States are 24, 48 or 72 hours. 
In respect of the issue of surrender for accesso ry offences, the Council has indicated that 
action, if needed, should be  taken at national level9. The Commission is also in favour of this 
approach. The twenty four replie s indicate that such surrender is  possible in 11 Member States 
and not possible in 8. It is pos sible in 4 Member States (HU, IE, LT, RO) only as executing 
states and in one Member State (NL) as an issuing state only. 
In respect of flagging in the Schengen In formation System, the Commission endorses the 
Council recommendation that Member States a pply the practice of flagging EAW-based SIS 
                                                 
4 8302/4/09 COPEN 68, 7361/10 COPEN 59, 8436/2/10 COPEN 95 
5 8302/4/09 GOPEN 68 p.23 - Recommendation 20 
6 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.11, 7361/10 COPEN 59, p.3, 8436/2/10 COPEN p.3 
7 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.12, 7361/10 COPEN 59, p.4, 8436/2/10 COPEN p.3 
8 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.19, 7361/10 COPEN 59, p.11, 8436/2/10 COPEN p.6 
9 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.16, 7361/10 COPEN 59, p.7, 8436/2/10 COPEN p.5 
 
EN 10   EN alerts according to the criter ia in Council Decision 2007/533/JHA10 on the second generation 
Schengen Information System (effectively that the flagging decision is  taken by a competent 
judicial authority). The content of the sixteen replies on this issue from Schengen participants 
indicate that in 9 Member States the decision on flagging is solely within the competence of the judicial authority, in 4 memb er states the decision is within the province of the Sirene 
Bureaux/International Police Co-operation Units  and in 3 Member States the Judicial 
Authority is consulted by the Sire ne Office where deemed necessary. 
A questionnaire on the applica tion of Article 29 on the seiz ure and handover of property is 
envisaged by the Council. The twenty five brief replies on this issue indi cate that all Member 
States that replied have so me provision on seizure and ha ndover of property.  However, 
Article 29 is stated to be only partly transposed  in 4 Member States (FI, LV, SI, SW), limited 
to property found in the possession of the reque sted person upon arrest in one Member State 
(NL) and reliant on mutual legal assistance provi sions in three Member States (LU, SK, UK). 
The Council has recommended that Member St ates take measures to promote direct 
communication between judicial authoriti es and the Commission endorses this 
recommendation with a view to promoting the development of a European judicial culture 
based on dialogue between judicial authorities.  Of the 26 Member States that provided a 
reply, all but three (CY, IE and UK)  indicated that the pr inciple of direct contact is operated.  
However a number of Member St ates alluded to the importance of their Central Authorities 
and it appears from the evaluations that in practice much work rema ins to be done on 
promoting direct communication between judicial authorities. 
The majority of Member States (14) cite  the 1983 Council of Europe Convention of the 
Transfer of Sentenced Persons and its protocol
11as their mechanism fo r the transfer of a 
sentenced person pursuant to Article 5(3) FD . Two Member States (IE, UK) referred to 
having specific domestic provisions based on th e Framework Decision on the European arrest 
warrant. Only one Member State (FI) referr ed to pending legislation implementing FD 
2008/909/JHA12 on the application of th e 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 Europ ean Union, which makes specific provision for 
the enforcement of sentences in cases under Articl es 4(6) and 5(3) of the FD on the EAW, and 
has an implementation date of 5 December 2011. 
Where surrender for the execution of a sentence is refused pursuant to Article 4(6) on the 
grounds that the sought person has nationality or  is a resident of the executing State, 4 
Member States (AT, LU, SI, SE) indicated that there is the possibility of executing a sentence 
where there is no dual criminality and in 6 Memb er States (HU, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO) this is 
not possible. BE indicated that surrender would be authorised in  such a case as it would not be 
a ground for refusal. The remaining Member Stat es that furnished replies on this issue (16 
replies in all) either have not transposed Article  4(6) as a ground of re fusal (IE, SK) or had no 
experience of such a scenario (CZ, EE, ES). 
21 Member States have accepted the jurisdiction of  the European Court of Justice in respect 
of police and judicial cooperati on in criminal matters pursuant to Article 35 of the Treaty on 
                                                 
10 OJ L 205, 7.8.2007, p.63 
11  European Treaty Series no. 112 
12 OJ L 327, 5.12.2008, p.27 
 
EN 11   EN European Union. The Member States that have not made a declaration accepting the 
jurisdiction of the European  Court of Justice are BG , DK, EE, IE, PL and UK. 
In addition to the above issues, the General In formation Table also sets out information in 
respect of each Member State (subject to re plies received) on a number of other matters 
including the existence of a proportionality te st (see comments on proportionality below); the 
availability of state-funded legal assistan ce in EAW cases; the respective competent 
authorities for requests pursuant to Article 111 of the Scheng en Convention; th e integration of 
recital 12 FD in the respective implementatio n laws; the abolition of dual criminality in 
respect of the offences listed in Arti cle 2(2) FD for attempt and complicity13; the existence of 
a 24 hour/seven day presence for EAW issues; th e respective ages of criminal liability;14 and 
provision of statistics and a website by Member States. 
Arising from the Council Recommendations, the ES Presidency drafted a form for 
communicating the final decision on the EAW to the issuing authority15. The idea of using 
such a form is endorsed by th e Commission. It will  facilitate the fl ow of information, 
promoting cooperation between judicial author ities and ensuring compliance with Article 26 
FD on the deduction of the period of detenti on served in the executing Member State. 
                                                 
13 Dual criminality for attempt and complicity appears to be abolished expressly or in practice in all but 
three Member States (BG, DK, PL) 
14 While some Member States have specific regimes for age brackets over or under the designated age of 
criminal liability, in general from the 24 replies the age of criminal liability ranges from 9 to 18, with 
the majority - ten Member states (AT, CY, DK, EE, DE, HU, LV, RO, SK, SI) – having a designated 
age of 14. In three Member  States it is 15 (CZ, FI, SW) and 16 (BE, LT, PT). In two Member States 12 
(IE, NL) and 18 (LU, ES). The ages 9 (MT), 10(UK), 13(FR) and 17(PL) are the designated age in one 
Member State. 
15 7361/10, COPEN 59 and 8436/1/10 COPEN 95 
 
EN 12   EN PART III - THE IMPLEMENTATION SINCE 2007 OF OTHER INSTRUMENTS 
AMENDING/COMPLMENTING THE FR AMEWORK DECISION ON THE 
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT  
Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA16 of 27 November 2008 on the application of the 
principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matte rs imposing custodial sentences 
or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the 
European Union . This instrument contains specific pr ovision for the enforcement of custodial 
sentences in the executing stat e in respect of cases under Ar ticles 4(6) and 5(3) of the 
Framework Decision on the EAW. The consent of the sentenced person to  transfer will no 
longer be a pre-requisite in al l cases and this Framework D ecision will replace the current 
reliance for the transfer  of sentenced persons of  a majority of Member States (see tables in 
Part VIII) on the 1983 Council of Europe Conven tion for the Transfer of sentenced Persons 
and its additional Protocol.17 Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA entered into force on the 5 
December 2008 and has an implemen tation date of 5 December 2011. 
Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA18 of 26 February 2009 amending Framework 
Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA and 2008/947/JHA  thereby 
enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the a pplication of the principle of 
mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. 
This Framework Decision inserts a new Article 4( a) in relation to decisions rendered in the 
absence of the requested person into th e Framework Decision on the EAW, deletes 
Article 5(1) and amends the EAW form. It ai ms to provide clear and common grounds for 
non-recognition of decisions re ndered following a trial at whic h the person concerned did not 
appear in person. It entered into force on 28 March 2009 and ha s an implementation date of 
28 March 2011. 
Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA19 of 23 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 , introduces the 
possibility of transferring a non-custodial supe rvision measure from the Member State where 
a non resident is suspected of having committe d an offence, to the Member State where 
he/she is normally resident. This will allow a suspected person to be subject to a supervision measure in his or her normal environment until  the trial takes place in  the foreign Member 
State. It entered into force on 1 December 2009 and has an implementation date of 1 December 2012. 
Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA
20 of 30 November 2009 on prevention and 
settlement of conflicts of ex ercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings provides a 
mechanism for consultation and co-operation betw een judicial authorities when a person is 
the subject of parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respec t of the same 
                                                 
16  Official Journal L 327, 5.12.2008, p.27 
17  European Treaty Series - No.112. Council of Europe  Convention on the Transfer  of Sentenced Persons, 
Strasbourg 21.III.1983.  European Treaty Series- No. 167. Additional Protocol to the Convention on the 
Transfer of Sentenced Persons, Strasbourg 18.XII.1997 
18  Official Journal L 81, 27.3.2009, p.24 
19  Official Journal L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20 
20  Official Journal L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42 
 
EN 13   EN facts. It entered into force on 15 Decem ber 2009 and has an implementation date of 
15 June 2012. 
 
EN 14   EN PART IV - THE EUROPEAN ARRE ST WARRANT AND THE SCHENGEN 
INFORMATION SYSTEM  
An EAW cannot be executed if the person be ing sought is not located. The Schengen 
Information System (SIS) contains a database  used by authorities of the Schengen member 
countries to exchange data on certain categor ies of people and objects including persons 
wanted for arrest for extradition. Member Stat es supply informati on (which becomes an 
"alert") from their national systems to the central system via a co mmon, secure network. 
Searches in SIS produce a "hit" when the detail s of a person or object sought match those of 
an existing alert. This IT system is suppl emented by a network bureaux known as SIRENE 
(Supplementary Information Request at the Nati onal Entry), which is the human interface of 
the SIS. Between January 2008 and 2010 the total num ber of SIS alerts, in all categories, rose 
from 22.9 million to 31.6 million.21 Given this increasing volume and as the SIS has been 
operational since 1995, work is in progress on the second ge neration of the system with 
enhanced functionalities and ba sed on new technology. This new sy stem (SIS II) is currently 
undergoing extensive tests in coop eration with Member States. 
The possibility of creating an alert in the Schengen Information System has proved a very 
useful tool in locating and facilitating the arrest of persons who are the subject of an EAW.  
25 Member States and Schengen associated countries (excluding BG, CY, IE, RO, UK) 
currently participate fully in the Schengen Information System22. Statistics from the central 
system show that the number of alerts in th e Schengen Information System for the purpose of 
the arrest for extradition purposes (including  EAWs) is rising steadily, with 19,199 in 2007, 
24,560 in 2008 and 28,666 in 200923 EAW statistical data indicate that in 2009 82.5% 
(10,012) of the 12,111 EAWs issued by Schengen part icipating states were transmitted via the 
Schengen Information System24. 
                                                 
21  Council documents 6162/10 COMIX 103, 5441/08 COMIX 3 
22  At the time of writing BG and RO are using the system but their membership has not been fully ratified. 
The participation of Liechten stein is envisaged in 2011. 
23  Council documents 6162/10 COMIX 103; 5764/09 COMIX 75; 5441/08 COMIX 38 
24  Council document 751/4/10 COPEN 64 
 
EN 15   EN PART V - THE EUROPEAN A RREST WARRANT AND EUROJUST  
EAW cases represent a consistent 19% of the total case load of Eurojust over the past two 
years. (267 of the 1193 cases registered wi th Eurojust in 2008 and 256 of 1,372 cases in 
2009)25. As all but two cases in 2008 and one in 2009 concerned operational issues, it is clear 
that Eurojust plays an important role in the efficient operation of the EAW system and is well 
placed to identify the recurring issu es in its practical application26 The issues highlighted by 
Eurojust include reluctance to surrender own-nationals; issues with the legal basis for the return of nationals to serve a sentence after conviction; problems relate d to the absence of a 
proportionality check in some issuing Member St ates; problems with th e speciality rule when 
a person was charged with other offences afte r surrender; the issue of  a person having been 
aware of proceedings  where convicted in abstentia  and the availability of re-trials in such 
cases; differences in legal systems with respect to life imprisonment; missing information; translation problems and delays in provision of original a nd translated EAWs; lack of 
information on periods of detent ion that a surrendered person is entitled to have deducted 
from a sentence; and issues arising from the differences in legal systems, in particular 
between common law and civil law systems. 
In both 2008 and 2009, Eurojust dealt with 4 cases referred to them pursuant to Article 16 of 
the Framework Decision on the EAW in respect of conflicting EAWs (w here the same person 
is requested by two Member States). In addi tion, there were 28 cases of breaches of time 
limits reported to Eurojust pursuant to Article 17 of the Framework Decision on the EAW in 2008 and 30 such cases in 2009
27. The main reason for time limits not being respected was 
identified by Eurojust as due to delays arising from requests for further information28. The 
replies of Member States on respecting time limits29 indicate that there are considerably more 
cases where the time limits in th e Decision are not met and the re latively low Eurojust figures 
are therefore likely to  be indicative of under-reporting, de spite the obliga tion to report 
breaches of time limits to Euroju st in the Framework Decision. 
                                                 
25  Eurojust annual reports 2008 and 2009 
26  Eurojust annual report 2009 p.32-34 
27  Eurojust annual report 2008 p.20 and 2009 p.31-32 
28  Eurojust annual report 2008 p.21 
29  Council document 7551/7/10 COPEN 64 
 
EN 16   EN PART VI - DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE  
C-105/03, Pupino (Judgment of 16 June 2005)  
The Court held that national la w should be interpreted in acco rdance with the wording and 
purpose of a Framework Decision (Although this case arose in respect of Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the Standing of Victims in  Criminal Proceedings, it is relevant to 
the Decision on the Warrant as it concerne d the effect of a Framework Decision). 
Decisions in order of judgme nt date in relatio n to the Framework Decision on the 
European arrest warrant  
C-303/05, Advocaten voor de Wereld (Judgment of 3 May 2007) 
1. Under Article 35(1) EU, the Court has jurisd iction, subject to the conditions laid down in 
that article, to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation and validity of, inter alia, framework decisions, which necessarily implies th at it can, even if th ere is no express power 
to that effect, be called upon to  interpret provisions of primary law, such as Article 34(2)(b) 
EU where the Court is being asked to exam ine whether a framework decision has been 
properly adopted on the basis of that latter provision. 
2. Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States, which prov ides for the approximation of the laws and 
regulations of the Member States with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and, 
more specifically, of the rules relating to the conditions, procedures an d effects of surrender 
as between national authorities convicted pers ons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing 
judgments or of criminal proceedings, was not adopted in breach of Article 34(2)(b) EU. 
In so far as it lists and defines, in general term s, the different types of legal instruments which 
may be used in the pursuit of th e objectives of the Uni on set out in Title VI  of the EU Treaty, 
Article 34(2) EU cannot be construed as mean ing that the approximation of the laws and 
regulations of the Member States by the adoption of a framework decision under Article 
34(2)(b) EU cannot relate to areas other than those mentioned in Article 31(1)(e) EU and, in 
particular, the matter of the European arrest warrant. 
Furthermore, Article 34(2) EU also does not establish any order of priority between the 
different instruments listed in th at provision. While it is true that the European arrest warrant 
could equally have been the subj ect of a convention, it  is within the Counc il’s discretion to 
give preference to the legal instrument of the framework decision in the case where the 
conditions governing the adoption of  such a measure are satisfied. 
This latter conclusion is not i nvalidated by the fact that, in accordance with Article 31(1) of 
the Framework Decision, the latter was to replace from 1 January 2004, only in relations between Member States, the corresponding provisions of the earlier conventions on 
extradition set out in that provision. Any other interp retation unsupported by either Article 
34(2) EU or by any other provision of the EU Treaty would risk depriv ing of its essential 
 
EN 17   EN effectiveness the Council’s r ecognised power to adopt fram ework decisions in fields 
previously governed by in ternational conventions. 
3. The principle of the le gality of criminal offences and penalties ( nullum crimen, nulla poena 
sine lege ), which is one of the general legal principles underlying the constitutional traditions 
common to the Member States, has also been en shrined in various inte rnational treaties, in 
particular in Article 7(1) of the European  Convention on Human Ri ghts. This principle 
implies that legislation must defi ne clearly offences and the pena lties which they attract. That 
condition is met in the case wher e the individual concerned is in  a position, on the basis of the 
wording of the relevant provision and with the help of the interpretative assistance given by 
the courts, to know which acts or omissions will make him criminally liable. 
In so far as it dispenses with verification of the requirement of  double criminality in respect of 
the offences listed in that provision, Artic le 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrender proc edures between Member States is not invalid 
on the ground that it infringes the principle of th e legality of criminal offences and penalties. 
The Framework Decision does not seek to harmoni se the criminal offences in question in 
respect of their constituent elements or of the penalties which they attract. While Article 2(2) 
of the Framework Decision di spenses with verification of double criminality for the 
categories of offences mentioned therein, the definition of those offences and of the penalties 
applicable continue to be matters determined by the law of the issuing Member State, which, 
as is, moreover, stated in Article 1(3) of the Framework Decision, must respect fundamental 
rights and fundamental legal prin ciples as enshrined in Articl e 6 EU, and, consequently, the 
principle of the legality of cr iminal offences and penalties. 
4. In so far as it dispenses with verification of  double criminality in respect of the offences 
listed therein, Article 2(2) of  Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant 
and the surrender procedures between Member Stat es is not invalid inas much as it does not 
breach the principle of equa lity and non-discrimination. 
With regard, first, to the choice  of the 32 categories of offences listed in that provision, the 
Council was able to form the view, on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in 
the light of the high degree of trust and solidarity between the Member States, that, whether 
by reason of their inherent nature or by reason of the punishment incurre d of a maximum of at 
least three years, the categories of offences in  question feature among those the seriousness of 
which in terms of adversely affecting public or der and public safety justifies dispensing with 
the verification of double crimin ality. Consequently, even if one  were to assume that the 
situation of persons suspected of having committed offences featuring on the list set out in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision or convi cted of having committed such offences is 
comparable to the situation of persons suspec ted of having committed, or  convicted of having 
committed, offences other than those listed in th at provision, the distinction is, in any event, 
objectively justified. 
With regard, second, to the fact that the lack of  precision in the definiti on of the categories of 
offences in question risks giving rise to disp arate implementation of the Framework Decision 
within the various national legal orders, suffice it to point out th at it is not the objective of the 
Framework Decision to harmonise the substantive criminal law of the Member States and that 
nothing in Title VI of the EU Treaty makes the application of the European arrest warrant 
conditional on harmonisation of the criminal laws of the Member States within the area of the 
offences in question. 
 
EN 18   EN  
C-66/08 Kozlowski (Judgment of 17 July 2008) 
1. Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/5 84 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a warra nt issued for the purposes of execution of a 
sentence where the requested person ‘is staying in, or is a national or a resident of, the 
executing Member State’, and where that Stat e undertakes to execute that sentence in 
accordance with its domestic law, must be inte rpreted as meaning that  a requested person is 
‘resident’ in the executing Member State when he has established his actual place of residence 
there and he is ‘staying’ there when, following a stable period of  presence in that State, he has 
acquired connections with that State which are of a similar degree to those resulting from 
residence. 
Since the objective of the Framework Decision is to put in place a system of surrender, as 
between judicial authorities, of convicted pe rsons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing 
judgments or of criminal proceedings, base d on the principle of mutual recognition – a 
surrender which the executing judicial author ity can oppose only on one of the grounds for 
refusal provided for by the Framework Decision  – the terms ‘staying’ and ‘resident’, which 
determine the scope of Article 4(6), must be defined uniformly, since they concern 
autonomous concepts of Union law. Therefore, in their national law transposing Article 4(6), 
the Member States are not entitled to give t hose terms a broader meaning than that which 
derives from such a uniform interpretation. 
2. In order to ascertain, when  interpreting Article 4(6) of  Framework Decision 2002/584 on 
the European arrest warrant and the surrender  procedures between Member States, whether 
there are connections between the requested person and the executing Member State which 
lead to the conclusion that that person is cove red by the term ‘staying’ within the meaning of 
that provision, which authorises the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute such a 
warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a sentence where the requested person is 
staying in the executing Member State, it is fo r that authority to ma ke an overall assessment 
of various objective factors characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular, 
the length, nature and conditions of his pres ence and the family and economic connections 
which that person has with the executing Member State. 
C-296/08 PPU, Santesteban Goicoechea  (Judgment of 12 August 2008) 
1. The fact that an order for reference concerni ng the interpretation of  a framework decision 
adopted under Title VI of the EU  Treaty does not mention Articl e 35 EU but refers to Article 
234 EC cannot of itself make the reference fo r a preliminary ruling inadmissible. That 
conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the EU Treaty neither expres sly nor by implication 
lays down the form in which the national court must present its reference for a preliminary ruling. 
2. Since, under Article 35 EU, it is for the nationa l court or tribunal, not the parties to the 
main proceedings, to bring a matter before the C ourt, the right to determine the questions to 
be put to the Court devolves on the national co urt alone and the parties may not change their 
tenor. To answer questions formulated by the pa rties to the main proceedings would moreover 
be incompatible with the function given to the Cour t by that article and with its duty to ensure 
 
EN 19   EN that the governments of the Member States  and the parties concerned are given the 
opportunity to submit observations in accordance with Article 23 of the Statute of the Court 
of Justice, bearing in mind that  under that provision only the order of th e referring court is 
notified to the interested parties. 
3. Article 31 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States must  be interpreted as referring only to the 
situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case 
where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to  Article 32 of the framework decision. 
4. Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as not precluding the 
application by an executing Member State of th e Convention relating to  extradition between 
the Member States of the European Uni on drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 
and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became 
applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004. 
Making conventions such as that convention relating to extraditi on between the Member 
States of the European Union applicable does no t interfere with the European arrest warrant 
system laid down by the framework decision, since,  in accordance with Article 31(1) of that 
decision, such a convention can be  used only where the European  arrest warrant system does 
not apply. The purpose of making conventions in the field of extraditio n applicable after 1 
January 2004 can therefore only be to improve the extradition system in circumstances in 
which the European arrest warrant system does not apply. 
C-388/08 PPU, Leymann and Pustovarov (Judgment of 1 December 2008) 
1. A request for a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of 
Framework Decision 2002/584 on th e European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 
between Member States to be dealt with unde r an urgent procedure can be granted on the 
basis of an indication by the re ferring court that if prosecution for the offence is ruled out, the 
length of the sentence imposed on the person c oncerned would be reduced and his release 
brought forward. 
2. Article 27(2) of Framework Decision 2002/ 584 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States lays down the specialty  rule, according to 
which a person who has been surrendered may not be prosecuted, sentenced or otherwise 
deprived of liberty for an offence committed prio r to his or her surrender other than that for 
which he or she was surrendered. The surrend er request is based on information which 
reflects the state of investigations at the time of  issue of the European arrest warrant. It is 
therefore possible that, in the course of the proceedings, the descrip tion of the offence no 
longer corresponds in all respects to the origin al description. The evidence which has been 
gathered can lead to a clarification or even a modification of the constituent elements of the 
offence which initially justified the i ssue of the European arrest warrant. 
The terms ‘prosecuted’, ‘sentenced’ or ‘deprived of liberty’ in Article 27(2) indicate that the 
concept of an ‘offence other’ than that for wh ich the person was surrendered must be assessed 
with regard to the different stages of the pr oceedings and in the light of any procedural 
document capable of altering the legal classificati on of the offence. In order to assess, in the 
light of the consent requirement contained in  Article 27(3)(g) of th e Framework Decision, 
 
EN 20   EN whether it is possible to infer from a procedural  document an ‘offence other’ than that referred 
to in the European arrest warrant, the descripti on of the offence in the European arrest warrant 
must be compared with that in the later proc edural document. To require the consent of the 
executing Member State for every modification of the description of  the offence would go 
beyond what is implied by the specialty rule an d interfere with the objective of speeding up 
and simplifying judicial cooperation of the ki nd referred to in the Framework Decision 
between the Member States. 
In order to establish whether the offence under cons ideration is an ‘offence other’ than that for 
which the person was surrendered within th e meaning of Article 27(2) of Framework 
Decision 2002/584, requiring the implementation of  the consent procedure referred to in 
Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of that Framework Decision, it must  be ascertained whether the 
constituent elements of the offence, according to the legal description given by the issuing 
State, are those in respect of which the person was surrendered an d whether there is a 
sufficient correspondence between the informati on given in the arrest  warrant and that 
contained in the later procedural  document. Modifications concer ning the time or  place of the 
offence are allowed, in so far as they derive  from evidence gathered in the course of the 
proceedings conducted in the issuing State con cerning the conduct described in the arrest 
warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence and do not lead to grounds for non-execution 
under Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision. 
3. A modification of the descrip tion of the offence, concerning only the kind of narcotics in 
question and not changing the legal classification of  the offence, is not such, of itself, as to 
define an ‘offence other’ than that for whic h the person was surrendere d within the meaning 
of Article 27(2) of Framework Decision 2002/ 584 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, sin ce it is an offence still punishable according 
to the same scale of penalties and comes under the rubric ‘illegal  trafficking in narcotic drugs’ 
in Article 2(2) of that Framework Decision. 
4. The exception in Article 27(3)(c) of Framew ork Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest 
warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, according to which the specialty rule provided for in Article 27(2) doe s not apply where the criminal proceedings do 
not give rise to the application of a measure restricting personal liberty, must be interpreted as 
meaning that, where there is an ‘offence other’ than that for which the person was surrendered, consent must be requested, in a ccordance with Article 27(4) of the Framework 
Decision, and obtained if a penalty or a measure involving the deprivation of liberty is to be 
executed. The person surrendered can be prosecuted and sentenced for such an offence before 
that consent has been obtained, provided that no  measure restricting liberty is applied during 
the prosecution or when judgment is given for th at offence. The exception in Article 27(3)(c) 
does not, however, preclude a measure restri cting liberty from being imposed on the person 
surrendered before consent has been obtained, wher e that restriction is lawful on the basis of 
other charges which appear in the European arrest warrant. 
C-123/08 Wolzenburg (Judgment of 6 October 2009) 
1. A national of one Member State who is lawf ully resident in another Member State is 
entitled to rely on the first paragraph of Article  12 EC against national legislation which lays 
down the conditions on which the competent j udicial authority can refuse to execute a 
European arrest warrant issued with a view to  the enforcement of a custodial sentence. The 
Member States cannot, in the context of the im plementation of a framework decision adopted 
 
EN 21   EN on the basis of the EU Treaty, infringe Community law, in particular the provisions of the EC 
Treaty relating to the freedom accorded to ever y citizen of the Union to move and reside 
freely within the territory of the Member States. 
2. Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/5 84 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case 
of a citizen of the Union, the Member State of  execution cannot, in addition to a condition as 
to the duration of residence in  that State, make application of the ground for optional non-
execution of a European arrest warrant laid dow n in that provision subject to supplementary 
administrative requirements, such as possession of a residence permit of  indefinite duration. 
Articles 16(1) and 19 of Direct ive 2004/38 on the right of citiz ens of the Union and their 
family members to move and reside freely with in the territory of the Member States do not 
provide, with regard to Union ci tizens who have been lawfully  resident in another Member 
State for a continuous period of five years, for the issue, upon application, of a document 
attesting to the permanence of their residenc e, without requiring that formality. Such a 
document has only declaratory a nd probative force but does not  give rise to any right. 
3. The first paragraph of Article 12 EC is to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of 
a Member State of execution under which the compet ent judicial authority of that State is to 
refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issu ed against one of its nationals with a view to 
the enforcement of a custodial sentence, when su ch a refusal is, in the case of a national of 
another Member State having a ri ght of residence on the basis of  Article 18(1) EC, subject to 
the condition that that person should have lawf ully resided for a continuous period of five 
years in that Member State of execution.  
In that regard, the principle of mutual recognition, which underpins Framework Decision 
2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member 
States, means that, in accordance  with Article 1(2) of the latt er, the Member States are in 
principle obliged to act upon a European arrest  warrant. Apart from the cases of mandatory 
non-execution laid down in Artic le 3 of the Framework Deci sion, the Member States may 
refuse to execute such a warrant only in the cases  listed in Article 4 ther eof. It follows that a 
national legislature which, by virtue of the optio ns afforded it by Article 4 of the Framework 
Decision, chooses to limit the situations in whic h its executing judicial authority may refuse 
to surrender a requested person merely reinforc es the system of surrender introduced by that 
Framework Decision to the advantage of an ar ea of freedom, security and justice. In that 
context, when implementing Article 4 of Fr amework Decision 2004/584 and in particular 
paragraph 6 thereof, referred to in the decision  for reference, the Member States have, of 
necessity, a certain margin of discretion.  
The ground for optional non-execution set out in Ar ticle 4(6) of the Framework Decision has 
in particular the objective of enabling the executing judicial authority to gi ve particular weight 
to the possibility of increasing the requested person’s chances of rein tegrating into society 
when the sentence imposed on him expires. Th e Member State of execution is therefore 
entitled to pursue such an obj ective only in respect of persons who have demonstrated a 
certain degree of integration in the society of that Member State. The single condition based 
on nationality for its own nationals, on the on e hand, and the condition of residence of a 
continuous period of five years for nationals of other Member States, on the other, may be 
regarded as being such as to ensure that the requested person is sufficiently integrated in the Member State of execution. That requirement fo r residence for a continuous period of five 
years does not go beyond what is necessary to at tain the objective of ensuring that requested 
 
EN 22   EN persons who are nationals of other Member States  achieve a degree of actu al integration in the 
Member State of execution. 
 
C-306/09 I.B. v Conseil des ministres ( Judgment 21 October 2010) 
Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framewor k Decision 2002/584/JHA of  13 June 2002 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrender procedur es between Member States must be 
interpreted as meaning that, where the executing  Member State has implemented Articles 5(1) 
and Article 5(3) of that fram ework decision in its domestic le gal system, the execution of a 
European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of  a sentence imposed in 
absentia  within the meaning of Article 5(1) of th e framework decision, ma y be subject to the 
condition that the person concerned, a national or resident of the executing Member State, 
should be returned to the execu ting State in order, as the cas e may be, to serve there the 
sentence passed against him, following a new tria l organised in his presence in the issuing 
Member State. 
C-261/09 Mantello (Judgment 16 November 2010) 
For the purposes of the issue a nd execution of a European arrest  warrant, the concept of ‘same 
acts’ in Article 3(2) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the 
European arrest warrant and the surrender proc edures between Member States constitutes an 
autonomous concept of European Union law. 
In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where, in response to a 
request for information within the meaning of Article 15(2) of that Framework Decision made 
by the executing judicial authorit y, the issuing judicial  authority, applying its national law and 
in compliance with the requireme nts deriving from the concept of ‘same acts’ as enshrined in 
Article 3(2) of the Framework Decision, expressly stated that the earlier judgment delivered 
under its legal system did not constitute a final judgment covering the acts referred to in the 
arrest warrant issued by it and therefore did not  preclude the criminal proceedings referred to 
in that arrest warrant, the executing judicial authority has no reason to apply, in connection 
with such a judgment, the ground for mandatory non-execution provided for in Article 3(2) of 
the Framework Decision.  
Decisions in order of judgment date on interpretation of ne bis in idem in relation to 
Article 54 of the Convention Implem enting the Schengen Agreement (CISA)30 
(applicable to the Framework Decision on th e European arrest warrant by virtue of the 
judgment in C-261/09 Mantello)  
Article 54 CISA" A person who has been finally judged by a Contracting Party may not be 
prosecuted by another Contracting party for the same offences provided that, where he is 
                                                 
30  Official Journal L 239, 22.09.2000 p.0019-0062. Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the 
Schengen agreement (CISA) of 14 June 1985 
 
EN 23   EN sentenced, the sentence has been served or is  currently being served or can no longer be 
carried out under the sentencing law of the Contracting party."  
Article 3(2) Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant: " The judicial authority of 
the Member State of execution shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant if the 
executing judicial authority is informed that th e requested person has been finally judged by a 
Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the 
law of the sentencing Member State ." 
C187/01 & C385/01 (joined cases) Gozutok and Brugge (Judgment 11 February 2003) 
The ne bis in idem principle, laid down in  Article 54 of the Conve ntion implementing the 
Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Gove rnments of the States of the Benelux 
Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germa ny and the French Rep ublic on the gradual 
abolition of checks at their common borde rs, signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, also 
applies to procedures whereby fu rther prosecution is ba rred, such as the procedures at issue in 
the main actions, by which the Public Prosecuto r of a Member State discontinues criminal 
proceedings brought in that State, without the involvement of a court, once the accused has 
fulfilled certain obligations and, in  particular, has paid a certai n sum of money determined by 
the Public Prosecutor . 
C-469/03 Miraglia (Judgment 10 March 2005) 
The principle ne bis in idem , enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, the purpose of which is to ensure that no one is prosecuted on the same facts in several Member States on account of his having exercised his right to freedom of 
movement, does not fall to be applied to a deci sion of the judicial authorities of one Member 
State declaring a case to be closed, after the P ublic Prosecutor has decided not to pursue the 
prosecution on the sole ground that criminal proceedings have been started in another 
Member State against the same defendant and for the same acts, without any determination 
whatsoever as to the merits of the case. Such  a decision cannot in fact constitute a decision 
finally disposing of the case against that  person within the meaning of Article 54. 
The consequence of applying that principle to such a decision to close criminal proceedings 
would be to make it more difficult, indeed im possible, actually to penalise in the Member 
States concerned the unlawful conduct with which the defendant is charged. Such a 
consequence would clearly run counter to the very purpose of the provisions of Title VI of the 
Treaty on European Union, as set out in the fourth  indent of the first s ubparagraph of Article 2 
EU. 
C-436/04 Van Esbroeck (Judgment 9 March 2006) 
1. The ne bis in idem  principle, enshrined in Article 54  of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, must be applied to crimin al proceedings brought in a Contracting State 
for acts for which a person has already been c onvicted in another C ontracting State even 
though the Convention was not yet in force in the la tter State at the time at which that person 
was convicted, in so far as the Convention was in  force in the Contract ing States in question 
at the time of the assessment, by the court be fore which the second proceedings were brought, 
of the conditions of applicability of the ne bis in idem  principle. 
 
EN 24   EN 2. Contrary to Article 14(7) of the Internationa l Covenant on Civil a nd Political Rights and 
Article 4 of Protocol No 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights, which enshrine the 
ne bis in idem  principle by using the term ‘offence’, Article 54 of the Convention 
implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) mu st be interpreted as meaning that the 
relevant criterion for the purposes of the applicati on of that article is identity of the material 
acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked together, 
irrespective of the legal clas sification given to them or the legal interest protected. 
Nowhere in Title VI of the Treaty on Europ ean Union relating to police and judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters, or in the Sc hengen Agreement or the CISA itself, is the 
application of Article 54 of the CISA made conditional upon harmonisation, or at the least 
approximation, of the criminal la ws of the Member States. The ne bis in idem  principle thus 
necessarily implies that the Cont racting States have mutual trust in their criminal justice 
systems and that, since there is no harmonisati on of national criminal laws, each of them 
recognises the criminal law in force in the ot her Contracting States even when the outcome 
would be different if its ow n national law were applied. 
The definitive assessment of the identity of  the material acts belongs to the competent 
national courts which are charged with the task of determining whether the material acts at 
issue constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked toge ther in time, in space and by 
their subject-matter. 
It follows that punishable acts consisting of exporting and importing the same narcotic drugs 
and which are prosecuted in different Contracting St ates to the CISA are, in principle, to be 
regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of  Article 54, the definitive  assessment in that 
respect being the task of th e competent national courts. 
C-467/04 Gasparini and others (Judgment 28 September 2006) 
1. The ne bis in idem  principle, enshrined in Article 54  of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, applies in respect of a deci sion of a court of a C ontracting State, made 
after criminal proceedings have been brought , by which the accused is acquitted finally 
because prosecution of the offence is time-barred. 
The main clause of the single sentence comp rising Article 54 of the Convention makes no 
reference to the content of the j udgment that has become final. It  is not applicable solely to 
judgments convicting the accused. 
Furthermore, not to apply Article 54 where the accused is finally acquitted because 
prosecution for the offence is time-barre d would undermine the implementation of the 
objective of that provision which is to ensure th at no one is prosecuted for the same acts in 
several Contracting States on acco unt of the fact that he exercises his right to freedom of 
movement. Such a person must therefore be rega rded as having had his trial finally disposed 
of for the purposes of that provision. 
It is true that the laws of the Contracti ng States on limitation pe riods have not been 
harmonised. However, nowhere in Title VI of th e EU Treaty, relating to police and judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters, or in the Schengen Agreement or the Convention implementing the latter is the application of  Article 54 made conditional upon harmonisation, 
or at the least approximation, of the criminal laws  of the Member States relating to procedures 
whereby further prosecuti on is barred or, more gene rally, upon harmonisation or 
 
EN 25   EN approximation of their criminal laws. Th ere is a necessary implication in the ne bis in idem  
principle that the Contracting States have mutu al trust in their criminal justice systems and 
that each of them recognises the criminal law in force in the other C ontracting States even 
when the outcome would be different if its own national law were applied. 
Finally, Framework Decision 2002/584 on the Eu ropean arrest warrant and the surrender 
procedures between Member States does not preclude the ne bis in idem principle from 
applying in the case of a final acquittal becau se prosecution of the offence is time-barred. 
Exercise of the power, provided for in Article 4(4) of the framework decision, to refuse to 
execute a European arrest warrant inter alia where the criminal prosecution of the requested 
person is time-barred according to the law of the executing Member State and the acts fall 
within the jurisdiction of that State under it s own criminal law is not conditional on the 
existence of a judgment whose basis is that a prosecution is time-barred.  The situation where 
the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respec t of the same acts is 
governed by Article 3(2) of the framew ork decision, a provisi on which lays down a 
mandatory ground for non-execution of a European arrest warrant. 
2. The ne bis in idem  principle, enshrined in Article 54  of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, does not apply to persons ot her than those whose tr ial has been finally 
disposed of in a Contracting State. This inte rpretation, based on the wording of Article 54 of 
the Convention, is borne out by the purpose of the provisions of Title VI of the Treaty on 
European Union, as set out in the fourth inde nt of the first paragraph of Article 2 EU. 
3. A criminal court of a Contracting State can not hold goods to be in free circulation in 
national territory solely because  a criminal court of another Contracting State has found, in 
relation to the same goods, that prosecuti on for the offence of smuggling is time-barred. 
In order for products coming from a third country to be considered  to be in free circulation in 
a Member State the three conditions laid down in Article 24 EC must be met. A finding by a 
court of a Member State that prosecution of a defendant for the offence of smuggling is time-
barred does not alter the lega l classification of the produc ts in question, since the ne bis in 
idem  principle, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen 
Agreement, binds the courts of a Contracting State only in so fa r as it precludes a defendant 
who has already had his case finally disposed of in another Contracting State from being 
prosecuted a second time for the same acts. 
4. The only relevant criterion for applying the concept of ‘the sa me acts’ within the meaning 
of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement is identity of the 
material acts, understood as th e existence of a set of conc rete circumstances which are 
inextricably linked together. A ccordingly, the market ing of goods in anot her Member State, 
after their importation into the Member St ate where the accused was acquitted because 
prosecution for the offence of smuggling wa s time-barred, constitutes conduct which may 
form part of the ‘same acts’ w ithin the meaning of Article 54 of the Convention. However, the 
definitive assessment in this regard is a matter for the competent national courts which are 
charged with the task of determining whether the material acts at issue constitute a set of facts which are inextricably linked together in time, in space and by their subject-matter. 
C- 150/05 Van Straaten and oth ers (Judgment 28 September 2006) 
1. In the context of the coopera tion between the Court of Justic e and national courts that is 
provided for by Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national cour t before which the dispute has 
 
EN 26   EN been brought, and which must assume responsibili ty for the subsequent judicial decision, to 
determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to en able it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions 
which it submits to the Court. Consequentl y, where the questions submitted concern the 
interpretation of Community law, the Cour t is, in principle, bound to give a ruling. 
The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national 
court only where it is quite obvious that the in terpretation of Community law that is sought 
bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or it s purpose, where the problem is 
hypothetical, or where the Court does not have befo re it the factual or le gal material necessary 
to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. 
2. Although the Court has no jurisdiction under Arti cle 234 EC to apply a rule of Community 
law to a particular case and thus to judge a pr ovision of national law by reference to such a 
rule, it may, in the framework of the judicial  cooperation provided for by that article and on 
the basis of the material presented to it, provi de the national court with an interpretation of 
Community law which may be useful to it in assessing the effects of the provision in question. 
3. Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must be interpreted as 
meaning that the relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of th at article is identity 
of the material acts, understood as  the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked 
together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the le gal interest protected. 
In the case of offences relating to narcotic drug s, first, the quantities of the drug that are at 
issue in the two Contracting Stat es concerned or the persons alle ged to have been party to the 
acts in the two States are not required to be iden tical. It is therefore possi ble that a situation in 
which such identity is lacking involves a se t of facts which, by their very nature, are 
inextricably linked. Second, punishable acts c onsisting of exporting a nd of importing the 
same narcotic drugs and which are prosecuted in  different Contracting States party to the 
Convention are, in principle, to be regarded as ‘the same acts’ for the purposes of Article 54 
of the Convention, the definitive assessment in th at respect being the ta sk of the competent 
national courts. 
4. The ne bis in idem principle, enshrined in Article 54  of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, a provision which has the objective of ensuring that no one is 
prosecuted for the same acts in several Contra cting States on account of  the fact that he 
exercises his right to freedom of movement, falls to be applied in respect of a decision of the 
judicial authorities of a Contr acting State by which the accused is acquitted finally for lack of 
evidence. 
The main clause of the single sentence comp rising Article 54 of the Convention makes no 
reference to the content of the judgment that ha s become final. It is only in the subordinate 
clause that Article 54 refers to the case of a convict ion by stating that, in  that situation, the 
prohibition of a prosecution is subject to a speci fic condition. If the general rule laid down in 
the main clause were applicable only to judgments convicting the accused, it would be 
superfluous to provide that th e special rule is applicable  in the event of conviction. 
Furthermore, not to apply Article 54 of th e Convention to a final decision acquitting the 
accused for lack of evidence would have the eff ect of jeopardising exer cise of the right to 
freedom of movement. 
 
EN 27   EN Finally, in the case of a final acquittal for lack of evidence, the bringing of criminal 
proceedings in another Contracting State for th e same acts would undermine the principles of 
legal certainty and of the protection of leg itimate expectations. The accused would have to 
fear a fresh prosecution in anot her Contracting State although a case in respect of the same 
acts has been finally disposed of. 
C-288/05 Kretzinger (Judgment 18 July 2007) 
1. Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must be interpreted as 
meaning that: 
– The relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the 
material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked 
together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the le gal interest protected; 
– Acts consisting in receiving contraband fore ign tobacco in one Contracting State and of 
importing that tobacco into another Contractin g State and being in possession of it there, 
characterised by the fact that the defendant, who was prosecuted in two Contracting States, 
had intended from the outset to transport the t obacco, after first taking  possession of it, to a 
final destination, passing through several Contrac ting States in the process, constitute conduct 
which may be covered by the notion of ‘same acts’ within the meaning of Article 54. It is for 
the competent national courts to make the final assessment in that respect. 
2. For the purposes of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement 
(CISA), a penalty imposed by a court of a Cont racting State ‘has been enforced’ or is 
‘actually in the process of being enforced’ if the defendant has been given a suspended 
custodial sentence. 
A suspended custodial sentence, which penali ses the unlawful conduct of a convicted person, 
constitutes a penalty within the meaning of Ar ticle 54 of the CISA. Th at penalty must be 
regarded as ‘actually in the process of bei ng enforced’ as soon as the sentence has become 
enforceable and during the probation period. Subsequently, once the probation period has 
come to an end, the penalty must be regarded as  ‘having been enforced’ within the meaning of 
that provision. 
3. For the purposes of Article 54 of the CISA, a penalty imposed by a court of a Contracting 
State is not to be regarded as ‘having been enforced’ or ‘actually in  the process of being 
enforced’ where the defendant was for a short ti me taken into police cu stody and/or held on 
remand pending trial and that de tention would count towards any subsequent enforcement of 
the custodial sentence under the law of the State in which judgment was given. 
The purpose of detention on rema nd pending trial is very differe nt from that underlying the 
enforcement condition laid down in Article 54 of the CISA. Although the purpose of the first 
is of a preventative nature, that of the second is to avoid a situation in which a person whose 
trial has been finally disposed of in the firs t State can no longer be prosecuted for the same 
acts and therefore ultimately remains unpunished if the State in whic h sentence was first 
passed did not enforce the sentence imposed. 
4. The fact that a Member State in which a person has been sentence d by a final and binding 
judgment under its national law may issue a Europ ean arrest warrant for the arrest of that 
person in order to enforce the sentence under Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European 
 
EN 28   EN arrest warrant and the surrender procedures  between Member States cannot affect the 
interpretation of the notion of  ‘enforcement’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the CISA. 
That enforcement condition could not, by definiti on, be satisfied where a European arrest 
warrant were to be issued after trial and convic tion in a first Member State precisely in order 
to ensure the execution of a custodial sentence which had not yet been enforced within the 
meaning of Article 54 of the CISA. 
That is confirmed by the Framework Decision itself which, in Article 3(2), requires the 
Member State addressed to refuse to execute  a European arrest warrant if the executing 
judicial authority is informed that the reque sted person has been finally judged by a Member 
State in respect of the same acts and that, wh ere there has been sentence, the enforcement 
condition has been satisfied. 
That outcome is supported by the fact that the interpretation of Article  54 of the CISA cannot 
depend on the provisions of the Framework Decisi on without giving rise to legal uncertainty 
that would result, first, fr om the fact that the Member  States bound by the Framework 
Decision are not all bound by the CISA which, moreover, applies to certain non-Member 
States and, second, from the fact  that the scope of the Europ ean arrest warrant is limited, 
which is not case in resp ect of Article 54 of the CISA, whic h applies to all offences punished 
by the States which have acceded to that agreement. 
Accordingly, the fact that a final and binding cu stodial sentence could possibly be enforced in 
the sentencing State following the surrender by a nother State of the convicted person cannot 
affect the interpretation of the notion of ‘enfor cement’ within the meaning of Article 54 of the 
CISA. 
C-367/05 Kraaijenbrink (Judgment 18 July 2007) 
1. Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement must be interpreted as 
meaning that: 
– The relevant criterion for the purposes of the application of that article is identity of the 
material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts which are inextricably linked 
together, irrespective of the legal classification gi ven to them or the legal interest protected; 
– Different acts consisting, in particular, first, in holding in one Contracting State the 
proceeds of drug trafficking a nd, second, in the exchanging at exchange bureaux in another 
Contracting State of sums of money also originating from such trafficking should not be 
regarded as ‘the same acts’ within the meani ng of that article merely  because the competent 
national court finds that those acts are linked together by th e same criminal intention; 
– It is for that national court to assess whethe r the degree of identity  and connection between 
all the facts to be compared is  such that it is possible, in the light of the said relevant 
abovementioned criterion, to find that  they are ‘the same acts’ wi thin the meaning of the said 
Article 54. 
(see para. 36, operative part) 2. It is apparent from Arti cle 58 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement 
(CISA) that the Contracting St ates are entitled to apply br oader national provisions on the ne 
 
EN 29   EN bis in idem  principle with regard to j udicial decisions taken abroad. However, that article does 
not in any way authorise a Contracting State to refrain from trying a dr ugs offence, in breach 
of its obligations under Article 71 of the CISA, read in conjunction with Article 36 of the 
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, conc luded in New York on 30 March 1961 under the 
aegis of the United Nations, on the sole groun d that the person charged has already been 
convicted in another Contracti ng State in respect of other o ffences motivated by the same 
criminal intention. On the othe r hand, those provisions do not m ean that in national law the 
competent courts before which a second set of  proceedings is brought  are precluded from 
taking account, when fixing the sentence, of pe nalties which may have already been imposed 
in the first set of proceedings. 
C-297/07 Bourquain (Judgment 11 December 2008) 
1. Since Article 54 of the Convention implem enting the Schengen Agreement (CISA) does 
not provide that the person concer ned must necessarily have been tried in the territory of the 
Contracting Parties, that provi sion, the purpose of which is to protect a person whose trial has 
been finally disposed of against further prosec ution in respect of the same acts, cannot be 
interpreted as meaning that Articles 54 to 58 of  the CISA are never applicable to persons who 
have been tried by a Contracting Party exercisi ng its jurisdiction beyond the territory to which 
that Convention applies. 
2. Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), applied to a 
judgment in absentia delivered in accordance with the national legislation of a Contracting 
State or to an ordinary judgme nt, necessarily implies that the Contracting States have mutual 
trust in their criminal justice systems and that  each of them recognises the criminal law in 
force in the other Contracting States even wh en the outcome would be different if its own 
national law were applied. 
According to the actual wording of Article 54 of the CISA, judgments rendered in absentia 
are not excluded from its scope of application, the sole condition being that there has been a final disposal of the tr ial by a Contracting Party. 
However, the sole fact that the proceedi ngs in absentia would, under the national law 
governing the proceedings in question, have nece ssitated the reopening of the proceedings if 
the person concerned had been apprehended wh ile time was running in the limitation period 
applicable to the penalty, does not, in itself, m ean that the conviction in absentia cannot be 
regarded as a final decision within th e meaning of Article 54 of the CISA. 
3. The ne bis in idem  principle, enshrined in Article 54  of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement (CISA), is applicable to crim inal proceedings instit uted in a Contracting 
State against an accused whose trial for the same  acts as those for which he faces prosecution 
was finally disposed of in another Contracti ng State, even though, under the law of the State 
in which he was convicted, the sentence which was imposed on him could never, on account of specific features of procedure of the law of  that State, have been directly enforced. 
In that regard, the condition regarding enforcement referred to in that article is satisfied when 
it is established that, at the time when the sec ond criminal proceedings were instituted against 
the same person in respect of the same acts as  those which led to a conviction in the first 
Contracting State, the penalty im posed in that first State can no longer be enforced according 
to the laws of that State. 
 
EN 30   EN C-491/07 Turansky (Judgment 22 December 2008) 
The ne bis in idem  principle enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the 
Schengen Agreement, which aims to ensure that  a person is not prosecuted for the same acts 
in the territory of several Contracting States on account of his having exercised his right to 
freedom of movement, does not fall to be app lied to a decision by which an authority of a 
Contracting State, after examining the merits of the case brought before it, makes an order, at 
a stage before the charging of a person susp ected of a crime, suspending the criminal 
proceedings, where the suspension decision does not, under the national law of that State, 
definitively bar further prosecution and therefor e does not preclude new criminal proceedings, 
in respect of the same acts, in that State. 
Therefore, a decision of a police authority which, while suspending criminal proceedings, 
does not under the national law concerned definiti vely bring the prosecution to an end, cannot 
constitute a decision which would make it possible to conclude th at the trial of that person has 
been ‘finally disposed of’ within the m eaning of Article 54 of the abovementioned 
Convention. 
 
EN 31   EN PART VII - REFERENCE NUMBERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL 
EVALUATION REPORTS OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNING THE 
APPLICATION OF THE EAW FD  
Austria  (7024/08 COR 1 REV 1 CRIMORG 41 + COR 1) 
Belgium  (16454/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 196) 
Bulgaria  (8265/09 CRIMORG 52) 
Cyprus  (14135/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 155) 
Czech Republic  (15691/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 194) 
Denmark  (13801/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 149) 
Estonia  (5301/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 9) 
Finland  (11787/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 125) 
France  (9972/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 95) 
Germany  (7058/1/09 REV 1 CRIMORG 32) 
Greece (13416/1/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 146)  
Hungary  (15317/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 174) 
Ireland (11843/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 129 + COR 1)  
Italy  (5832/2/09 REV 2 CRIMORG 19) 
Latvia (17220/1/08 REV 1 CRIMORG 213) 
Lithuania  (12399/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 134) 
Luxemburg  (10086/1/07 REV 1 CRIMORG 101) 
Malta  (9617/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 75) 
Netherlands  (15370/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 185) 
Poland (14240/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 158) 
Portuga l (7593/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 59) 
Romania  (8267/09 CRIMORG 53) 
Slovak Republic  (7060/1/09 CRIMORG 33) 
Slovenia  (7301/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 44) 
 
EN 32   EN Spain  (5085/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 5) 
Sweden  (9927/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 79) 
United Kingdom  (9974/2/07 REV 2 EXT 1 CRIMORG 96)  
 
EN 33   EN PART VIII - TABLES OF ALL THE MEMBER STATES SETTING OUT THE 
FOLLOWING INFORMATION (WHERE RECEIVED)  
• The responses of the Member States to th e recommendations of th e individual evaluation 
reports of the Council (for the reference numbe rs of the individual reports, see Part VII ) 
with the comments 2.2.1. of this  report included therein. 
• General information on the application of the FD  in each Member State, with reference to 
issues raised in the general recommendations of the Council made in the fourth round of 
mutual evaluations in 2009. 
• The responses of the Member States to the observations set out in the implementation 
report of the Commission from 2007. 
• Where available, they also give an insight in the case law of interest in th e country or in the 
preliminary questions asked to th e European Court of Justice. 
• Content 
Austria   Table 1 
Belgium   Table 2 
Bulgaria   Table 3 
Cyprus   Table 4 
Czech Republic  Table 5 
Denmark   Table 6 
Estonia   Table 7 
Finland   Table 8 
France   Table 9 
Germany   Table 10 
Greece  Table 11 
Hungary   Table 12 
Ireland  Table 13 
Italy   Table 14 
Latvia  Table 15 
Lithuania   Table 16 
Luxemburg  Table 17 
Malta   Table 18 
Netherlands  Table 19 
Poland  Table 20 
Portugal  Table 21 
Romania   Table 22 
Slovak Republic  Table 23 
Slovenia   Table 24 
Spain   Table 25 
Sweden   Table 26 
United Kingdom  Table 27 
 
EN 34   EN 1. AUSTRIA  
Recommendations EAW report 29-2-2008 
(7024/08 COR 1 REV 1 CRIMORG 41 + COR 1)  Follow up report 3-8-2009 
New developments AT change d its legislation with the 
introduction of legislation, entitled: " Federal 
law on judicial cooperation in criminal matters with Member States of the European 
Union " which took effect from 1
st January 
2008  
1 - To adopt measures to ensure that appropriate 
training programmes are put in place, so that extensive and regular training on EAW is provided to 
judges, public prosecutors and defence lawyers (see 
7.1.7). It should be noted that there are already 
sufficient national training programmes dealing with the cooperation in criminal 
matters with the Member States of the EU 
including the legal bases and the practical application of the FD on the EAW and its implementation by AT. 
The following seminars, which took place 
over the last months and inter alia dealt with 
the cooperation in criminal matters with the 
EU-MS, should be mentioned: 
- topical questions of penal law (organized by 
the Linz Court of Appeal); 
- training seminar for public prosecutors 
(organized by the Linz Senior Public 
Prosecution office); 
- seminar on penal law (organized by the 
association of Austrian judges);  
- forum of public prosecutors (organized by 
the Innsbruck Senior Public Prosecution 
office); and 
- seminar on penal law (organized by the Graz 
Court of Appeal together with the Graz Senior Public Prosecution office). 
Furthermore, Austrian judges and public 
prosecutors are offered the possibility to 
participate in international conferences and seminars dedicated to international criminal law, including the FD on the EAW, on a regular basis.  
The following conferences and seminars, 
which took place over the last months, should be mentioned: 
 
EN 35   EN - “using EU-criminal justice instruments” 
(organized by the European Law Academy, 
ERA); 
- forum on mutual recognition of judicial 
decisions in criminal matters in the EU (organized by the European Law Academy, ERA); 
- conference on international cooperation in 
criminal matters (Sarajevo); and 
- exchange of views on international criminal 
law with DE, CZ and SK. 
As far as defence counsels are concerned, it 
has to be emphasized that their training does 
not fall within the responsibility of the 
Austrian Ministry of Justice but rather of the Austrian Chamber of Defence Counsels, due to the self-administration of Austrian defence counsels. 
 
2 - To take measures to promote further use by 
judges and prosecutors of the possibility of 
communicating and exchanging information directly with the judicial authorities of other Member States, while continuing to provide appropriate support to current communication channels (SIRENE, Eurojust). (see 7.1.9). To the knowledge of the Austrian Ministry of 
Justice, AT judicial authorities do make use of 
the possibility of communicating and exchanging information directly with the judicial authorities of other MS. However, such direct contacts may be hampered by language problems (by either side) or by the 
impossibility to find out and/or reach the 
foreign counterpart. In such case, it seems acceptable to use the current communication channels (SIRENE, Eurojust) instead. 
 
3 - To promote, in a manner considered appropriate 
(e.g., by producing written guidelines, or by 
including specific provisions in the implementing 
law), uniform practice as regards criteria to be applied when deciding on issuing an EAW (see 7.2.1.1). The production of written guidelines or the 
inclusion of specific provisions in the AT 
implementing law in order to promote 
uniform practice as regards criteria to be applied when deciding on issuing an EAW is not possible as the decision on the issuance of an arrest warrant, including a EAW, depends 
on the particular circumstances of the 
individual case. 
To the knowledge of the AT Ministry of 
Justice, there is no proportionality problem with regard to EAW issued by AT authorities . 
 
 
EN 36   EN 4 - To produce written guidelines providing updated 
and practical guidance to assist judicial authorities 
when issuing an EAW (see 7.2.1.2). Written guidelines on the AT legislation 
implementing the FD on the EAW were given 
to the AT judicial authorities at the time of the 
entering into force of that legislation. An update of those guidelines does not seem necessary as that legislation has not been amended yet, with the exception of the provision of Article 4 para. 2 EU-JZG, of 
which the competent AT authorities were 
informed. 
 
5 To promote the practice that, when available, the 
information on the description or the ID materials of the requested person are provided with the EAW, or, at least, the mention "available on request" is made in 
box a) of the EAW form (see 7.2.1.3). ID material of the requested person is usually 
taken and kept by the police authorities. Consequently, the AT judicial authorities are in general not aware of the fact that such 
material exists. 
 
6 - To take the necessary steps to complete the 
process of converting the existing SIS alerts based on International Arrest Warrants into SIS alerts based on EAWs (See 7.2.2.4). From the beginning of 2008 EAWs have been 
issued for all existing international arrest warrant alerts. 
7- To amend the implementing law so that it conforms to the Framework Decision as regards the scope of application of the EAW in conviction cases 
(see 7.3.1.1). 
(AT’s legislation required not only that the sentence be for 
at least 4 months but simultaneously that the related 
offence be punishable by at least 12 months. AT has 
changed its legislation as from 1-1-2008 on. The requirement that that the related offence be punishable by 
at least 12 months has been deleted. However, the 
requirement that a minimum of 4 months still has to be executed remains. Several cu stodial sentences or their 
remaining terms requiring execution shall be added up
) 
) We do believe that the AT implementation of 
Art. 2 para. 1 of the FD is in line with the spirit of the FD on the EAW as in our view it 
would be disproportionate to grant surrender 
of a person if, taking into account the time spent in pre-trial detention as well as the time of the surrender proceedings, the sentence to be served would be less than 4 months.  
In this context, it should be mentioned that it 
is currently being discussed at EU-level how the well known and acknowledged proportionality principle could best be integrated into the FD on the EAW.  
8 - To amend the legislation regarding the surrender 
of Austrian nationals so that, as from 1 January 2009, the same grounds for refusal as for non-Austrian nationals apply, with the only specialties of Article 
4(6) and Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision (see 
7.3.1.6). 
(
Relating to EAWs against Austrian nationals on the basis 
of a conviction, the dual criminality requirement related to 
listed offences has come to an end from 1-1-2009 on. 
However the execution of an EAW against an Austrian 
national is inadmissible when the acts are subject to the In the case of Wolzenburg, the ECJ decided 
that a justified discrimination between nationals and non-nationals is acceptable. We are of the opinion that the fact that in case of 
Austrian jurisdiction Austrian nationals 
cannot be surrendered but will be prosecuted in Austria, whereas the surrender of non-nationals is admissible, is such a justified discrimination because of the close ties of Austrian nationals to Austria which in general 
do not exist regarding non-nationals. 
 
EN 37   EN jurisdiction of Austrian criminal law ) 
(All optional grounds are implemented as mandatory 
grounds for refusal for Austrian nationals). The question whether the grounds for refusal 
contained in the FD on the EAW can be 
implemented as mandatory grounds for 
refusal is controversial. So far, no decision of the EJC has been taken with regard to that question. 
9 - To amend the legislation in order to abolish, in EAW procedures, any possibility of verification based on suspicion (see 7.3.1.5). According to the relevant AT legislation, a 
verification of the suspicion is, in general, not admissible in extradition or surrender 
proceedings. However, surrender (or 
extradition) cannot be granted if evidence is available or offered by the accused which dispels the suspicion against him or her immediately. This is stated in Section 19 para. 1 EU-JZG (by reference to Section 33 para. 2 
of the Austrian Extradition and Mutual Legal 
Assistance Act; ARHG).  
 
10 - To amend the implementing legislation, so that 
once the requested person has been surrendered, any assessment of new facts that might have an impact on the decision to surrender is referred to the authorities 
of the issuing Member State (see 7.3.1.7). A re-opening of the surrender proceedings is 
possible if there are new facts which could lead to the necessity of changing the surrender decision. Such a decision on changing the 
surrender decision can only be taken by the 
competent authorities of the executing State and not by the competent authorities of the issuing State which have no competence whatsoever regarding the taking of the 
surrender decision. Consequently, we see no 
reason for amending the AT implementing legislation in this regard. 
 
11 - To amend the legislation so that the time-limit 
for the foreign judicial authority to whom the surrender is offered to issue an EAW, and that imposed on the Austrian judi cial authorities to decide 
on surrender in standard EAW procedures, are 
consistent (see 7.3.1.8). At the outset, it should be emphasized that no 
provision concerning the offer of surrender to a foreign judicial authority is contained in the FD on the EAW. Consequently, we are of the 
view that AT cannot be criticized for 
providing such an offer. Furthermore, the time-limit to be given for the transmission of an EAW by the competent foreign judicial authority depends on the time-limit for 
provisional detention. It is something 
completely different as the time-limit imposed on Austrian judicial authorities to decide on surrender in standard EAW-proceedings, which depends on the relevant provisions of the FD on the EAW. Consequently, we do not 
see any need for consistency between those 
time-limits. 
 
EN 38   EN  
12 - To take the necessary me asures to ensure that the 
decision not to launch a surrender procedure following the arrest of the requested person is 
communicated directly to the issuing judicial 
authority, explaining the reasons for such a decision (see 7.3.1.2). In accordance with the AT declaration to Art. 
32 of the FD on the EAW, surrender proceedings are not being initiated if the 
offences underlying an EAW were committed 
before 7 August 2002. As that declaration has been published in the OJ, the other MS should be aware of it and of its consequences.  
 
13 - To consider amending the legislation so that in 
all EAW procedures, even for less serious crimes, 
detention pending surrender may be ordered in view 
of the circumstances of the case and giving appropriate consideration to the fact that the requested person absconded from the issuing Member State (see 7.3.1.3). We are of the view that such an amendment is 
not feasible with regard to very minor 
offences as in such cases ordering of detention 
pending surrender would not be proportionate. 
14 - To take the necessary measures to ensure that, at the time of the apprehension, the person arrested on 
the basis of an EAW is informed, in a language that 
he understands, of the reasons for the arrest (see 6)1. Pursuant to the new Code of Criminal 
Procedure, in force since 1 January 2008, the 
person arrested on the basis of an EAW has 
the right to be informed on the grounds of the arrest at the first hearing by the police, which has to be conducted with the help of an interpreter if necessary. The Austrian Federal Ministry of Justice, together with the Austrian 
Ministry of Interior, has issued an 
"Information Sheet for Detainees" to be handed out by Police when apprehending a person, available in 33 languages. 
 
General information 
General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility On the basis of reciprocity (CZ and SK) 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes, 48 hours 
Proportionality test  Yes, however, no or uniform practice (active 
EAW entries around 10% of active domestic 
arrest warrant entries) 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the  
 
EN 39   EN basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 
Accessory surrender Yes  
Flagging Sirene office, where appropriate after 
consultation with the central authority (that includes staff from the prosecuting office, MoJ and Ministry for the Interior) 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schenge n requests Data Protection Commission 
Seizure and handover of property Yes 
Principle of direct contacts Mainly via Sirene /Interpol 
Integration of recital 12 in im plementation law Yes (also 13) 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  
 4 months to be executed 
See above (recommendation 7)  
Regime for transfer b ack 1983 CoE convention  
24/7 rota? Yes  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Yes, see above recommendation 8 
Age of criminal liability  14 years 
Statistics Yes  
Website Intranet Federal MoJ. 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
  
 
EN 40   EN  
Case law/preliminary questions  
Regarding the speciality principle, the AT 'Oberst e Gerichtshof' (7-11-2007, GZ 13Os 109/07i) has 
stated that revocation of a conditional sentence is possible, even if the specific underlying offence was 
not contained in the EAW on whic h the person was surrendered to AT.  
COM Implementation Report of 2007  
Art 17.7 - No legislation relating to reporting 
breach of time limits to Eurojust  
Art 18.1 (b) - Temporary transfer possible? 
(On the basis of domestic legislation and the 2000 EU 
MLA convention a judicial authority will decide on a 
mutual legal assistance request for temporary surrender, without any interfe rence of the Ministry of 
Justice. Although this proc edure is based on mutual 
recognition, it is not on the basis of the EAW FD. Temporary surrender cannot be asked on the basis of 
the EAW, but has to be requested by means of a MLA 
request. The strict time lim its for the execution of an 
EAW do not apply to MLA requests)  
 We are of the view that the Austrian approach is 
not in contradiction with the obligations resulting from the FD on the EAW, as there is the 
possibility of a temporary transfer of the person 
concerned as provided for in Article 18 para. 1 b of the FD on the EAW.  
 
 
EN 41   EN 2. BELGIUM 
Recommendations EAW report 19-3-2007 
(16454/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 196)  Follow up report 23 October 2009 and 30 
July 2010 
New Developments - No amendments to the law since 1-4-2007 . 
1 - Establish a reliable statistical method of storing 
European Arrest Warrants issued, executed or rejected by the Belgian authorities (see 7.2.1.1.). Work onging 
2 - In this context, pursue the aim of developing the 
PHENIX system or establishing a database accessible 
to all courts concerned by the European Arrest 
Warrant in order to share the main information items relating to, inter alia, current investigations and arrest 
warrants already issued
. Ensure that case law on the 
European Arrest Warrant is circulated by means of a 
computer system accessible to all judicial authorities. The introduction of the internet system as suggested 
by the Federal Prosecutor would ensure that all 
information is disseminated (see 7.2.1.2). Work ongoing 
Information on case law is already ensured 
through the dissemination of MLA 
newsletters (MEMOs) within the recently created national network of experts on international cooperation. Those notes are available on the intranet of the public prosecution. 
3 - Consider the possibility of pursuing a reasonably flexible policy of executing sentences which would take account of the thresholds referred to by the Framework Decision, to ensure consistent treatment within the European Union (see 7.2.1.3). Taking into account the capacities available at 
national level for the execution of sentences Belgium has no intention to modify its policy in this regard for the time being 
4 - Make maximum use of the potential of the instruments available to courts to facilitate 
application of the European Arrest Warrant, mainly 
by reference to the ministerial circular containing the directives to be followed in completing the form and by organising regular meetings of reference magistrates and of the multidisciplinary working 
group (see 7.2.2.1). - regular coordinating me etings of the federal 
MoJ, prosecutors and police. 
- regular MLA newsletter for prosecutors 
including advices and case law on EAW (in Dutch).  
5 - Ensure that Belgian law on the EAW conforms to 
the Framework Decision in cases where the law re-
establishes verification of double criminality for certain offences listed in Article 2 of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.1.). The limitation of the list of offences with 
regard to euthanasia and abortion was made at 
the time of the legislative adoption of the Belgian implementing legislation. There is no political will to change it. 
6 - Amend the provisions of Article 13 of the Belgian law transposing the EAW to make consent to surrender and renunciation of the speciality rule the 
subject of two separate questions requiring two 
separate replies, so that consent to surrender does not 
necessarily involve renuncia tion of entitlement to the 
speciality rule. Consider the introduction of a fixed period for revocation both of consent to surrender and of renunciation of the speciality rule (see Under consideration 
 
EN 42   EN 7.3.1.2). 
7 - Be satisfied as far as possible with the information 
contained in the European Arrest Warrant and avoid a proliferation of requests for additional information 
concerning description of the acts and legal 
qualification by different authorities and at various stages of the procedure (see 7.3.1.3). This recommendation is in line with the 
position of Belgian authorities on this point. Special attention to this recommendation will 
be given during the training of magistrates. 
8 - Clarify the criteria to be taken into consideration 
by the court in taking a decision on allowing the wanted person to remain at liberty (possibly by requiring him to comply with one or more 
conditions) or placing him in custody within the 
framework of the EAW procedure (see 7.3.1.4). Under consideration 
9 - Clarify or supplement the internal instrument by 
identifying the legal basis on which the person whose surrender has been granted but who has been left at liberty may be imprisoned the day before surrender (see 7.3.1.5). Under consideration 
10 - Simplify the procedure for return of nationals 
and ensure that the principles set out in Article 5(3) 
of the Framework Decision are observed, in 
particular by eliminating the prior request of the person concerned (see 7.3.1.6). Under consideration 
11 - Clarify the scope of the European Arrest Warrant 
for the purposes of arrest (see 7.3.1.7). Under consideration 
12 - Encourage and develop communications with the 
issuing State throughout the execution procedure in order to optimise coordination at all stages (see 7.3.1.8). Special attention to this recommendation will 
be given during training of magistrates. 
13 - Consider the possibility of integrating further surrender into national legislation on the European 
Arrest Warrant (see 7.3.1.9). Under consideration 
14 - Re-examine transposition into national law with 
regard to the time-limits referred to in Article 17(7) 
of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.10). The delays set up in the implementing 
legislation are in conformity with the Belgian 
procedural law. Overrunning of the time limit fixed by the framework decision may only occur in exceptional circumstances 
 
General information 
General Council recommendations 2009   
 
EN 43   EN Language flexibility FR, NL, DE (official national languages) 
Time limit for translated EAW 10 days time limit for translation 
Provisional arrest  Yes, 24 hours (10 days time limit for 
translation)  
Proportionality test  Yes The principle of opportunity of 
prosecution is a general fundamental principle of Belgian criminal procedural law 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (1) Yes 
(2) Yes 
 
Accessory surrender No 
Flagging Sirene bureau  
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests Belgian Privacy Commission or Belgian 
Court 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts Yes  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement  Yes 
Regime for transfer back Domestic law based on the 1983 CoE 
convention 
24/7 rota? Yes 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No  
In case of impossibility to execute the 
sentence in Belgium, the surrender will be authorised. In our view, there is no possibility to apply a ground for refusal in that case. 
 
EN 44   EN Age of criminal liability  16, exceptions for 16-18 yrs 
Statistics No 
Website Yes (Intranet site of the public prosecution 
OMPTRANET) 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  - ECJ C-303/05 – Advocaten van de wereld- Judgment 3 May 2007 
- Preliminary question addressed to the ECJ on 24-7-2009 (C-306/09 ) 
COM Implementation Report of 2007 
  
Art 2 FD: BE legislation provides that abortion 
and euthanasia are not covered by “murder or 
grievous bodily harm”. This is contrary to the 
Framework Decision since it is the law of the issuing state and not the executing state which determines whether an offence is within the list  
Art 17.3 FD: BE legislation provides that the 
initial decision on surrender must be taken within 15 days of arrest. However, there are two 
possibilities of appeal, which will, if granted, 
mean that the deadline of 60 days cannot be met (with appeals, the deadline is 64 days). Although this is still less than the full 90 day limit, the opinion of the Belgian “Conseil d’Etat” was that the use of appeal proceedings could not be 
regarded as “specific cases” in line with Art 7(4).  
 
 
EN 45   EN 3. BULGARIA  
Recommendations EAW report 27-4-2009 (visit 
October 2008) 
(8265/09 CRIMORG 52)  Follow up report 3-8-09 
New Developments The implementing legislation, entitled the 
Law on Extradition and European Arrest 
Warrant was amended with effect from 6 June 2008.  
Parts of the amendments relate to 
consequences for the EAW procedures in 
preparation of the Schengen regime. 
1.- Take measures to ensure systematic coordination and flow of information among all the authorities 
involved in the processing of EAWs (see 7.1.4). 
2.- Set up appropriate mechanisms for monitoring EAW proceedings (see 7.1.5) A circular has been issued to all courts to 
systematically notify the International 
Operative Police Cooperation Directorate of the Ministry of Interior (IOPCD) when issuing a EAW. All courts are advised to consult IOPCD on the existence of other EAWs concerning the same person before 
issuing.  
NB: According to the statement made by BG 
in the context of the implementation of the EAW, the MoJ is designated as the central authority to assist the judicial authorities 
3.- Ensure the availability of comprehensive statistics (see 7.1.5).  
4.- Consider making a declaration according to 
Article 35(1) TEU, recognising the jurisdiction of the 
European Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings 
as regards police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (see 2).  
5.- Introduce the possib ility for accessory surrender 
in national practice/legislation (see 3.14 and 4.16).  
6.- Ensure that the Fiche Française is available on the 
Council's website (see 7.3.4).  
7.- Consider providing judges, prosecutors and 
judicial staff with language training free of costs (see 7.1.8).  
8.- Consider developing common criteria regarding 
proportionality to guide judicial authorities when 
issuing an EAW (see 7.2.1).  
9.- Ensure that the Interpol NCB is informed of all See 1. and 2.  
 
EN 46   EN EAWs issued by the Bulgarian authorities (see 7.1.4). 
10.- Ensure the effective application of Article 49(2) 
of the implementing law, regarding the obligation to report delays to Eurojust (see 4.7).  
11.- Consider amending the implementing law in 
order that the court is info rmed and provided with the 
relevant documents as soon as possible after the 
arrest of the person concer ned (see 7.1.4 and 7.3.1).  
12.- Reconsider the role of the prosecutor prior to the 
initiation of proceedings by the court, in particular as regards the possibility to request additional information and the advisability of detention (see 7.1.4 and 7.3.1).  
13.- Set up appropriate mechanisms for the 
harmonization of court practice (see 7.1.6).  
14.- Consider developing a practise of including one 
or more specialised judges in panels dealing with 
EAW cases (see 7.1.6).  
15.- Consider introducing the possibility of lodging a 
complaint against 24+72-hour detention orders and a 
procedure for handling such complaints within a very short period (see 7.3.2).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility No 
Time limit for translated EAW 72 hours 
Provisional arrest  Yes, 24 hrs (amendment 6 June 2008) 
Proportionality test  Not explicitly in law or guidelines; EAWs are 
scarcely issued for prosecuting offenses 
punishable with less than 5 years of imprisonment. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal 
proceedings when he is arrested in another 
Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying  
 
EN 47   EN criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on 
the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 
Accessory surrender Not possible (issu ing); For executing, no specific 
provision exists, however, in practice case by case 
approach  
Flagging - 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen 
requests - 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts Yes  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law No  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and 
complicity  
4 months requirement  Yes  
Regime for transfer back 1983 CoE convention 
24/7 rota? Yes 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of 
a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing state when there is no 
dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability   
Statistics  No  
Website  National institute of justice. 
Handbook and vademecum: 
http://www.nij.bg/Articles/Articles.aspx?lang=bg-
BG&pageid=551 
Domestic and ECJ case law: http://www.nij.bg/Articles/Articles.aspx?lang=bg-
BG&pageid=553 
Jurisdiction ECJ No  
 
 
EN 48   EN Case law/preliminary questions: -  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
BG requires the Article 5(2) guarantee. Such a 
review may only be done ex officio, and not on 
request for the first 20 years of serving a 
sentence. This appears to be contrary to the provision of Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision.  
 
 
EN 49   EN 4. CYPRUS 
Recommendations EAW report 13-11-2007 
(14135/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 155)  Follow up report 31-8-09 
New Developments - New, comprehensive bill expected to be 
submitted to the parliament in September 
2009 
1 - To amend the Constitution in order to abolish the 
limitation to the surrender of nationals (See 7.2.).  
NB: Art 32 of the FD does not allow the exclusion of 
acts committed after 7 August 2002. CY legislation is 
still not in conformity w ith the FD on this point From case law of the Supreme Court follows 
that – on the basis of the amended constitution 
- surrender of Cypriot nationals for offences committed after 1-5-04 is lawful . 
 
2 - To ensure that the po lice investigator is fully 
informed of the criteria applied by the Attorney 
General to authorise the issuing of an EAW, possibly 
through written guidelines of the Attorney General. 
(See 7.3.1.1.). - To increase standardisation of procedures, 
new circulars with guidelines have been drafted . 
 
3 - To ensure simplification of the procedures, for 
example by reconsidering the need for the police investigator to go repeatedly before the Attorney General before presenting a draft EAW to the District Judge (See 7.3.1.1.).  
4 - To initiate discussions at national level, especially 
among the judiciary, on the best way to allow a more 
active role in practice for the District Judge for 
example with regards to additional requests for information sent by the executing authority (See 7.3.1.2.).  
5 - To consider setting up a working group at national 
level, composed of representatives of all authorities involved (including the Attorney General, the CA, 
the Police and the Judges), which would meet 
regularly in order to discuss general EAW issues and which could draft general guidelines on EAW procedures (See 7.3.1.4.).  
6 - To increase standardisation of procedures, 
through appropriate training as well as specific guidelines, among the lawyers in the section dealing 
with the EAW and extradition at the Office of the 
Attorney General (See 7.3.1.5.). - To increase standardisation of procedures, 
new circulars with guidelines have been drafted 
 
7 - To increase training measures focusing on EAW 
procedures, especially among the judiciary (See 7.3.1.6.) A number of seminars on applying the EAW 
law have been organised for the authorities involved.  
 
EN 50   EN  
8 - To enhance the coordination offered by Eurojust 
especially where the cooperation with a specific Member State proves to be difficult, and to consider 
the opportunity of sending to the national member of 
Eurojust a copy of all EAWs issued by Cyprus (See 7.3.1.7.).  
9 - To consider limiting the role of the CA to the 
administrative receipt of EAWs and leave the checking of EAWs to the executing judicial authority (See 7.4.1.1.).  
10 - To amend the legislation in so far as it requires a 
certificate issued by the CA and, in the meantime, to 
consider whether such a requirement may be 
abolished in practice based on the fact that it does not comply with EU legislation (See 7.4.1.1.).  
11 - To enable all law enforcement authorities to 
access the STOP-LIST database directly (See 7.4.1.2.).  
12 - To merge the Sirene Bureau with the Europol 
National Unit and Interpol Nicosia (See 7.4.1.4.).  
13 - In the context of the future connection of Cyprus 
to the SIS, to amend the EAW Law to insert a provision indicating that the judicial authority which 
has refused the execution of an EAW may require 
that a flag be added regarding the relevant SIS alert in order to prevent the arrest of the person for the same acts (See 7.4.1.4.).  
14 - To ensure that the Sirene Bureau, for tasks 
related to the EAW, especially regarding the issue of flagging, is given the support of legal advice by an 
independent authority, either a judicial authority or 
the Attorney General (See 7.4.1.4.).  
15 - To create a clear legal basis allowing for the 
immediate detention of a person mentioned in the STOP-LIST on the basis of an EAW (See 7.4.1.5.).  
16 - To amend the EAW Law in so far as it requires a 
domestic arrest warrant (See 7.3.1.3.).  
17 - To enhance the coordination offered by Eurojust 
especially in cases of competing EAWs and to raise awareness among the judiciary regarding the role and nature of Eurojust (See 7.4.1.6.).  
18 - To finalise the discussion, currently taking place  
 
EN 51   EN in Parliament, of the legislation amending the EAW 
Law and to consider adding new amendments 
suggested in this report (See 7.4.1.7.). 
19 - To amend the EAW Law to make it clear that the Police must bring the arrested person before the 
District Judge as soon as possible and in any case within 24 hours (See 7.4.1.8.).  
20 - To consider making the declaration mentioned in 
Article 35(2) of the EU Treaty enabling Cypriot courts to submit a request for preliminary ruling to the ECJ regarding the interpretation of instruments 
adopted in the framework of Title VI of the EU 
Treaty, including Framework Decisions (See 7.4.1.9.). The courts law has been amended as to enable 
national courts to submit a request for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ (law 119(l)/2008. On 20 July 2009 Cyprus 
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the 
European Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings as it is stipulated by Article 35, paragraph 1 of the Treaty on the European Union. 
21 - To submit to the General Secretariat of the Council the "fiches françaises" relating to the 
practical implementation of the EAW in Cyprus (See 
7.4.1.10.).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Greek, Turkish, English. 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  No (will be  introduced with Schengen) 
Proportionality test  Yes 
Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender Not allowed 
Flagging - 
 
EN 52   EN Competent authority for Art.111 Schengen requests - 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts All contacts via central authority ((MoJ) 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes, and 13 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  Yes  
Regime for transfer back 1983CoE convention 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  14 yrs 
Statistics  2007 and 2008: yes 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes, since 20-7-09 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
CY has transposed the text of recitals 12 and 13 
into the legislation in such a way that it goes beyond the Framework Decision and therefore creates the risk that a EAW will be refused on the 
basis of grounds not envisaged in the Framework 
Decision (activity for the cause of freedom). At the time of the 4
th round evaluation report a 
draft amendment had was intended to delete the reference  
Whilst CY has indicated that the Office of the Attorney General is neither a political, judicial nor an administrative authority, the Commission is concerned by the role it plays in the issuing of an EAW. Indeed, for a EAW to be issued in a 
prosecution case, the consent of the Attorney 
General must be given in writing prior to the EAW being produced before the competent judicial authority. The Commission has not been informed of what would happen to a EAW if the consent by the Attorney General is refused and as 
a consequence the Commission fears that the 
Attorney General, in practice, will endorse the role of a judicial authority.  
 
EN 53   EN CY seem to send back an incomplete form and to 
require almost systematically that a new EAW is 
issued which cause great difficulties to some MS 
which cannot reissue EAW and cause delays in any event.  
 
 
EN 54   EN 5. CZECH REPUBLIC  
Recommendations EAW report 2-12-2008 
(15691/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 194)  Follow up report 4-8-09 
New developments - Law has been amended: 
07-06-07 
10-12-08 
08-01-09  - CZ entered Schengen 21-12-2007 The International Judicial Cooperation issue is 
currently regulated in the Czech Criminal 
Proceedings Code (CCP). A working group, 
which is in charge of preparation of a new Act 
on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, has been established within the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). This Act is to regulate the matter (including the EAW issue) 
separately from the current Criminal 
Proceedings Code. The working group consists from the MoJ representatives, public prosecutors, judges and a Police Presidium representative. A draft of this Act is currently 
being finalized, so it could be published in the 
beginning of 2011 when a comment procedure within the ministries, the Government and the Par liament should begin. 
Much of the recommendations addressed to 
the Czech Republic in the evaluation report 
should be included in the above mentioned 
Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters. 
 
1.- Consider making a clear distinction in the 
domestic legislation between the provisions applicable to extradition and those applicable to 
surrender on the basis of an EAW (see 7.1.2). Although no cases have been noticed in 
practice where public prosecutors or courts would be unsure on difference between 
extradition and surrender (EAW) procedure 
(provisions of the CCP related to extradition procedure are being followed within the surrender (EAW) procedure without any impact on EAW procedure), the new Act on 
International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal 
Matters, which is currently being prepared, shall bring separate regulations of these two procedures taking into account their specifics. 
 
EN 55   EN 2.- Adopt measures to upgrade the linguistic 
capacities of judges and pr osecutors, as a means to 
enhance direct contacts with their foreign 
counterparts (see 7.1.10). The linguistic courses for judges, public 
prosecutors, trainees for judges and public 
prosecutors are organised regularly by the 
Judicial Academy. The courses are aimed at English, French and German language skills 
3.- Consider amending the legislation with a view to 
simplifying the procedure for issuing an EAW as to the requirement of personally serving the indictment to the person concerned beforehand (see 7.2.1.1). A new legislation in order to eliminate this 
deficiency is being prepared.  
 
4.- Take the necessary measures (e.g. by setting up 
appropriate databases) to allow the Czech authorities 
to check the conditions of the surrender, irrespective 
of whether the person has been surrendered for prosecution or for conviction purposes, with a view to respecting the specialty rule (see 7.2.1.3). The measures are being discussed together 
with the General Directorate of Prison Service 
and the Public Prosecution Office in order to 
find an appropriate solution. 
 
5.- Amend the implementing legislation so that the 
condition of reciprocity does not apply to surrender of Czech nationals (see 7.3.1.1). This issue is currently being discussed within 
the working group for preparation of a new Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters. The reciprocity principle is 
considered by the working group to be 
one of 
the basic principles of international cooperation. The FD on the EAW is based on mutual recognition principle. With 
regard to the fact, that the term „reciprocity“ is de facto synonym of the 
term „mutuality“, it can be derived, that the principle of mutual recognition is based on reciprocal procedure of the Member States. Exactly this mutuality / reciprocity is one of the cornerstones of 
the mutual trust between the Member States. Removal of this principle has not been resolved yet.
 
6.- Amend the implementing legislation so that no 
limitation applies to surrender of Czech nationals based on the date of the offence underlying the EAW (see 7.3.1.1). 
(In 2007 4 cases refusal to surrender of CZ national 
for offences committed before 1-11-2004) This deficiency should be eliminated by a new 
Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters, which is currently being prepared.  
 
7.- Consider rewording Section 377 of the CCP* in 
conformity with the Framework Decision (see 
7.3.1.2). 
(*(a)violation of CZ constitution or any provision of 
CZ law that applies unconditionally and (b) if it would damage some other significant protected 
interest of CZ)) This issue has been discussed within the 
working group for preparation of a new Act 
on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. According to the recommendations of the evaluation report, the rewording of Section 377 of the CCP has been 
thoroughly considered. Section 377 of the 
CCP has to be interpreted with regard to the 
 
EN 56   EN Art. 1 par. 2 of the Czech Constitution, which 
provides that: „ The Czech Republic is bound 
by obligations resulting from the international 
law.“ After detailed and comprehensive 
discussion, the working group decided that the Section 377 of the CCP should be remained.  
8.- Amend the implementing legislation in order to bring Section 409(3) of the CCP, namely as regards paragraph (h), into line with the Framework Decision 
(see 7.3.1.3). This deficiency should be eliminated by a new 
Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters, which is currently being 
prepared.  
9.- Consider amending the legislation in order to simplify/speed up the procedure to be followed when 
the requested person consents to surrender (see 7.3.1.4). This deficiency should be eliminated by a new 
Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters, which is currently being prepared.  
10.- Consider amending the implementing legislation in order to introduce clear strict time limits for the public prosecutor's preliminary investigation and court proceedings (includi ng proceedings before the 
appeal court and the Constitutional Court), thereby 
ensuring that the time lim its prescribed in the 
Framework Decision are met (see 7.3.1.4). This issue is currently being discussed within 
the working group for preparation of a new Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters.  
 
11.- Take the necessary measures to ensure that the 
possibility of extending the time limit for a decision on surrender envisaged in Article 17(4) of the Framework Decision is used only as an exception (see 7.3.1.4). Time-limits for decision on surrender are to 
be regulated by the new Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.  
 
12.- Amend the implementing legislation so that all 
grounds for non-execution of EAWs regarded as 
mandatory in the Framework Decision are examined in summary transfer proceedings (see 7.3.1.5). This deficiency should be eliminated by a new 
Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters, which is currently being prepared.  
13.- Revise the current practice of requiring the original of the EAW for the court decision on surrender, and accept for that purpose a copy of the EAW sent by any secure means able to produce written records under conditions allowing 
authenticity to be established (e.g. scanned copies 
sent by verifiable e-mail) (see 7.3.1.7). This issue is currently being discussed within 
the working group for preparation of a new Act on International J udicial Cooperation in 
Criminal Matters.  
 
Prevention of double prosecution: although art 4(2) 
of the FD has been transpo sed as a mandatory ground 
for refusal, CZ authorities will seek bilaterally or via Eurojust for a solution. The CZ Constitutional Court decided that the relevant article in CZ law does not 
prevent a EAW from being executed when the crime 
has been committed partly abroad an partly in the CZ Republic, and the issuing state is in a better position to prosecute (PL.ÚS 66/04) 1 § 110 of Decision of the Constitutional 
Court No. Pl. US 66/04, of 3 May 2006 reads: 
"…When a crime has been committed partly 
abroad and partly in the Czech Republic, the criminal prosecution would take place in the 
Czech Republic. This creates an obstacle to 
the surrender of a person for criminal proceedings abroad {compare Section 411 Paragraph 6 letter d) of the Penal Procedure Code] unless, in view of the nature of the 
 
EN 57   EN conducts in question, it would be more 
efficient to mount a prosecution in the other 
member State, for example because the 
decisive material evidence is in that State, or because the deed took place mostly in that State, etc.". 
N.B.: Section 411(6)(d) corresponds to Article 
4(2) of the Framework Decision. 
Legality principle Yes  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility On the basis of  reciprocity with AT (German) 
and SK (Slovakian)  
Time limit for translated EAW The CCP provides that the translated EAW 
from the requesting state should be delivered to the Czech court within the time-limit of 40 
days. Currently being prepared new Act on 
International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters envisages to short this time-limit to 20 days. 
Provisional arrest  Yes, 48 hours. 
Proportionality test  Yes, (an EAW shall not be issued if surrender 
"would entail costs or consequences for the Czech Republic that are manifestly dispropor-tionate to the public interest in the person in 
question being criminally prosecuted or 
serving a custodial sentence" or "would be disproportionally detrimental to the person concerned compared with the advantage to be gained by criminal proceedings or the 
repercussions of the criminal offence, 
particularly in view of the person's age or social or family circumstances"). Furthermore an EAW can only be delivered against a person that has been personally served with the accusation or has been declared to be a 
fugitive. Staying abroad does not in itself 
constitute a basis for being qualified as a fugitive. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 1) NO 
 2) YES.  
 
EN 58   EN when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) Person whose surrender from the Czech 
Republic in another MS is requested must be 
represented by the legal representative 
(coun sel) during the surrender procedure. 
Accessory surrender Not possible. Accessory surrender is 
envisaged to be regulated by the new Act on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal 
Matters.  
Flagging On instruction of Supreme Public prosecutor's 
office 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests Courts 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts Czech Republic – the state issuing the 
EAW - In the exercise of the European Arrest 
Warrant direct contact with judicial bodies in 
other EU Member States is applied. The 
Czech Republic has not determined the central authority (Ministry of Justice) as the authority determined for sending/receiving of EAW`s.  
Czech Republic – the state executing the 
EAW - The original of the EAW shall be 
delivered to the locally competent regional public prosecution office directly by the authority of the issuing state. The Czech 
Republic has not determined the central 
authority (Ministry of Justice) as the authority determined for sending/receiving of EAW`s.  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Not explicit, but indirect via section 377 CCP  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complic ity No.. An attempt and complicity are judged in 
the same way as completed crimes or crimes committed by a single offender. 
4 months requirement  Yes 
Regime for transfer back Czech Republic – the state issuing the EAW 
1/ EAW for surrender of a person for criminal 
prosecution   
If the accused (a national a resident of an 
executing state) was surrendered to the Czech Republic with the reservation that in case he does 
not give consent with serving imprisonment or 
 
EN 59   EN protective measure connected with a detention 
(hereinafter only “prot ective measure”) in the 
Czech Republic, he/she must be surrendered back to that Member State. Th e court has an obligation 
to respect this reservation based on Sections 
403(3) and 388(1) of the CPP. In such a case the presiding judge will deliver the judgment to the 
executing Member State as soon as possible.  
If the executing Member State requires (with 
regard to its internal legal arrangement) to have the 
European Convention on the Transfer of the 
Sentenced Persons as base for returning procedure, the Czech Republic is ready to meet such a 
requirement. 
2/ EAW for surrender of a person for execution of 
punishment  
In case the surrender is requested for the purpose 
of execution of imprisonment or protective measure in the Czech Repu blic and the executing 
Member State refuses the surrender of its 
inhabitant or a resident, the Czech Republic asks 
such a Member State to recognise and execute an 
imprisonment or protective measure according to its national legal order. For this purpose the court 
of the Czech Republic will provide a judgement 
and all other necessary materials for such a procedure. 
Czech Republic – the state executing the EAW 
1/ EAW for surrender of a person for criminal 
prosecution  
If a national or resident of the Czech Republic is to 
be surrendered to the issuing Member State for criminal prosecution and such a person does not 
agree to serve a possible sentence abroad, the court 
will decide on the surrender only under the condition that the person will be returned for 
execution of imprisonment or protective measure 
to the Czech Republic (if such kind of punishment or protective measure will be imposed and the 
person, after the rendering of judgment in the 
issuing Member State does not agree to serve 
imprisonment or protective measure there).  
It means that the court surrenders such a person 
only in the case when the issuing Member State 
provides a guarantee that it would surrender the 
person back to the Czech  Republic for execution 
of imprisonment or protective measure. Unless the 
guarantee is granted by the requesting state, the 
court will refuse the surrender of the person.  
It is the task of a public prosecutor in the 
preliminary inquiry concerning EAW to request 
the guarantee of the issuin g Member State if such 
 
EN 60   EN a guarantee is not a part or an enclosure of the 
EAW already. The guarantee must be provided by 
the issuing Member State before decision-making 
of the court.  
The court of the issuing Me mber State shall inform 
according to its national legislation implementing the EAW Framework Decision the court of the 
Czech Republic about its final decision imposing 
imprisonment or protective measure on the surrendered person. After the court in the Czech 
Republic is informed about it, it will ask the 
relevant authority of the issuing Member State for delivery of enforceable judgement with translation 
into the Czech language. Af ter that the court will 
recognise the decision and order its execution. The 
adequate procedure is followed also in case of 
imposition of protective measure. 
In case the issuing Member State requires (with 
regard to its national legal arrangement) that the 
procedure is followed on the basis of the European 
Convention on the Transf er of the Sentenced 
Persons, the Czech Republic would be ready to 
meet that request. 
2/ EAW for surrender of a person for execution of 
punishment  
In case the surrender of the Czech national or 
resident is requested for the purpose of execution 
of imprisonment or protective measure in the 
issuing Member State and if such a person does not agree to service them abroad, the court of the 
Czech Republic refuses the EAW and asks the 
issuing Member State to deliver within 30 days the final judgement with a tr anslation into the Czech 
language.  
The court shall recognis e the judgement of the 
issuing Member State and order its execution. This 
adequate procedure is followed also in case of 
imposition of protective measure.
 
24/7 rota? 24/7 system is applied by SIRENE. As far as 
judicial authorities, there always a prosecutors 
and judges on duty. 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No. The courts in the Czech Republic have 
not experienced such a case so far. 
 
Age of criminal liability  15 yrs 
Statistics Yes: 2007, 2008: and 2009 
 
EN 61   EN Website Yes, website MoJ 
- Guidance notes (Instruc tion) of the MoJ (for 
judges) 
- Guidance notes of the Public Prosecution 
Office (for public prosecutors) 
- Sirene office's written guidance for issuing EAWs 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
The CZ Constitutional Court decided that the relevant  article in CZ law does not prevent a EAW from 
being executed when the crime has been committed partly abroad and partly in the CZ Republic, and 
the issuing state is in a better position to prosecute (PL.ÚS 66/04).  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
CZ legislation does not respect the absolute limit 
provided in the Framework Decision of 7 August 
2002. Instead it sets its own date of application of the EAW of 1
st November 2004. Since the 
amending act of 19 April 2006 that entered into force on 1 July 2006, this time-limit applies for 
Czech nationals only.  
Furthermore, contrary to the Framework 
Decision, requests for offences committed by Czech nationals prior to 1 November 2004 will be treated by CZ under previous extradition arrangements. A new legislation in order to eliminate this 
deficiency is being prepared.  
 
 
 
EN 62   EN 6. DENMARK 
Recommendations EAW report 6-12-2006 
(13801/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 149)  Follow up report 21-9-09 
New developments No change in legislation since 01-04-2007. 
 
1 - To examine what electronic flagging/cross 
referencing may be put in place to improve the ease 
by which police and prosecutorial users may 
reference EAW forms and procedures on the police POLNET system. (See 7.2.1.1)  
2 - To post electronic EAW forms in all languages, 
and in their unedited entirety, onto the police POLNET IT system, together with a standing instruction that the forms mu st be utilised in all cases. 
(See 7.2.1.1)  
3 - To implement a simple referencing system 
whereby the POLNET archiv e (or other such case 
management IT system as may be appropriate) can be interrogated by users to deliver listings of all cases in which EAWs have been utilised. Given the low volume of historical cases, all existing EAWs matters 
should be cross-referenced accordingly. (See 7.2.1.2)  
4 - To reassess police district EAW training 
requirements once the new structures of the 
forthcoming police reform are in place. (See 7.2.1.3)  
5 - To reconsider the competence of the Minister of 
Justice, or to put equivalent measures into place, so as to ensure that concrete EAW files may not be referred for consideration/decision making.
1 (See 
7.3.1.1)  
1 In accordance with the principles of transparency 
which led to the reorganisation of the Danish court system in 1990.   
6 - To underline in a manner felt appropriate, for 
example at judicial/MOJ training seminars, the primacy of the positive list set as out in Article 2 paragraph 2 of the FD. (See 7.3.1.2)  
7 - To consider measures by which the formulation of 
requests for information may be further streamlined 
so that all domestic partic ipants are afforded the 
opportunity to coordinate, if possible, to a single unified communication issued by the JA. (7.3.1.3)  
 
EN 63   EN  
General information 
General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility Danish, Swedish, English 
Time limit for translated EAW No 
Provisional arrest  Yes (24 hours) 
Proportionality test ? Issuing : Yes 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) Legal assistance follows the general rules in 
the Danish legislation by which a person gets state-paid legal assistance during the trial. In cases where the person is convicted of the 
crime the person is sentenced to pay the 
expenses of the case including the expenses for legal assistance 
Accessory surrender Yes  
Flagging communication centre of the National Police 
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts - Ministry of Justice is designated as 
competent judicial authority  
- Judges play no role in issuing EAW's. 
However, whilst the Danish system is frequently misunderstood, it seems important 
to reiterate that a Danish EAW, although 
issued by the Ministry of Justice, is always based on a sentence issued by a judge or a judicial remand decision.  
- In executing cases the initial decision is 
taken by the MoJ. Judges play a role when a 
remedy is lodged against the decision of MoJ  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes, and 13 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity No 
 
EN 64   EN 4 months requirement  In general EAWs are only issued when there 
remains a minimum of 4 months of the 
sentence to be served 
Regime for transfer back 1983 CoE convention 
24/7 rota? Yes  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  14 years as of 1 July 2010 
Statistics  Yes: 2007and 2008  
Website Police and prosecutor's intranet, POLNET, 
contains handbook/guidelines on EAW (no 
public access) 
Jurisdiction ECJ No  
 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007  
DK shall refuse surrender on the ground of a 
danger that, after surrender, the requested person 
will suffer persecution for political reasons, possible threat with torture, degrading treatment, and violation of due process as well as if the surrender appears to be unreasonable on humanitarian grounds. Such grounds for 
mandatory refusal go beyond the Framework 
Decision.  
The Framework Decision does not define what a 
judicial authority is, this question being left to the national law of Member States. Whilst it is understood that the Minister of Justice is designated by national Danish law as being a 
judicial authority, it is difficult to view such a 
designation as being in the spirit of the Framework Decision.  
Article 20 FD– Privileges and immunities 
DK has stated that there is no implementing 
legislation on this matter and that they consider this issue to be regulated between Member States. 
This is not considered sufficient in particular  
 
EN 65   EN since national measures are necessary to 
transpose time limits, as Framework Decisions 
are not directly applicable. 
Article 21 – Competing in ternational obligations 
DK has not transposed this provision as there is 
no specific legislation on this matter and though it has stated that it will carry  this out in accordance 
with the Framework Decision on a case by case basis this is not in line with the Framework 
Decision.  
 
 
EN 66   EN 7. ESTONIA  
Recommendations EAW report 20-2-2007 
(5301/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 9)  
 Follow up report 3-8-09 
New developments Amendment to the Estonian Criminal 
Procedure Code in respect of the European 
Arrest Warrant came into effect from 23 May 2008 
It is envisaged that by the end of 2010, 
Estonian legislation in international judicial 
cooperation (Chapter 19 of the Estonian 
Criminal Procedure Code) will be revised and redrafted and may include amendments in respect of EAW provisions 
1. – That domestic legislation is put in place designating the competent issuing JA in EAW cases arising in respect of persons who abscond during the course of criminal proceedings (see 7.2.1.1)1. An amendment to article 507 CPC fills the 
gap  
 
2. – That a study be undertaken of the translation 
capacity available to Estonia’s CA in EAW matters 
so that areas of weakness may be clearly identified and, if possible, rectified (see 7.2.1.2.). The translation issue is not a case any more 
3. – That consideration be given to clarifying which 
Estonian authority would be best placed to provide guarantees which may be required by executing Member States pursuant to Article 5(3) of the FD (see 7.2.1.4.). Authorities for providing guarantees pursuant 
to Article 5(3) of the FD are Courts responsible for EAW issues 
4. – That domestic legislation be put in place to 
permit surrendered persons to cross Estonia’s borders 
in the absence of internati onal travel documents (see 
7.2.1.5.)  Relevant legislation (T he Border Act° has 
been amended as from 23 May 2008 
5. – That domestic legislation be put in place to 
permit EAWs to be withdrawn where the basis for the issue of the EAW no longer exists but the need to preserve domestic criminal proceedings remains (see 7.2.1.6.). This issue has been regulated without 
amending the legislation 
6. – That an examination of Estonia's CID resources 
be undertaken to ascertain if increased staffing would 
contribute to increased screening of Interpol Red Notices/diffusions (see 7.3.1.1.). 
  
7. – That the practice of police obtained consents  be The practice is in place and up to July 2010 
 
EN 67   EN examined with a view to clarifying the process by 
which the requested person may grant or refuse their 
consent to surrender before the executing JA (see 
7.3.1.2). no real problems have arisen 
8. – That Estonia's Fiche Française be reviewed by 
the relevant EAW authorities to verify its accuracy, and that any errors and/or omissions discovered be remedied as soon as practicable (see 7.3.1.3 ) The Fiche Française has been reviewed 
9. – That domestic legislation be put in place to 
clarify the precise criteria applicable to the issue of bail/release in EAW proceedings (see 7.3.1.4). Estonian legislation allows to issue the bail 
release in EAW cases but in practice it has never been used. No need for amending the 
legislation  
10. – That mechanisms be established to ensure the timely release of requested persons in keeping with 
mandatory release provisions established by the Criminal Procedure Code (see 7.3.1.5.). This issue is regulated by police regulations, 
no need for amending legislation 
11. – That domestic legi slation be amended to 
provide for the possibility that a requested person may elect not to be represented by a defence advocate during the surrender proceedings (see. 7.3.1.6.). The legislation has not been amended since 
the representation by a defence advocate is in our understanding one of the guarantees of citizen rights. Legal representation is free for 
the person concerned 
12. – That domestic legislation be put in place to expressly assert that surrender in respect of FD list 
offences is to occur without verification of the double criminality of the act (see 7.3.1.7.). The legislation is now in conformity with the 
Framework Decision (new wording of art 
491) 
13. – That domestic legislation be put in place to clearly define and limit the precise legal grounds by which Estonia’s executing JAs may refuse surrender (see 7.3.1.8) The legislation has been amended from 23 
May 2008 
14. – That domestic legislation be considered whereby Estonia’s executing JAs are designated as 
the body competent to authorise temporary or 
conditional surrenders and onwards surrenders (see 
7.3.1.9. ). The legislation has been amended from 23 
May 2008 
15. – That domestic legislation be put in place to ensure that humanitarian grounds are established as a permissible basis for the postponement of surrender of the requested person in appropriate cases (see 
7.3.1.10.). The legislation has been amended from 23 
May 2008 
16. – That the Estonian Law Centre review the 
various legislative amendments made pursuant to this 
report, together with thei r concrete consequences, 
and submit an appropriate training programme to Estonia's Training Council to ensure that the necessary training regimes are put in place as soon as There are every year at least two training 
courses for judges on the EAW issue and at 
least one for defence lawyers. As at July 2010, the Estonian Law Centre no longer exists 
 
EN 68   EN practicable (see 5.8.1.). 
 
 - Estonia has so far no “own” guidelines on 
the application of the EAW and all practitioners use the common guidelines made 
by the Council (the common Handbook) . 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Yes, Estonian and English.  
In communication English is mostly used as 
vehicular language. 
Time limit for translated EAW 3 working days 
Provisional arrest  Yes 48 hours 
Proportionality test  Yes, on issuing EAWs; uniformity is ensured 
by review by the Chief State Prosecutor's 
team  
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender Not possible 
Flagging SIRENE office, after consultation with the 
Prosecutor General's Office 
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts Yes 
On various points the central authority is 
decision making body rather than the Judicial authority (e.g. temporary/conditional surrender, onward surrender) 
 
EN 69   EN Integration of recital 12 in implementati on law Indirect via constitutional provision. 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  
Regime for transfer back Mandatory concerning Estonian citizens to be 
surrendered to the other MS 
24/7 rota? Yes  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Possibly yes, but has not occurred in practice 
so far 
Age of criminal liability  14 yrs 
Statistics  Yes: 2007, 2008and 2009 
Website Yes, mainly summaries of Supreme Court 
decisions 
Jurisdiction ECJ No 
 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
Though not provided for by the national 
legislation, the judicial authorities in EE consider the merit of each case, applying a proportionality test in coming to a decision in respect of the surrender application. As a consequence, a 
Judicial Authority may refuse surrender purely on 
merit grounds rather than pursuant to any of the grounds stated in Article 3 and Article 4 of the Framework Decision. Such a practice is clearly contrary to the Framework Decision. This situation is inherent to the EE criminal 
procedural system in which all arguments can be brought before the judge. No refusals, however, are reported on other grounds than grounds included in the FD.  
EE has not transposed Art 4 paragraph 1 FD but has stated it will apply it in practice, though this 
cannot be viewed as full transposition.  
 
 
EN 70   EN  
8. FINLAND  
Recommendations EAW report 28-9-2007 
(11787/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 125)  Follow up report 27-7-2009 
New developments Implementati on of the Nordic Extradition 
Convention 01-01-2008 
Recommendation 1 - That the prosecutors EAW handbook be amended so that prosecutors are 
directed to liaise with the Criminal Sanctions Agency 
prior to the issue of all prosecution EAWs  
(see 7.2.1.1). - Improved coordination and development of 
proceedings between EAW authorities and 
Sirene bureau 
- Handbook for prosecutors updated on a 
regular basis (and available on the prosecutors' intranet). 
 
Recommendation 2 - That section 23 of the EU 
Extradition Act be redrafted without reference to the 
police  
(see 7.3.1.2).  
Recommendation 3 - That the expansion of the 
mandatory refusal grounds to include situations not foreseen in the FD be reconsidered at a political level  
(see 7.3.1.3).  
Recommendation 4 – That section 5 (1)(5) be 
redrafted so that the scope of the territoriality ground for refusal is made clear and limited as intended by 
Finland  
(see 7.3.1.3)  
Recommendation 5 - That Finland designate a 
competent authority/authorities to superintend all undertakings, given by Finl and or by other Member 
States, in respect of EAW proceedings  
(see 7.3.1.4).  Prosecutor (when Finland is issuing state) 
must check whether executing state has set a condition to return the person or other conditions. Prosecutors should on their part make sure that the condition set in accordance 
with Art5(3) FD on EAW is followed. 
Detailed advice about this has been added to the handbook 
Before the EAW is issued, the prosecutor 
must check whether the same person has other 
cases pending where the EAW would also be 
needed. Prosecutors should act in a way that that all offences be included in the one single 
 
EN 71   EN EAW. 
Recommendation 6 - That legislative clarity be 
established in respect of the translation provisions set out in sections 15(1) and 15(3) of Finland's EU 
Extradition Act  
(see 7.3.1.5). Section 15(1) contains a provision under 
which FI accepts requests in Finnish, Swedish or English languages (and on a discretionary 
basis, in situations meant in section 15(2) also 
in other languages). In other words, as an executing State, purpose was to facilitate sending requests to FI by other MS, by accepting requests also in other languages 
than in our own. On the other hand, section 
15(3) is meant to be applied in domestic surrender procedure, in other words, due to domestic legislation on languages to be used in criminal proceedings and linguistical rights, when surrender procedure starts, the request 
has to be translated into Finnish or Swedish 
(in case it has been sent in English) and it is the responsibility of the Central Bureau of Investigation to translate the request. Therefore in our view the relationship 
between section 15(1) and 15(3) is clear, and 
these two provisions do not contradict with each other.  
Recommendation 7 - That legislative clarity be 
applied to the objectives of section 34(2) of Finland's EU Extradition Act  
(see 7.3.1.6). In the context of drafting legislation on 
Nordic Arrest Warrant, section 34(2) of Finlands EU Extradition Act was repealed (1385/2007), since it was not regarded as 
being in conformity with obligations of the 
FD on EAW That amendment came into force on 1 January 2008  
Recommendation 8 - That, in respect of associated 
surrenders of property a nd of requested persons, 
jurisdictional competence between the Coercive Measures Act and the EU Ex tradition Act is aligned 
(see 7.3.1.8).  
Recommendation 9 - That consideration be given to 
establishing regular judicial refresher training courses 
on the EAW  
(see 7.3.1.9). - Training organised by the General 
Prosecutor's Office on a regular basis. 
- Team of experts   
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility Issuing: all EAWs are translated in English 
Executing: Start possible in English 
 
EN 72   EN Separate regime for the Nordic countries  
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Possible  
Proportionality test  Yes  
- level over and above the bare statutory criteria, 
including the EAW history of experience with the executing MS (e.g. for countries with long surrender delays) 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state 
paid) legal assistance provided by X in the 
following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal 
proceedings when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on 
the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender Possible 
Flagging FI does not issue prohibitions/validity flags other 
than – on the basis of gu idelines of the prosecutor 
general's office - in cases where mandatory grounds for refusal apply (e.g. minors under the age of 15 years) 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property Par tly transposed, separate procedures 
Principle of direct contacts Yes  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Fully and 13 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and 
complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  
Regime for transfer back  The working group has prepared a proposal for a 
government bill on the implementation of the FD on transfer of prisoners, which mutatis mutandis is meant to be applied also in situations where transfer is based on Articles 4(6) or 5(3) of the FD 
on EAW. Purpose is to prepare and submit the 
 
EN 73   EN Government Bill to the Parliament, so that the 
implementing legislation would come into force in 
deadline required in the FD, in other words, by 5 
December 2011. 
24/7 rota? Yes for police services, partly for prosecutors 
(only regular office hours and week ends) 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing state when there is no 
dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  15 yrs, specific regime for 15-18 yrs 
Statistics  2007 and 2008: yes 
Website Prosecutor's intranet contains i.e. regularly 
updated handbook/guidelines on EAW 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes, 35.3.b 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
C-388/08 Lyemann and Pustarov (judgment of 01/12/2008: 
In 2008 the Finnish Supreme Court gave a si gnificant decision (KKO 2008:118) in a case 
concerning the EAW and the application of speci alty principle (art. 27). The legal question 
was as follows: in a case concerning a drug offe nce the final charge no longer corresponded in 
all respects to the original description of the crim inal act described in the arrest warrant. In the 
final description of the criminal act there was a large amount (25 kilograms) of hashish 
whereas in the arrest warrant it was informed that the defendants had imported a large amount 
of amphetamine. Also the time of commission of the offence differed partly from the arrest 
warrant. The Finnish Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling, which was given on 1 December 2008 (C-388/08 Lyemann and Pustarov (judgment of 01/12/2008)The ECJ held as follows: 
In order to establish whether the offence under cons ideration is an ‘offence other’ than that for 
which the person was surrendered within th e meaning of Article 27(2) of Framework 
Decision 2002/584, requiring the implementation of  the consent procedure referred to in 
Article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of that Framework Decision, it must  be ascertained whether the 
constituent elements of the offence, according to the legal description given by the issuing 
State, are those in respect of which the person was surrendered an d whether there is a 
sufficient correspondence between the informati on given in the arrest  warrant and that 
contained in the later procedural  document. Modifications concer ning the time or  place of the 
offence are allowed, in so far as they derive  from evidence gathered in the course of the 
proceedings conducted in the issuing State con cerning the conduct described in the arrest 
warrant, do not alter the nature of the offence and do not lead to grounds for non-execution under Articles 3 and 4 of the Framework Decision. 
 
EN 74   EN A modification of the descriptio n of the offence, concerning only the kind of narcotics in 
question and not changing the legal classification of  the offence, is not such, of itself, as to 
define an ‘offence other’ than that for whic h the person was surrendere d within the meaning 
of Article 27(2) of Framework Decision 2002/ 584 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender procedures between Member States, sin ce it is an offence still punishable according 
to the same scale of penalties and comes under the rubric ‘illegal  trafficking in narcotic drugs’ 
in Article 2(2) of that Framework Decision. 
After this the Finnish Supreme Court gave it s decision. It considered that the constituent 
elements of the offence mentioned in the arrest warrant and in the final charge were the same 
as those on which grounds the defendants were surrendered. The descriptions of the criminal 
act were similar enough and Finland was not ob liged to request the ex traditing Member State 
a consent mentioned in article 27 (3g) in  order to decide on the amended charge.  
COM Implementation Report of 2007: no remarks stem from the 2007 COM report. 
 
EN 75   EN 9. FRANCE  
Recommendations EAW report 20-7-2007 
(9972/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 95)  Follow up report 29 July 2009 
New developments - Am ending law: 12 May 2009 
- "Circulaire" of 13 July 2009 (on the new law) 
- "Circulaire" of 20 July 2009 (on new instruments 
created with a view to a more efficient application of the EAW)  
1- Consider the possibility - while respecting freedom to assess individual situations - of pursuing a policy on the execution of sentences which is reasonably homogenous, so as to ensure uniformity of treatment 
(see 7.2.1.1.). Following the “circulaire” of 11 March 2004, the 
"circulaire" of 20 July 2009 gives guidance with a view to reduce the number of EAWs based on an in absentia judgement by means of a better use of other 
mutual legal assistance instruments. 
See also: recommendation 4 
2 - As soon as possible, abid e by the provisions in the 
Framework Decision relating to the standard form, and avoid introducing pr actices which condone the 
particular legal requirements of certain States, but which are not laid down in the Framework Decision 
and which go beyond the principle of mutual 
recognition (see 7.2.1.2). The Ministry of Justice has suppressed the UK 
EAW form that was available on its website, drawing the attention of the courts on the fact that the EAW form must not be modified. It has been replaced by guidance addressed to the French courts 
who want to issue a EAW to UK to stress the most 
important points at issue.  
3 - Exploit to the maximum the potential of the support tools available to magistrates to facilitate the application of the EAW, particularly by carefully updating the departmental circular, distributing a consolidated version of that circular, and updating 
BEPI's intranet site in the light of the development of 
case-law in this area. Create a section on the intranet 
site including the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Encourage regular meetings of the monitoring group and distribute the results of its discussions to all national courts and to interested bar 
associations (see 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2). - New "circulaires" have been issued in 2009. 
 - Relevant case law of the Cour de cassation and the 
European Court of Justice has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and is up to date 
 
- Furthermore, some case law collection has been 
made on certain themes such as "droits de la défense" and "le statut de réfugié" in the EAW procedure. 
4 - Improve the system for compiling information at the Ministry of Justice on EAWs dealt with directly by the French judicial authorities (see 7.2.2.3). A central mailbox has been introduced at the 
"Mission Justice" (specialised service of the Ministry of Justice) where all EAW's issued by 
French judicial authorities are gathered and 
processed for electronic delivery. A judicial authority attached to this service may recommend changes in the text to the issuing authority. 
A mailbox is also created at the Ministry of Justice 
to receive reports on all EAW's executed by French 
 
EN 76   EN judicial authorities.  
5 – Consider a more flexible approach involving 
agreeing to surrender the wanted person on the basis of an EAW drawn up in a language other than 
French, in line with some Member States' practice 
(see 7.3.1.2).  
6 – Consider the possibility of amending or clarifying 
the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the arrangements (acceptance of an EAW in a form other than the original or a certified copy of the original) and time limit (six-day rule) for receipt of an EAW, 
as allowed under the case-law of the Supreme Court 
of Appeal (Cour de cassation) (see 7.3.1.3).  
7 – Keep to the information supplied by the issuing 
judicial authority in the EAW form and as far as possible avoid making any requests concerning the substance of the case, which are liable to interfere with criminal proceedings pending in the issuing 
State, with the possible result of refusal to surrender 
the wanted person to the requesting authorities (see 7.3.1.4). Different decisions of the Cour de cassation have 
clarified the role of the executing authority, emphasizing the character of mutual recognition of the EAW. These decisions limit the cases in which dual criminality can be checked and additional 
information will be asked and give a strict 
interpretation of the grounds for refusal. 
8 – Encourage coordination between the French authorities involved in the process of executing an EAW, so as to limit the number and extent of requests to the issuing authority for additional information (see 7.3.1.5).  
9 – Consider amending the Code of Criminal 
Procedure as regards execution of an EAW, so as to 
enable the principal public prosecutor also to place a person under judicial supe rvision (see 7.3.1.7). The General Prosecutor may now apply alternative 
measures to detention ("contrôle judiciaire") on the 
basis of Article 695-28 and 138 CPP. 
10 - Clarify and delineate precisely the powers of the principal public prosecutor and of the examining chamber as regards a stay of surrender, for serious humanitarian reasons see 7.3.1.8).  
11 - Consider the possibility of amending the Code of 
Criminal Procedure with regard to discrimination as a ground for non-execution (see 7.3.1.9).  
12 - Consider the possibility of reviewing the 
domestic implementing legi slation as regards the 
time-limits in Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.10).  
13 - Go ahead with the planned amendment of Article 
695-46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards speciality (see 7.3.1.12). Article 695-46 CCP has been changed. It is now in 
complete conformity with paragraph 27(3)(g) of the Framework Decision. 
 
EN 77   EN 14 - Standardise practice on extension of the terms of 
surrender, by amending Article 695-46 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure (see 7.3.1.13). 
15 - Clarify the domestic provision governing 
temporary surrender (see 7.3.1.15). This practice has improved. The French Ministry of 
Justice has indicated to the courts that the decision of temporary surrender has to be decided between the judicial authorities of both states concerned. The French Ministry must not intervene.  
16 - Amend the Code of Criminal Procedure to introduce coercive powers ensuring that the wanted person is actually surrendered to the requesting 
authorities (see 7.3.1.16). Article 695-26 and 695-37 C PP have been changed. 
The prosecution service may now apply coercive measures in conformity with article 74-2 CPP. 
17 - Take the necessary measures to guarantee, in practice, that lawyers have access to information concerning an EAW in time to ensure that they are best able to put up an effective defence for their client (see 7.3.1.17). Different decisions of the Cour de cassation have 
clarified the position of the defence, including legal representation, access to the file, a possibility to study the file and free communication between lawyer and client 
 Articles 728-2 and 728-3 CCP have been changed. 
In case of refusal of the execution of a foreign sentence in accordance with paragraph 4(6) of the 
Framework Decision, the "chambre d'accusation" 
can now immediately carry on with proceedings to take over the execution of the foreign custodial sentence or detention order ("mise à execution directe").  
A further amendment (to Article 729-2) allows the 
applicability of the measure of conditional release when executing a foreign sentence in these cases.  
 
 The coordinates of the competent service for the 
factual surrender will be mentioned in all EAWs.  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility No 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 48 hours  
Proportionality test  Yes, on case by case basis. In average effective 
imprisonment to be executed or to be expected for a 
minimum of one year. 
 
EN 78   EN Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender A new subparagra ph has been introduced in article 
695-16 CPP, giving the prosecution service the opportunity to ask, in the form of an EAW, on the basis of a "mandat d'amener" for additional permission from the executing State for facts that 
were not comprised in the EAW in case the person 
that had been surrendered did not waive speciality. (France as issuing state) 
Flagging  
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of prope rty Article 695-41 CPP has been changed; seizure is 
now possible not only on request of the issuing authority but also on the initiative of the executing authority. 
Principle of direct contacts  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement  
Regime for transfer back 1983 CoE convention 
24/7 rota? Yes  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  13 years  
Statistics  Yes: 2007 and 2008  
 
EN 79   EN Website  Yes, regularly up dated intranet MoJ with 
comprehensive EAW info (case law, handbook, 
circular letters, FAQ, forms and instructions how 
they have to be used, list of translators. On-line assistance for judges and prosecutors 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions 
See above, recommendation 7 and 17. 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
FR provides that a final decision must be taken 
within 30 days of arrest. Ho wever where an appeal in 
cassation leads to a referral to another Court, which FR considers as an exceptional case, the deadlines mentioned total 90 days.  
The transposition of the series of exceptions to the 
specialty rule laid down in article 27(3) a) to g): FR 
has not transposed exception c).    
 
 
EN 80   EN 10. GERMANY 
Recommendations EAW report 31-3-2009 
(7058/1/09 REV 1 CRIMORG 32)  Follow up report 24-9-09 
New developments No new legislative developments since the 
evaluation report (on-the spot visit September 
2008)  
1.- Take the necessary measures at legislative level to draw a clear distinction between traditional 
extradition and the new EAW regimes (see 7.1.1).  
2.- Take the measures considered appropriate to 
promote a common procedural approach in EAW cases in the different Länder (see 7.1.3). New guidelines as from 1-1-09 on, applicable 
in all Länder. 
3.- Update the Fiche Française to reflect current law and practice (see 7.1.8). Fiche française updated 18-9-09. 
4.- Modify the law with a view to vesting the 
surrender decision in a judicial authority acting in its own right (see 7.3.1.1).  
5.- Ensure that the requested person is heard by the 
OLG in cases where he or she does not consent to 
surrender (see 7.3.1.2).  
6.- Take measures as considered appropriate to 
ensure that legal assistance is provided to the 
requested person throughout the procedure (see 7.3.1.3).  
7.- As regards conviction EAWs, take the necessary 
measures (e.g. redrafting the implementing law or producing guidelines on this particular issue) to ensure that the outstanding sentence to be served is 
not used as a ground for refusal of surrender (see 
7.3.1.4).  
8.- Amend the implementing legislation so that no 
limitation applies to the surrender of own nationals and habitual residents based on their "legitimate expectation" that they would not be surrendered, or, in cases of listed offences, on the fact that the act does not constitute an offence under German law (see 
7.3.1.5).  
9.- In those cases where the German authorities 
refuse to execute a conviction EAW because the subject is a German national or a permanent resident in Germany and does not consent to surrender, and until rules adopted pursuant to the Framework  
 
EN 81   EN Decision 2008/909/JHA apply, consider accepting 
the EAW itself as the request required to initiate 
proceedings for execution of the sentence (see 
7.3.1.5). 
10.- Reconsider the practice of considering the lack of proportionality as a ground to refuse to execute an EAW (see 7.3.1.6).  
11.- Amend the implementing legislation so that the 
condition of reciprocity does not apply in EAW procedures (see 7.3.1.7).  
12.- Consider a rethink of the logistical procedures 
for the physical surrender of requested persons (see 7.3.1.8).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility - On the basis of reciprocity  
- In urgent cases a start can be made on the 
basis of a EAW in the language of the issuing 
State if the language is sufficiently understood by the competent public prosecutor (in practice: English)  
Time limit for translated EAW 40 days 
Provisional arrest  Yes  
Proportionality test  - Issuing: yes  
- Outstanding EAWs are regularly reviewed 
and withdrawn when no longer proportional.  
- Executing: on the basis of Article 73 IRG 
surrender can be refused on the basis that a 
minimum proportionality standard has not 
been observed while issuing.  
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the  
 
EN 82   EN basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 
Accessory surrender Yes  
Flagging Sirene bureau in cases where surrender is 
obviously not permissible; in case of doubt the federal office of justice is consulted.  
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests BundesKriminalamt/Verwaltungsgericht 
Wiesbaden 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts Yes  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes and 13 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity  
4 months requirement  4 months 
Regime for transfer back In case of own nationals: the international 
conventions apply, i.e. 1983 CoE convention and, if it is applicable in relation to the relevant  EU Member State, 
the additional protocol to the 1983 CoE Convention and Art. 67-69 CISA; in case of persons with usual residence in Germany: provisions of the national law on international assistance in criminal matters (Sec. 48 ff.) 
1983 CoE convention 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Cf. Sec. 80 and 83b para. 2 LIACM 
Age of criminal liability  14 
Statistics  Yes: 2007, 2008 and 2009 
Website   
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes  
 
 
EN 83   EN Case law/preliminary questions  
- Bundesverfassungsgericht 3-9-09 (EuGRZ 2009, 686-691) 
In case of the surrender of own nationals (also if the person has both the nationality of Germany and of the 
requesting State) on the basis of a EAW, surrender has to be refused if, under German law, the statute of 
limitations prevents a prosecution in Germany and Germany’s jurisdiction would exist (that is the case if the 
person sought is a German national). An interpretation of Sec. 9 No. 2 LIACM [that implements Art. 4 No. 4 of the FD EAW] in conformity with the constitution entails  that only German acts inte rrupting the prescription can 
be considered. Whether the prescription has been interrupted or stayed by act s in the issuing State (here: Greece) 
can not be considered. 
- Bundesverfassungsgericht 9-10-2009 (EuGRZ 2009, 691-694)  
Confirmation of the decision of the Federal Constitutinal Court of 3-9-2009 as regards time limitation. In 
addition: The Oberlandesgerichte (Higher Regional Courts) that decide on the execution of an EAW must examine as carefully as possible whether the specific ch arges describe punishable behaviour. They may not 
content themselves with merely performing a rough legal review. 
- Bundesgerichtshof 18-2-2010 (4 ARs 16/09 - NStZ-RR 2010, 177) Decision upon the referral of the preliminary question by the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg 6-4-2009 (NJW 
2009, 2320). The question was decided by the Federal Constitutional Court by its decision of 3-9-2009 (see 
above). The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court has binding effect. As a result, surrender of a person with both the Polish and the German nationality to Poland on the basis of an EAW for prosecution for offences 
committed in Poland cannot be granted, if prosecution in Germany (that has jurisdiction because of the German 
nationality of the person) is statute barred. Acts interrup ting the prescription in the issuing State, that are of a 
nature that also in Germany would have interrupted prescription, can not play a role. 
- Bundesgerichtshof 15-4-08 (BGHSt 52, 191; NJW 2008, 1968)  
Surrender of a German national to Poland was not granted. Although the case could be prosecuted in Poland, 
under German legislation prosecution was statute barred and also Germany had jurisdiction in this case. 
- Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 26-6-2009 (AZ.:3 Ausl 175/08)  
Preliminary question to the ECJ: see website of the ECJ, case C-261  
- Oberlandesgericht Celle 20-5-2008  
Surrender for prosecution for possession of a small quantity  of cannabis (7 seedlings) refused when in the issuing 
state a life long sentence is eligible. 
- Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 13-7-2007 (AZ.: 1 Ars 21/08)  
Refusing surrender relating to prosecution in an in absentia  case is not appropriate if the prosecuted person was 
aware of the prosecution, a defence lawy er participated in the trial and the summons to appear in court could not 
be served because the escape of the defendant. This applies only if a sought person is aware of being prosecuted 
and he or she leaves that state to hide away in another state. It can also apply when  a sought person deliberately 
ducks out of a situation in which official letters can be assigned. 
- Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 9-1-2008 (Az.: 3 Ausl 134/07 ) 
A 'case of escape' means that the defe ndant deliberately backs out of his or her obligations in order to escape 
prosecution. The mere fact of changing address within th e EU as such cannot qualify a case as 'case of escape'.  
If there is no 'case of escape' the surrender of the prosec uted person to a Member Stat e of the EU for the purpose 
of execution of a criminal sentence rendered in absentia  without granting effectively the right for a new trial is 
inadmissible even in the case where, on the basis of the provisions on legal assistance without any treaty of the 
German law on international legal assistance (IRG) and the second additional protocol, the legal minimum 
 
EN 84   EN standards (in the present case: lack of  communication of the prosecuted person  with a defence counsel chosen by 
him or her in the requesting state) would have been observed.  
- Oberlandesgericht Köln 27-4-2009 (Az.: 6AuslA 25/08)   
Surrender should not be refused in case a life sentence is eligible and the law of the issuing Member State 
provides for a possibility to apply for clemency in wh ich procedure the execution of the sentence can be 
reviewed.  
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf 5-10-2009 (Az: III-4 Ausl (A) 145/09 – 609/09 III) 
Surrender refused in case a review of the penalty of lif e imprisonment is only possibl e after 25 instead of 20 
years under the law of the issuing State. The general possibility of amnesty does not suffice for granting the 
request. 
- Oberlandesgericht Zweibrücken 2-11-2009 (Az: 1 Ausl 17/08) 
If the request for extradition is extended by the issuing State beyond the criminal offe nce in the EAW the general 
rules of the national extradition law apply. Another EAW is not necessary, a document that describes the 
additional criminal charge against the person sought is enough. 
- Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart 25-2-2010 (NJW 2010, 1617-1619) Surrender to Spain because of drug offences was not refused, but the Court must consider the following while 
executing a EAW: 
Art. 49 para. 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (laying down the principle of 
proportionality in connection with criminal offences an d penalties) may prevent the surrender to a EU Member 
State upon a EAW if the expected penalty in the issuing State would be intolerably severe. 
The order of an extradition arrest (upon a EAW), that is provided by the national law, must fully respect the 
principle of proportionality as laid down in the German constitution. As a result, the enforcement of an EW may 
not be appropriate if the alleged offence is of minor importance and the expected sentence is disproportioned to the charge of detention for purpose of surrender. 
- Oberlandesgericht Hamm 25-2-2010 (Az: (2) 4 Ausl A 163/08 and 89/09) 
Surrender currently refused because of  ordre public: The principle of pro portionality and fundamental rights of 
the person sought must equally be respected in the surrender procedure as in the national procedure. The interest 
of prosecution of the issuing State must be weighed up w ith the right to private and family life as laid down in 
Art. 8 ECHR and Art. 6 of the Basic Law.  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
DE has transposed correctly only article 24(1), 
and does not provide for temporary surrender 
pursuant to article 24(2). In practice no difficulties were recorded. 
 
 
EN 85   EN 11. GREECE 
Recommendations EAW report 20-10-2008 
(13416/1/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 146)  Follow up report 31-7-09 and 28-07-2010 
New Developments Since 1 Apri l 2007 no amendments  related to 
the application of the EAW have been made. 
The Ministry of Justice, Transparency and 
Human Rights circulated after the fourth round of mutual evaluations to all Public Prosecutors’ Offices at the Court of Appeal the evaluation report on Greece regarding the 
practical application of the EAW. The Greek 
Ministry urged the Prosecutors to take into account, when dealing with EAW matters, the recommendations addressed both to the member states and to Greece individually. 
Furthermore, a Special Working Party is 
going to be established at the Ministry of 
Justice, Transparency and Human Rights in order to proceed to the necessary legal amendments so that the relevant provisions on EAW comply with the recommendations 
addressed in the evaluation report.  
1.- Produce written guidelines with the involvement of practitioners to provide  detailed guidance on how 
the Greek implementing law should be applied in practice (see 7.1.1). No national guidelines or handbooks have 
been issued, however, the European handbook 
on how to issue a EAW has been distributed to all Public Prosecutor's Offices of the country . 
2.- Review the conformity of the implementing law 
with the Framework Decision, as well as the correlation between the former and domestic criminal 
procedural law, and fill the gaps where appropriate 
(see 7.1.1).  
3.- Consider establishing a pool of judges and 
prosecutors in each Court of Appeal to handle EAW cases (see 7.1.2).  
4.- Establish mechanisms to  ensure the appropriate 
coordination among prosecution offices with a view to avoiding divergent practices in the processing of EAWs and promoting a common understanding of 
the relevant legislation (see 7.1.3).  
5.- Take measures to ensure that accumulated 
experience relating to EAW matters be disseminated 
effectively to all practitioners, e.g. by drawing up a handbook, providing extensive and regular training  
 
EN 86   EN and/or establishing centres of expertise, as a means of 
improving the efficiency of the system (see 7.1.4). 
6.- Organize training in basic foreign legal language for judges and prosecutors, enabling them to establish 
direct contacts with their partners abroad in the most 
commonly spoken languages (see 7.1.5).  
7.- Establish tools aimed at modernizing the 
processing of EAW files and the information related thereto (see 7.1.6).  
8.- Ensure that an EAW is only issued when the 
objective sought can not be achieved by using other forms of (mutual legal) assi stance less intrusive for 
the individual (see 7.2.1.1).  
9.- Set up appropriate mechanisms to deal with 
urgent EAW matters at weekends and on official 
holidays, e.g. by introducing a 24/7 duty scheme for 
the Public Prosecutor's Offices at the Courts of appeal (see 7.2.1.2).  
10.- Ensure that existing SIS alerts based on 
International Arrest Warrants and (where appropriate) INTERPOL alerts based on EAWs are replaced with SIS alerts based on EAWs (see 
7.2.1.3).  
11.- Correct the current practice of the Public 
Prosecutors at the Courts of Appeal of exercising 
powers not envisaged in the implementing law to refuse the execution of EAWs (see 7.3.1.1).  
12.- Reconsider the current situation where the 
initiation of the court procedure for a decision on surrender de facto depends on the decision of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Appeal to arrest the 
requested person (see 7.3.1.1).  
13.- Amend the implementing law to conform with 
the Framework Decision with respect to the list of 
offences not covered by the double criminality test (see 7.3.1.2).  
14.- Amend the implementing law to conform with 
the Framework Decision with respect to the grounds for optional non-execution of EAWs (see 7.3.1.3 and 7.3.1.5).  
15.- Reconsider the inclusion of Article 11 paragraph 
e) as a ground for refusal in the implementing law 
(see 7.3.1.4).  
 
EN 87   EN 16.- In connection with recommendation 9, 
reconsider, in the light of domestic legislation, the 
validity of the current practice of extending the 
period of arrest at weekends and on public holidays beyond 24 hours (see 7.3.1.6).  
17.- Fill the current gap in Greek law as regards the 
right of a person arrested on the basis of an EAW to a state-paid lawyer (see 7.3.1.7).  
18.- In the meantime, ensure that the requested 
person is duly informed of his rights immediately after the arrest and provided  with a quality linguistic 
assistance where necessary (see 7.3.1.7 and chapter 
6).  
19.- Amend Article 15.2 of the implementing law so 
that the requested person is provided with free copies of the relevant file documents (see chapter 6).  
20.- Adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the 
requested person can effectively exercise his right to appeal the court's decision on surrender (see 7.3.1.8).  
21.- Amend Article 19 of the implementing law to 
allow the court to establish direct contacts with the issuing authorities without the intervention of the 
Prosecutor General at the Court of Appeal (see 
7.3.1.9).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility - English text accepted for initiating 
proceedings and additional information 
- all issued EAWs are translated in English 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes, 24 hours 
Proportionality test  No 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and  
 
EN 88   EN (2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 
Accessory surrender No  
Flagging - Sirene bureau under supervision of the 
prosecutor. 
- All incoming alerts are checked with 
assistance of judges or prosecutors seconded to the Sirene bureau 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property yes 
Principle of direct contacts Via prosecutor 
Integration of recital 12 in im plementation law Yes and 13;  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back Article 5(3) of the FD 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  
Statistics Yes: 2007 and 2008 
Website  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions : 
Decisions on EAW by the Supreme Court of the He llenic Republic are systematically sent to the 
Council.  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
 
EN 89   EN Implementation of recitals 12/13 goes beyond the 
FD and therefore creates the risk that a EAW will 
be refused on the basis of grounds not envisaged 
in the Framework Decision (an activity for the cause of freedom)  
 
 
EN 90   EN 12. HUNGARY   
Recommendations EAW report 14-1-2008 
(15317/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 174)  Follow up 27-8-2009 and 30-07-2010 
New developments Latest modificati on of the Hungarian Act No CXXX 
of 2003 on cooperation in cr iminal matters with the 
Member States of the European Union was made by 
Act No LXXX of 2008. These amendments, which relate to the EAW, entered into force on 8 January 2009 .  
 
1 - In view of Article 8(1)(c) of the FD and box (b) of 
the EAW form, to consider amending its national 
legislation to require that the issue of an EAW for 
prosecution purposes is always preceded by a national arrest warrant or another enforceable judicial decision having the same effect (see 7.2.1.1). Hungary did not amend its national legislation in 
this regard, since in its view it is in line with the 
Framework Decision.  
Hungarian European arrest warrants are always 
issued by a judge. The basi s of the European arrest 
warrant may either be the motion of the prosecutor or a final sentence or the judge can even decide on issuing a European arrest warrant ex officio.  
It has to be emphasised that problems in this regard 
with other Member States have been solved bilaterally.  
Section 25 (1) of Act CXXX of 2003 on the Co-
operation with the Member States of the European 
Union in Criminal Matters says that „If criminal 
proceedings must be conducted against an accused who is staying in a Member State of the European Union, the court shall without delay issue a European arrest warrant. If an accused is sentenced 
to imprisonment on basis of a final judgment, the 
judge responsible for penitentiary affairs shall issue the European arrest warrant.”  
According to Section 25(7) of the above mentioned 
Act, the European arrest warrant is also effective on the territory of Hungary,  which means that a 
European arrest warrant (issued by a Hungarian 
court) has to be considered also as a national arrest warrant.  As a result of this, there is no need to issue 
a separate national or international arrest warrant, since the European arrest warrant issued by a 
Hungarian court is the national arrest warrant as 
well.   
2 - To amend Section 26 of Act No CXXX of 2003 to 
ensure that in those cases in  which an EAW is issued 
to replace a pre-existing international arrest warrant, the date of issue of the EAW is clearly indicated in Section 26 has been repealed by Act No LXXX of 
2008 . 
 
EN 91   EN the EAW form (see 7.2.1.3).  
 
3 - To consider setting up a ppropriate mechanisms to 
deal with urgent EAW ma tters at weekends and on 
official holidays (see 7.2.1.4). Hungary does not intend to set up any mechanism to 
deal with urgent EAW matters at weekends and on 
official holidays as far as the central authority 
(Ministry) is concerned. At SIRENE, in prosecutor offices and courts are always available official, prosecutor or judge on duty even at weekends and on official holidays. Instead of setting up such 
mechanism, we are of the opinion that time limits 
for receiving translated EAWs should be rationalized in Member States 
4 - To consider establishing mechanisms that allow the competent authorities initiating criminal proceedings against a person surrendered for an offence committed before the surrender which was not covered by the EAW, to check the conditions of 
the surrender in good time, with a view to respecting 
the speciality principle (see 7.2.1.6). Hungary does not intend to set up any mechanism 
with a view to respecting the speciality rule. It is always respected on case-by-case basis 
5 - In the context of its practice of executing a simplified surrender on the basis of an Interpol alert issued by another Member State, ensure that the information available is the same as that included in the EAW (see 7.3.1.1). Simplified surrender is possible on the basis of §12 
of Act No CXXXX of 2003 on cooperation in criminal matters with the Member States of the European Union.  
Section 12.  (1) The Metropolitan Court shall order 
the arrest for surrender and the surrender (simplified 
surrender) of the requested person if 
a) the conditions for the execution of the European 
arrest warrant and surrender are met, and 
b) the requested person – following appropriate 
warning – consents to his or her surrender; in this 
case the warning and consent, and if applicable the express renunciation of the application of the speciality rule referred to in Section 31, shall be recorded formally in minutes. 
(2) An alert in the Schengen Information System 
shall be equivalent to a European arrest warrant 
accompanied by the information set out in point a)-e) of para (1) of § 6 and § 14 of the Act No CV of 2007.  
(3) The consent defined in paragraph (1) cannot be 
withdrawn.  
(4) An order for simplified surrender is not subject 
to appeal./ 
6 - To take appropriate measures to ensure that the The execution of an EAW can only be refused on 
 
EN 92   EN execution of an EAW may only be refused on 
grounds expressly provided in the implementing law 
(see 7.3.1.3). 
NB the evaluation report states (7.3.1.3) among 
judges no common view exists that no additional grounds may be applied on the basis of national legislation or general principles of HU law grounds expressly provided in the implementing law 
which cannot give any possibility to the executing 
judicial authority for different interpretation.  
 
7 - To amend Section 4(c) of Act No CXXX of 2003 
to bring it into line with Article 4(4) of the FD (see 
7.3.1.4).  
 Section 4 (c) has been amended by Act No LXXX 
of 2008 in order to bring it into line with Article 
4(4) of the FD. The provision reads now: 
“The execution of the European arrest warrant shall 
be refused:  
c) where the criminal prosecution or penalty is 
statute-barred according to the law of the Republic of Hungary, subject to the condition that the act on 
which the EAW is based falls  within the jurisdiction 
of Hungary (Section 3 and 4 of the Criminal Code)”  
8 - To amend its national legislation so that, in the 
event of sentences passed against Hungarian nationals in other Member States for offences not punishable under Hungarian law, it either surrenders the persons or executes the imprisonment sentences 
imposed by other Member States' courts (see 7.3.1.6). According to Section 5(1) of Act No. CXXX of 
2003 the execution of the European arrest warrant shall be refused and measures shall be taken for the execution of the sentence or detention order where the European arrest warran t has been issued for the 
purposes of executing a custodial sentence or 
detention order, and the requested person is a Hungarian national resident in Hungary. 
This provision is not subject to any amendment. According to §57(4) of the Constitution „No one 
shall be declared guilty and subjected to punishment 
for an offence that was not a criminal offence under Hungarian law at the time such offense was committed”. The application of the principle of nulla poena sine lege is deriving from the Hungarian 
Constitution.  
9 - To amend its national legislation so that the 
specific arrangements covering Hungarian nationals 
resident in Hungary against whom sentences have 
been passed in other MSs by decisions taken in absentia  are abolished (see 7.3.1.7). A Hungarian national resident in Hungary and 
sentenced in absentia abroad cannot be surrendered, 
even if a guarantee of a retrial is given. In such a 
case the EAW is sent to the General Prosecutor’s Office for consideration of the initiation of criminal proceedings or taking any other appropriate measures. It is stipulated by the Act No XXXVIII of 
1996 on international assistance in criminal matters 
which is a background legislation concerning EAW cases.  
 
General information   
 
EN 93   EN General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility Yes 
 
Time limit for translated EAW 40 days from arrest 
Provisional arrest  Yes, 72 hours ( Section 11(1) c) of Act No. CXXX of 
2003 ) as police detention and then 40 days from 
ordering the provisional arrest for surrender by the Capital Court 
Proportionality test  No (principle of legality) 
Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (1) yes (§ 46b CCP) 
(2) No  
Accessory surrender Issuing: not possible  
Executing: possible if dual criminality (Section 
3(4)) 
Flagging applicable 
Competent authority for Article 111 Schengen requests applicable 
Seizure and handover of property yes 
Principle of direct contacts Direct transmission of an EAW between judicial 
authorities is not permitted; the MoJ has been designated for this task. 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law No specific provision provided by Act No CXXX of 
2003, however its background legislation – Act No XXXVIII of 1996 on international cooperation in criminal matters – contains the following provision 
in §7: The Minister of Justice or the Chief Public 
Prosecutor may make the performance of requests for legal assistance subject to conditions; if fulfillment of these conditions is denied, the aforementioned parties may refuse the request, if it 
can be assumed that the proceedings underway in 
 
EN 94   EN the Foreign State, the prospective punishment or the 
enforcement of such is inconsistent with the 
Constitution and with the provisions and basic 
principles of international law on the protection of human rights. (This provision shall be applied mutatis mutandis concerning surrender procedures.) 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement  Act No CX XX of 2003 contains the relevant 
provision concerning the 4 months requirement in § 25 (2) in the following way: Where a sentence or a detention order has been imposed, a European arrest 
warrant may only be issued if the sentence or 
detention order imposed is of at least four months
. 
Regime for Transfer back  
24/7 rota  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  No 
Age of criminal liability 14 
Statistics  2007 and 2008: yes 
Website   
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions : -  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
Deduction of the period of detention served in the 
executing Member State:  
HU has not transposed Article 26 FD in the 
notified legislation. Section 29 of Act No CXXX of 2003 reads as follows: 
“Section 29. All periods of detention served abroad 
pursuant to the execution of a European arrest warrant 
shall be deducted from the total custodial sentence or detention order imposed by the court.”  
Principle of direct contacts HU does not allow direct transmission.  
 
 
EN 95   EN  
13. IRELAND  
Recommendations EAW report 5-10-2006 
(11843/2/06 REV 2 CRIMORG 129 + COR 1 ) Follow up report 6-10-2009,  
New Developments New legisl ation implemented on 25 August 
2009 amending the EAW Act and adapted administrative procedures (Criminal Justice 
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009) 
A guide for practitioners in other Member 
States on how to proceed in transmitting a EAW to Ireland has been available on the Department of Justice, Equality and Law 
Reform's website for a number of years and 
has been updated in 2009 following implementation of the amending legislation . 
1 - To monitor the work flow of the various phases of 
the issue of EAWs so that any delays which may arise during the process may be more easily observed and rectified. (See 7.2.1.1) The Office of the Director of Public 
Prosecutions and the Garda Siochana have put in place procedures to monitor the work flow in the issuing of EAWs which ensure that 
delays are minimised. 
2 - To assess whether increased staffing levels in the EAW Unit and possibly the Directing Division of the 
ODPP would lead to a corresponding decrease in the time taken to perfect a pplications for EAWs, 
particularly in respect of the provision of advice and assistance pertaining to the detail of domestic precursor warrants. (See 7.2.1.2) As volume has increased, staffing level in the 
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutor 
has been correspondingly increased to ensure 
the smooth operation of the system for the application for European arrest warrants. There are currently 7 legal staff in the Division. Staffing levels are constantly kept 
under review . 
3 - To undertake a coordinated inter-agency analysis 
of the potential volumetric and procedural impacts that accession to SIS may involve. (See 7.3.1.1) The agencies involved in the operation of the 
European arrest warrant set up a group to analyse future needs in relation to the implementation of SIS II, and a number of meetings have taken place.  
In anticipation of an agreement on SIS II, 
legal provisions have been implemented 
(Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009) which give effect in national law to the Council Decision on SIS II.  . 
 
4 - To ensure legislative clarity in respect of a 
positive assertion that Interpol and e-mail channels 
may be utilised for the purposes of transmitting 
EAWs to Ireland (under consideration). (See 7.3.1.2) Amendment to section 12(1) EAW act:  
“(b) any means capable of producing a written 
record under conditions allowing the Central 
 
EN 96   EN Authority in the State to establish its 
authenticity.”  
5 - To consider implementing systems to ensure that 
mobile officers are given real time access to data 
contained on the PULSE system. (See 7.3.1.3)  Garda Siochana has put new systems in place 
including a database storing details of all 
European Arrest Warrants which allows for 
access to and the monitoring of progress in all cases .  
A devolved execution of warrants system has 
also been put in place which allows warrants 
to be executed in the Garda Divisions at local 
level. A facility on the internal intranet 'Garda Portal' allows all ope rational personnel to 
view the warrants and to obtain a copy of the warrant immediately in the event of execution . 
6 - To restrict the mandate of the CA so as to bring it 
into strict compliance with the role perceived in 
Articles 7 paragraph 2, 10 paragraph 5 and 15 
paragraph 2 of the FD. (See 7.3.1.4) The Irish Supreme Court has ruled (Rodnov) 
that the Central Authority must ensure that 
warrants are correct in form and content 
before being brought before the High Court.  
An amendment to the European Arrest 
Warrant Act 2003 (see Recommendation 11) on technical and minor errors has modified 
the need for correction/re-issue of warrants 
and reduced the time spent on checking incoming warrants. In addition, good communications between the Central Authority and other Member States, and 
increasing familiarity with the needs of each 
Member State, has led over time to an improvement in the completion of warrants. European arrest warrants are currently being endorsed, on average, within two weeks of receipt. 
7 - To reassess whether the endorsement process is necessary, sufficiently rapid and compatible with the 
FD and, to the extent that it is not, to consider ways 
and means to bring the procedures into line with the FD while respecting the Irish constitutional system. (See 7.3.1.5) An analysis of all the issues involved has not 
yet been completed but the legal provision in 
the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 in 
relation to the need for endorsement is currently being examined. 
8 - To consider broadening the powers of the Gárda Síochána so as to provide them with discretionary powers to photograph and fingerprint requested 
persons on arrest. (See 7.3.1.6) An amendment to section 20(b) EAW Act 
provides that fingerprints, palm prints and photographs may be taken for identification 
purposes. 
9 - To consider whether the creation of a further practice note would be of assistance in particularising 
those circumstances in which the JA might consider it appropriate to grant an application, by the defence or by the State, to adjourn the commencement of the Adjournments are granted in the interests of 
justice. It is constitutionally impermissible to 
bind the discretion of the judiciary. The issuing of Guidelines would not therefore be considered appropriate. However, it should be 
 
EN 97   EN surrender hearing (beyond 21 days from arrest). (See 
7.3.1.7) noted that adjournments are strongly resisted 
by the State unless there are compelling 
reasons for them. 
10 - To undertake a review of practice and procedures for initial surrender hearings in order to 
explore how they may be streamlined and brought more closely into line with the spirit of the FD and with principles of mutual trust between judicial authorities. (See 7.3.1.7) 
 See the previous response in relation to 
practice and procedures in the Courts. 
The principal issue raised in relation to this 
recommendation is cross-examination, which is permitted under the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. This reflects a 
constitutional right. However, as pointed out 
previously, the leave of the Court is required to cross-examine and the relevance must be clearly established.   
11 - To ensure that only grounds for refusal permitted 
under the FD and not minor administrative, typographical or other comparable errors on the face of the EAW are the basis for a refusal of surrender 
and to limit requests for redrafts or reissue of new 
EAWs to what is absolutely necessary. (See 7.3.1.8) Section 40 of the European Arrest Warrant 
Act 2003, provided a ground for refusal in relation to lapse of time. This provision transposed an optional ground for refusal 
under Article 4.4 of the Framework Decision. 
The provision has now been deleted. (section 19 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.) 
An amendment to the European Arrest 
Warrant Act 2003 also deals with the issue of 
minor or technical errors (Section 20(b) of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.) Consequently, redrafts or reissue of new European arrest warrants have been 
limited to those that are absolutely necessary. 
12 - To undertake a review of the appeal remedies available to requested persons, in order to explore 
how those rights may be streamlined and brought more closely into line with the time limits set out in the FD and to ensure adequate notification of any breaches to Eurojust. (See 7.3.1.9) - An amendment in section 11 Criminal 
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 
limits the possibilities of appeal to the Supreme Court to points of law of exceptional public importance. The High Court must give leave to appeal.  
- the central authority monitors pending cases 
on a weekly basis and notifies Eurojust where 
relevant 
13 - To examine whether practical measures can be put in place to accelerate payments made to defence counsel in respect of properly submitted fee notes. (See 7.3.1.10) Every effort is made to ensure prompt 
payment.  
When parity is established and all documents 
in relation to fees have been submitted and verified, an order for payment is made and the 
payment is issued within two weeks.  
14 - To ensure that statistical records in respect of all aspects of the EAW process (i.e. from receipt) are 
maintained and reviewed at the bi-monthly inter The Central Authority's database records all 
actions taken on European arrest warrants. 
Reports can be produced at any time and are 
 
EN 98   EN agency meetings so that matters arising may be 
identified and remedied on a regular basis. (See 
7.3.1.3) used to monitor progress and identify delays. 
The Central Authority circulates Reports in 
advance of the bi-monthly meetings so that all 
parties are fully aware of issues arising. Any problems which arise are discussed at the meeting. 
The database is also regularly updated to 
capture fields identified as necessary to the 
efficient management of the operation of the 
European arrest warrant, or in response to legislative changes. 
15 - To ensure that Irish authorities involved in EAW processing are familiar with the operation of the EAW in other Member States and in particular with the constraints on foreign judicial authorities as 
regards their ability to amend or reissue existing 
EAWs. (See 7.3.1.12)  The Central Authority has built up a 
considerable amount of knowledge about the systems in other Member states. The Evaluation Reports have also been a valuable 
tool in raising awareness about practice in 
other Member States. Members of the relevant agencies continue to attend meetings and training courses in Europe to ensure full knowledge of developm ents and problems. 
The Central Authority liaises with authorities 
of other member states, as necessary, to establish good practice in relation to European arrest warrants. 
16 - In respect of those Member States (including Ireland) who rely upon the Transfer of Sentenced Persons regime or the like for the surrender of own 
nationals, that those States consider between 
themselves whether an agreed form of undertaking (for example that they would not seek to impede the return of an own national/prisoner, should that individual wish to return to his country of origin) would suffice to satisfy any undertakings required 
pursuant to Article 5 paragraph 3 of the FD. (See 
7.2.1.3) The European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 has 
been amended to provide that, where surrender is subject to the condition that the 
person be returned to the executing state to 
serve any sentence imposed in the issuing state, and where the person consents to his return, the Minister will issue a warrant for the transfer of that person to the executing state following final determination of the 
proceedings. (section 20(b) of the Criminal 
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.)  
Ireland, therefore, no longer relies on the 
Transfer of Sentenced Persons regime and can offer a guarantee on the basis of the European 
Arrest Warrant Act 2003. 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility No (Irish or English) 
Time limit for translated EAW Ireland must receive the translated EAW at 
the same time as the original language 
 
EN 99   EN warrant. 
Provisional arrest  No  
Proportionality test  Yes, carried out by Garda Siochana (Irish 
Police Force ) and the Director of Public Prosecutions 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (1) As court proceedings in Ireland will be 
stayed pending the execution of the domestic warrant upon which the EAW is based, it is 
envisaged that the issue of funding legal 
assistance in Ireland would be rare. Where it does arise, such assistance may be covered by legal aid depending on the circumstances 
(2) No 
Accessory surrender Under conditions (see case law) 
Flagging - 
Competent authority for Art.111 Schengen requests - 
Seizure and handover of property Yes 
Principle of direct contacts No direct transmission 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation la w Yes (and all other rec itals, section 15(1)(c) 
and 16(1)(e) EAW Act 2003) 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity  In practice verification of dual criminality is 
not sought in respect of the inchoate versions of the list offences  
4 months requirement  Yes 
Regime for transfer back Section 20(b) of the Criminal Justice 
(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 (see recommendation 16)  
- not possible without consent of the person   
24/7 rota? Yes 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? The Irish implementing legislation did not 
transpose Article 4(6) as a ground for refusal. There is no restriction on the surrender of Irish national/residents 
 
EN 100   EN Age of criminal liability  12 years 
Statistics  2007 and 2008: yes 
Website www.justice.ie  
E-mail: warrantsmail@jsutce.ie 
Jurisdiction ECJ No 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
ECtHR (Application No. 56588/07) Robert Stap leton v Ireland delivered 4th May 2010.  
In this case the ECtHR considered an appeal of  an Irish Supreme Court decision to surrender a 
requested person to the UK for alleged fraud offe nces that had occurred 27 years previously on the 
grounds that the delay (27 years) between the a lleged (fraud) offences and the prosecution created a 
real risk that he would not receive a fair trial,  thus offending article 6 ECHR Convention, which 
provides inter alia for a "fair...hearing within a reasonable time." The ECtHr rejected the requested 
person's complain complaint under Article 6 as mani festly unfounded on the basis that the facts don't 
support a finding that there would be a "flagrant denial" of Article 6 rights in the UK upon surrender. 
The ECtHR then set out reasons for not accepting th at the executing state should go beyond a "flagrant 
denial" and look at whether there was a "real risk if unfairness in the criminal proceedings in the 
issuing state)" 
Composite sentences (Minister for Justice,  Equality and Law Reform v Ferenca.)  
The Supreme Court has held that if an offence which does not correspond to an offence in this 
jurisdiction is part of a composite sentence in the issuing state (the sentence having been imposed for 
the non-corresponding offence and an offence which corresponds to an offence in this jurisdiction), 
surrender will not be ordered if there is a risk that  the person, on being su rrendered, would serve time 
in respect of the non-corresponding offence. 
Notification of trial (Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Sliczynski  
The Supreme Court has held that notification of tr ial must be 'actual notification' to the person 
him/herself. Notification to a relative or other person is not sufficient. 
Where the person is not notified in person of a tr ial, an undertaking under section 45 of the European 
Arrest Warrant act (guarantee for retrial) must be provided. 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
In IE the transposing legislation applies only to 
the Member States which have been listed by 
Decree or Order. Under the Irish implementing 
law, the Minister for foreign affairs has designated all Member States except for Bulgaria and Rumania for the purpose of the Act, which have under their national law given effect to the 
Framework Decision. As fa r as IE is concerned, 
the use of secondary legislation to designate States rather than primary legislation was to allow All EU Member States are listed. (RO and BG 
since 13-2-2007) 
 
EN 101   EN extradition procedures to subsist for those 
Member States who were delayed in ratifying the 
Framework Decision. 
Recitals 12 and or 13 transposed beyond the scope of FD;  
IE law requires refusal where surrender would 
breach their national constitutions. Although this may cover situations aris ing under both Article 6 
TEU and Recital 12 (such as rules on due 
process), it nevertheless goes beyond the 
Framework Decision, in particular as Art 6 TEU refers only to those constitutional principles common to Member States. See above (recommendation 11)  
IE has transposed this paragraph to allow for 
immunity by virtue of amnesty or pardon in the issuing Member State rather than the executing Member State. This is not in line with the 
Framework Decision which allows refusal only 
where there is amnesty in the Executing Member State. This may have an impact the EAW system since it may result in IE always requiring this additional information, which was not foreseen in 
the EAW form. While it is to be hoped that a member state would 
not issue an EAW in respect of a subject where an amnesty exists, Irish legislation allows for the possibility in order to protect the rights of the 
subject. However, in the c. 5 years operation of 
the Act, Ireland has never requested information on whether or not an amnesty is in operation in the issuing member state. This provision therefore has no practical effect on the operation of the 
EAW.  
IE requires an additional guarantee that the person be notified of the time and place of any 
retrial in respect of the offence concerned if such a retrial was to take place and that in such cases, he or she will be permitted to be present  
IE does not impose the condition of Art 5(3) FD. 
The Commission has been  informed that 
provisions to enable IE to give the guarantee 
required by 5(3) are being included in a Criminal 
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which should be published by the end of 2007. This is still a difficult issue as for those above listed countries, the return of own nationals is regulated by the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act which 
places the right of initiative exclusively on the 
requested person (save for the cases of mental incapacity). Indeed the Minister may not compel such a person to return to any particular Member State to continue serving a sentence. Given this, 
the Irish authorities, for example, cannot give any 
undertaking, should one be required by the executing Member state pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision. A requested person, being a national of the executing Member State 
requiring such an undertaking is therefore in the 
position to render null and void the efforts of both The European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 has been 
amended to provide that, where surrender is subject to the condition that the person be 
returned to the executi ng state to serve any 
sentence imposed in the issuing state, and where the person consents to his return, the Minister will issue a warrant for the transfer of that person to the executing state following final determination of the proceedings. (section 20(b) of the Criminal 
Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009.)  
Ireland, therefore, no longer relies on the Transfer 
of Sentenced Persons regime and can offer a guarantee on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. 
 
EN 102   EN states to have him or her surrendered. 
IE has amended its domestic law with effect from 
March 8th 2005 so that it now complies with the provisions of Article 7. However the Irish 
Supreme Court in the Rodnov Case decided on 
the 1st June 2005 held that the Central Authority should ensure that there is clarity before the warrant is brought before the High Court. The Commission believes that the role played by the 
Central authority in the pre-endorsement 
procedures, though one to perfect the application for the benefit of the ultimate surrender is clearly outside the scope of the Framework Decision which attributes this role to the judicial authorities. See response to recommendation 6 
IE has imposed a certification or pre-endorsement 
stage for a EAW to be valid. This supplementary 
formality is to be complied with by the central 
authority, which, in practice often acts as an executive authority. 
 All warrants are endorsed solely by the High Court. The Central Authority arranges for the 
submission of the warrant to the High Court. 
Art 15.1 FD: IE asks for additional info on a 
systematic basis. This is not the case. At present, Ireland asks for 
additional information only in cases where the form is inadequately completed. 
Further information may also be requested when 
the High Court Judge requires it 
IE has fully transposed the 10 day deadline in paragraph 2 for the taking of the decision 
following consent. However, at the pre-endorsement stage, the central authority is not bound by any time limit. As a consequence, the average time between receipt of the EAW and 
endorsement in IE is 88 days. Given this 
additional delay, it seems that IE will hardly be in a position to comply with the Framework Decision. The current average time between receipt of an 
EAW and its endorsement is 14 days . 
Article 23 – Time limits for the surrender of the 
person In relation to the period between the making of the surrender decision and its 
execution in normal circumstances, as a principle 
in IE, the effective surrender after the final decision will only take effect upon the expiration of an additional 10 day deadline. IE has never-theless amended its legislation, which now provides surrender may take place earlier than the 
additional deadline for its execution only if the 
person so requests and the Court agrees. Although closer to article 23(2), this provision is still not fully in line with the FD.  
 
EN 103   EN Article 27 – Possible prosecution for other 
offences IE has not explicitly transposed 
exception g). Initially consent could only be 
provided by the central authority contrary to article 27(3)(g) and 27(4) of the Framework Decision. IE has stated that they have amended their legislation to vest the powers to give consent in the judicial authority. 
The provisions on requests for consent under 
article 27(4) have not been transposed Under S 22.7 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 
2003, as amended, the High Court may consent to 
proceedings being brought in the issuing state for 
offences for which the subject was not surrendered upon receipt of a written request. (27(3)(g)  
In relation to Article 27. 4 amending legislation is 
currently being considered. However, the Irish 
Court has issued requests for consent to executing 
states based on the current EAW legislation read in conjunction with the Framework Decision. 
 
 
EN 104   EN 14. ITALY 
Recommendations EAW report 23-2-2009 
(5832/2/09 REV 2 CRIMORG 19)  Follow up report 21-9-09 
New developments No amendments  to the relevant legislation 
since 01-04-2007. 
A practical guide for practitioners has been 
issued  
1 – Examine the possibility of increasing measures to promote training, for judges, prosecutors and judicial staff, in languages other than Italian, in particular in those languages that can assist in making direct contact with competent authorities in other Member 
States and that can facilitate the members of the 
judiciary and of the MoJ to attend seminars in other Member States and participate in exchanges [see 7.1.2.2.]  
2 – Examine the possibility of bringing the thresholds 
for issuing an EAW closer to those set out in Article 2 of the Framework Decision, in particular as regards 
conviction cases [see 7.2.1.1.]  
3 – Envisage making more use of Article 95 alerts 
when the whereabouts of the requested person are 
unknown and there are not yet "solid indications" that the requested person is in one of the (other) Member States [see 7.2.1.3.]  
4 – Consider, in the situation where more than one 
EAW has been issued in respect of the same person, mentioning the existence of the other EAWs on the 
M form [see 7.2.1.4.]   
5 – Envisage installing a national register of EAWs 
on which, if possible, national arrest warrants and 
other international arrest warrants are also entered [see 7.2.1.6.]  
6 – Ensure that the competent authorities keep 
SIRENE informed of any changes (revision, withdrawal, etc.) regarding EAWs that have been issued by Italian issuing authorities [7.2.1.7.]  
7 – Monitor the situation of providing guarantees in 
respect of "in absentia" j udgments; make sure that 
appropriate guarantees can be provided in good time 
[see 7.2.1.8.].  
8 – Ensure that existing SIS alerts based on  
 
EN 105   EN International Arrest Warrants and (where 
appropriate) Interpol alerts based on EAW's are 
replaced with (Article 95) SIS alerts based on EAW's 
[see 7.2.1.11.] 
9 – Limit the grounds for refusal to those set out in the Framework Decision, and hence delete Article 18(1)(b), (c), (e), (f), (g), (s), (t), (u) and (v) of Law 69/2005 [see 7.3.2.1. (a)]  
10 – Consider deleting Article 7(2), second sentence, 
of Law 69/2005 [see 7.3.2.1.(b)]  
11 – Consider deleting Artic le 18(1)(a) and (d) and 
Article 18(1)(h) of Law 69/2005 [see 7.3.2.1.(c)]  
12 – In Law 69/2005, consider the conversion into 
optional grounds for refusal of those grounds for refusal that are based on Article 4 of the Framework 
Decision [see 7.3.2.1.(d)]  
13 – Delete Article 6(3), (4), (5) and (6) of Law 
69/2005 [see 7.3.2.2.]  
14 – In conformity with the developments in the 
case-law of the Court of Cassation, bring Article 17(4) of Law 69/2005, regarding the verification of guilt, in line with the Framework Decision [see 7.3.2.3.]  
15 – Align the wording of the list of offences in 
Article 8(1) of Law 69/2005  with the description of 
the categories of offences set out in Article 2(2) of 
the Framework Decision [see 7.3.2.4.(a)]  
16 – Consider deleting Ar ticle 8(3) of Law 69/2005 
[see 7.3.2.4.(b)]   
17 – Consider the deletion of Article 7(3), second 
sentence, as well as of 4 words in the heading of Article 8(1) of Law 69/2005 ("escluse le eventuali aggravanti" – "excluding any aggravating circumstances") [see 7.3.2.5.]  
18 – In conformity with developments in the case law 
of the Court of Cassation, consider modifying Article 1(3) of Law 69/2005 in order to bring it in line with 
the Framework Decision [see 7.3.2.6.]  
19 – Bring Article 2(2) in line with the Framework 
Decision, so that it only refers to the guarantees that can be requested by Italian executing authorities under the Framework Decision [see 7.3.2.7.]  
 
EN 106   EN 20 – Consider the deletion of the possibility of appeal 
in consent cases in Law 69/2005 [see 7.3.2.8.]  
21 – Inform Eurojust in a case of a breach of the 90-
day period for execution of an EAW, in conformity 
with Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision; 
consider involving Eurojust more to facilitate contacts with competent authorities in other Member States [see 7.3.2.11.]  
Recommendation 22 – Consider bringing Article 40 
of Law 69/2005 in line with Articles 31 and 32 of the Framework Decision [see 7.3.2.12.]  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility No  
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 24 hours  
Proportionality test  Yes, only very serious cases  
Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender   
Flagging Sirene bureau 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property  
Principle of direct contacts Important role of central authority  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes and 13  
 
EN 107   EN Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back  
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  
Statistics  No  
Website Yes, extensive guidelines and publication of 
overviews of relevant case law 
Jurisdiction ECJ yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  The Constitutional Court (decision 143/2008) has ruled unconstitutional the provision that the time of 
deprivation of liberty related to the execution of  an EAW in another Member State is not deducted 
from the statutory limit of pre trial detention.  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
Article 1 and recitals 12 and 13 FD: IT has 
transposed the text into its legislation in such a 
way that it goes beyond the Framework Decision 
and therefore creates the risk that a EAW will be refused on the basis of grounds not envisaged in the Framework Decision.  
In addition the law requires refusal where 
surrender would breach its national constitution. 
Although this may cover s ituations arising under 
both Article 6 TEU and Recital 12 (such as rules on due process), it nevertheless goes beyond the Framework Decision, in particular as Art 6 TEU refers only to those constitutional principles 
common to Member States  
In IT, aggravating circumstances are excluded 
when calculating the 12 month threshold. 
Moreover, where a EAW is issued by IT for execution, the legislation does not refer to the 4 month threshold referred to in the Framework  
 
EN 108   EN Decision 
IT legislation disregards the list contained in 
Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision and replaces it with its own list of corresponding 
offences found in national criminal law. The 
consequence is that IT legislation reintroduces the principle of a control of dual criminality.  
In IT aggravating circumstances are excluded 
from the calculation of the 3 year limit in Article 2(2) FD  
IT refuses the EAW on a series of grounds which 
appear contrary to the Framework Decision. For example, an executing authority in IT may refuse 
to execute a EAW Some of those additional grounds for refusal are 
softened by case law of the Cassation Court 
IT has transposed Art 4(1) but has made it subject 
to an additional cond ition of assimilation by 
analogy to Italian tax offences, for which the maximum penalty is at least three years. This appears contrary to the Framework Decision.  
In relation to Article 5(1) IT law does not provide 
for a possibility to retrial in cases where the requested person has not taken part in the 
proceedings which may in practice be a serious 
issue.   
IT may require an additional guarantee in respect 
of fundamental rights or Italian constitutional principles on guarantee, which might be contrary to the Framework Decision.  
The legislation provides that the EAW shall be 
accompanied by additional documents. These include: a copy of the applicable provisions; the 
initial decision of the issuing judicial authority on 
which the EAW is based; information regarding the sources of evidence; all personal identification data available; and, any other documents considered necessary according to the Italian issuing judicial authority to verify all additional 
grounds for refusal. This provision is mitigated by case law from the 
Cassation Court in 2006 (no report on the offences necessary if the EAW form is sufficient), 
2007 (absence of information relating to the 
identity and nationality of the requested person should not impede surrender if this information can be ascertained by other information by the issuing state) and 2008 ( texts of the applicable legislation is only necessary if there are specific 
problems of interpretation, which require 
knowledge of the scope of the law of the issuing state, e.g. in order to verify dual criminality) 
  
Art 25 FD: It has no provisions for transit by air  
IT has not transposed Article 28(4) as issuing Member State  
 
EN 109   EN 15. LATVIA  
Recommendations EAW report 12-12-2008 
(17220/1/08 REV 1 CRIMORG 213)  Follow up report 30-7-09 and 04-08-2010 
 Amendments to the law on 29 July 2008, 1 
and 9 July 2009 and 21 October 2010. 
1.- Consider regrouping in different sections or chapters the provisions concerning extradition and 
those governing surrender on the basis of an EAW 
(see 7.1.2). The special working party on the Criminal 
Procedure Law (CPL) considered the 
recommendation. 
However, due to the structure of the CPL, 
diving international cooperation into subject matters, not countries with which Latvia cooperates, as well as to avoid duplication of 
norms, the working party decided not to group 
the sections.
  
2.- Take the necessary measures to promote direct contacts between the issuing judicial authorities in Latvia and their foreign counterparts (see 7.1.4). Direct cooperation is permitted in accordance 
with CPL Article 675 
3.- Improve current training programmes to ensure that adequate training on EAWs and on basic foreign legal language is provided to all judicial authorities involved in the issuing process, and adopt measures 
to promote the training of defence lawyers on EAW-
related matters (see chapter 5). With assistance of Norwegian authorities the 
Ministry of Justice organized two seminars with participation of EU lectors: 
“Principle of double criminality and the 
principle of mutual recognition in the field of 
cooperation in criminal matters in the EU” January, 2009;  
„Application of fundamental human rights in 
criminal procedure, practical application of European Arrest Warrant and European 
Evidence Warrant” August, 2009. 
The seminar was organized for judges, 
prosecutors and defence lawyers.  
Moreover, in the year 2008 the Latvian 
Training center for judges organised number 
of lectures: 
EU Law: internati onal cooperation in 
criminal matters; Application of European arrest;  
European Arrest Warrant;  Completion of the forms on international 
cooperation via internet;  
 
EN 110   EN  
In year 2009 there were also number of 
lectures for judges: 
Novelties in internat ional cooperation in 
criminal matters;  
International cooperation in criminal 
matters for new judges;  
Novelties in internat ional cooperation in 
criminal matters and applicability of European Arrest Warrant.  
 
In year 2010 there are planned to be two 
lectures on international cooperation in criminal matters (search and seizure); and applicability of European Arrest Warrant. 
 
In year 2011 there is a plan to organise lecture 
on international cooperation in criminal matters.
  
4.- Produce written guidelines with the involvement of practitioners providing  updated and practical 
guidance to assist judicial authorities in completing the EAW form, and take the necessary measures for 
their appropriate dissemination (see 7.2.1.1). The EAW handbook, which was produced by 
the Council, was disseminated to all the judges.  
5.- Take the necessary measures to ensure that during 
the pre-trial investigation EAWs are requested only 
following approval by the public prosecutor (see 7.2.1.2). Pursuant to legislation adopted on 11 October 
2010 (entering into force on 1 January 2011), 
the Prosecutor General's Office will be the competent authority in respect of the issue of EAW decisions not the courts. 
6.- Amend the implementing law to fill the current gap as regards the transposition of Article 29(4) of the Framework Decision (see 7.2.1.4).  
7.- Identify indicators to facilitate the decision on 
issuing an EAW in terms of proportionality (see 
7.2.2.1). Article 682 part 3 of the CPL provides 
indicators to facilitate the decision on issuing 
an EAW in terms of proportionality. 
8.- Amend the implementing law to bring it into line with Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision as 
regards the undertaking to execute the sentence passed in the issuing State in accordance with domestic law (see 7.3.1.1). Amendment of 11 June 2009 to the law (art 
777(4) CCP: the execution of a sentence 
"shall be possible' if extradition of a Latvian citizen for the execution of a sentence imposed in another EU Member State has 
 
EN 111   EN been refused) 
9.- Re-examine transpositi on into national law with 
regard to Article 2(4) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.2).  Amendment of 11 June 2009 to the law (art 
696(2) CCP: the dual criminality rule is applied "unless an international treaty has 
specified otherwise"  
10.- Consider introducing in the transposing legislation more detailed provisions on the procedure 
for the examination of the EAW and the adoption of the corresponding decision on surrender (see 7.3.1.3). The practice shows that Article 714-716 of the 
CPL considered to be sufficient for authorities 
to examine the EAW an d the adoption of the 
corresponding decision on surrender.  
Additionally, the competent authority – the 
Prosecutor General’s Office in the near future 
will adopt internal regulatory enactment, 
providing guidance.  
11.- Reconsider the current practice of adding restrictive validity flags to SIS alerts without prior consultation of the Prosecutor General's Office (see 7.3.1.4). The competent authority – the Prosecutor 
General’s Office in the near future will adopt 
internal regulatory enactment, providing further guidance.  
12.- Supplement the implementing law to fill the current gap as regards the transposition of Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.5). 
(inform Eurojust in case of breaching time limits)  
13.- Supplement the implementing law to fill the 
current gap as regards the transposition of Article 
16(1) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.6). Article 716, part 3 CPL regulates the criteria 
for evaluating competing requests, namely – 
several extradition requests, as well as several EAWs.  
14.- Supplement the implementing law to fill the current gap as regards the transposition of Article 20(2) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.7)1. 1 According to the information provided by the Latvian 
authorities, action already taken. See chapter 2.2 and 
footnote in chapter 7.3.1.7 above. Amendment of 29 June 2008 to the law (art 
715(4) CCP 
15.- Re-examine the transposition of Article 25 of the Framework Decision into national law as regards the transit of Latvian nationals in prosecution cases (see 7.3.1.8).  
16.- Re-examine the transposition of Article 29(2) of 
the Framework Decision into  national law as regards 
the handover of property acquired as a result of the 
offence (see 7.3.1.9). Amendment of 11 June 2009 to the law (art 
722(2) CCP 
17.- Produce the "Fiche Francaise" on Latvia and 
forward it for publication on the Council's website 
(see 7.3.1.10).  
 
 
EN 112   EN General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Latvian and English, also for additional 
information 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 72 hours 
Proportionality test  Yes. The le gal provision relates to a match 
between the seriousness or nature of the offence and the expenses of the surrender 
procedure. In practice also consideration is 
given to the circumstances of the case, the personality of the offender and the harm to the individual. There are, however no specific indicators or guidelines. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)
 LV does not provide state paid legal 
assistance for person whom LV seeks and that person is arrested in EU MS on the basis of 
EAW.  
For the EAW proceedings in LV, LV ensures 
state paid legal assistance for a person whom EU MS is seeking and that person is arrested in LV.  
Accessory surrender  Yes  
Flagging Sirene with a dvice from the General 
Prosecutors office where appropriate 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests Data State Inspectorate 
Seizure and handover of property Yes, howev er, Article 29(4) of the FD has not 
been implemented 
Principle of direct contacts The Prosecutor General's office plays a major 
role 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement  Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back 1983 CoE convention 
 
EN 113   EN 24/7 rota? Yes  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No 
Age of criminal liability  14  
Statistics 2007 and 2008: yes 
Website  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
Art 4(6): In LV this is a mandatory ground (for 
nationals) but there is no provision in the legislation requiring an undertaking to execute the sentence. see follow up recommendation 8 
LV has not provided for th e inclusion of aliases in 
its form unlike in the form in the annex to the 
Framework Decision. The form has been changed and contains now a 
possibility to include aliases 
Art 16 LV has only transposed paragraph 3. LV 
does not have legislation in particular in relation 
to competing requests between Member States. 
Though it has stated that in practice this issue is 
dealt with by the Prosecutor General’s office, this is not in line with the Framework Decision. See follow-up recommendation 13 
LV has transposed correctly only article 24(1), 
and does not provide for temporary surrender 
pursuant to article 24(2) Amendments of 29-6-2008 to the law ( Article 
688 and 721) allow now for temporary surrender 
Art 27(3)LV has not transposed exception b) c) 
and d)..  Exception b – is provided in Article 695(1) of 
CCP; exception c – is provided in Article 695(2) 
of CCP. 
The provisions on requests for consent under article 27(4) have not been transposed;  Amendment of 11-6-2009 to article 695 fills the 
gap 
Article 28(2) only partly implemented and Article 
28(3) not transposed Amendment of 11-6-2009 to article 695 fills the 
gap 
Article 29 not transposed paragraph 4 on rights acquired in the property  See above  
 
EN 114   EN 16. LITHUANIA  
Recommendations EAW report 13-11-2007 
(12399/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 134)  Follow up report 5-8-2009 and 29-06-2010 
New developments  Since 1 April 2007, Lithuania has made 
several amendments to the law relating to the implementation of the European arrest 
warrant in Lithuania. In particular, 
Article 70(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania has been amended by Law No X-1236 of 28 June 2008. 
These amendments relate to consent of the 
executing state to re-extradition or surrender 
of a person from LT to a third state (see below) and the competence of regional or district courts to decide on issues relating to detention in EAW cases .  
Lithuania has taken into account the recom-
mendations and conclusions it received during 
the assessment of the implementation of the European arrest warrant. Therefore, increased consideration is being given to improving the process of issuing and executing the European 
arrest warrant, and legal and practical 
measures designed to solve any related problems are under development.  
1 ─ That Lithuania, in the light notably of Article 
6(1) of the FD, should reconsider its legal system by entrusting a judicial authority with the power to issue EAWs in conviction matters. The initiative by 
Lithuania to allow the courts to issue EAWs in the 
future should be welcomed (see 7.2.1.1.).  
2 ─ To give consideration to the improvement of 
coordination within the prosecution service and between the OPG, MOJ and ILO with a view to enhancing the efficiency of the EAW system in Lithuania (see 7.2.1.2.).  
3 ─ To provide the prosecution with up-to-date 
communication and database equipment (computers, 
adequate software) so as to enable it to carry out 
quick and efficient database searches and exchange information with other EAW actors (MOJ, ILO) more easily (see 7.2.1.3.).  
4 ─ To ensure the availability of reliable statistical 
information on EAW matters at national level (see 7.2.1.4.). LT has provided statistics for 2007, 2008 and 
2009 
 
EN 115   EN 5 ─ To ensure that the OPG acts in conformity with 
the wording of Article 73(1) of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, leaving the decision on the execution of 
an EAW entirely in the hands of the competent judicial authority (which is currently Vilnius Regional Court), or alternatively, modify the law or provide other adequate legal solutions so as to clearly 
determine the powers of the OPG and Vilnius 
Regional Court when acting as the executing 
authority (see 7.3.1.1.).  
6 ─ To reconsider the notification to the Council 
General Secretariat under Article 6(3), in conjunction with Article 6(2), of the FD, and designate also Vilnius Regional Court as the executing judicial authority (see 7.3.1.2.). Lithuania has provided the modified 
notification pursuant to the provisions of the FD on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States of the European Union, under Article 6 
(3), in conjunction with Article 6 (2), 
designating as the executing judicial  authority 
in Lithuania Vilnius County Court. The Office of the Prosecutor General is competent authority to receive EAW’s ( letter sent to the 
Permanent Representation of Lithuania to the 
European Union on 5 September 2008 ) 
7 ─ To reconsider Article 73(4) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, so th at judges are allowed to 
directly enter into contact with judicial authorities in other Member States with a view to obtaining additional information, without having to go through 
the OPG as an intermediary 
(see 7.3.1.3).  
8 ─ To reconsider at the appropriate level the 
necessity of the ground for refusal relating to on "human rights" as provided for in Article 91(3)(1) of the Criminal Code (see 7.3.1.4.). Not changed 
9 ─ That domestic legislation be put in place to 
permit surrendered persons to cross Lithuanian borders without international travel documents (see 7.2.1.5.)  
10 ─ To provide, or continue to provide, appropriate 
training to all authorities involved in EAW matters, 
in particular judges (see 7.3.1.5.).  
11 ─ To reconsider the wording of Article 73(5) of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure of Lithuania in the light of Article 16(1) of the FD (see 7.3.1.7.).  
 
General information   
 
EN 116   EN General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility Lithuanian or English (for initiating 
procedure)  
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 48 hrs 
Proportionality test  Lithuania has made amendments to the 
law relating to the implementation of the European arrest warrant in Lithuania. In particular, the Rules for issuing EAW and taking over of persons pursuant the EAW has been amended by the Order of the Minister of Justice a nd Prosecutor General 
of the Republic of Lithuania No. 1R-312/I-140 of 7 October 2009. 
These amendments relate to proportionality 
check in EAW cases (criteria to apply when issuing an EAW -principle of proportionality) . 
Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state. 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)? Lithuania, as an issuing State, does not 
guarantee free legal assistance to a person 
arrested in another State under a European 
arrest warrant issued in Lithuania, since in this case the person is not under the juris-diction of Lithuania and the process of executing the European arrest warrant is carried out under the law of the executing 
State. However, the person has the right to 
contact a legal counsel in Lithuania if she/he has appointed one. 
Accessory surrender Executing: yes 
Flagging   
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property Yes 
Principle of direct contacts Via th e office of the Prosecutor General 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement Cf FD 
 
EN 117   EN Regime for transfer back 1983 CoE Convention 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  16 yrs; 14 yrs for specific serious offences 
Statistics Yes, 2007, 2008 and 2009 
Website  Handbook for issuing EAW's 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
In LT, the Criminal Code provides for a 
mandatory ground for refusal in the case where "the surrender of the person would be in breach of fundamental rights and (or) liberty". The 
Commission has been advised that this ground of 
refusal may go beyond the provisions contained in the Framework Decision. Moreover, where a ground of refusal is to be applied, the Office of the Prosecutor general can directly stop the proceedings without asking for further evaluation 
by the judge of the ground of refusal.  
LT has indicated that an EAW for enforcement of 
a sentence is issued by the Ministry of Justice but 
only at the request of the judicial authority or the authority executing the sentence, that is the relevant prison department which is, however, under the under the control of the Ministry of 
Justice . The Ministry of Justice is not a judicial 
authority, but rather part of the executive. In particular, in the case the issuing of a EAW is asked by the prison department, there is no involvement at all of the judiciary. As to the Office of the Prosecutor General, it is considered 
as judicial authority in LT because the related 
provision is inserted in Chapter 9 of its Constitution entitled "The Court" of the judicial Procedure. Hence, there is no strong support to the argument that the Office of the Prosecutor 
General is a judicial authority in LT. Again, the  
 
EN 118   EN Framework Decision states that an EAW must be 
issued or executed by a judicial authority and as a 
consequence LT's implemen tation of Article 6 is 
contrary to the Framework Decision. 
LT has not transposed Article 27, exception c  
LT has not transposed Article 27, exception d   
LT has incorrectly implemented article 28(4) as they have allowed the possibility for subsequent 
extradition to a third state without the permission 
of the original executing Member State contrary to the Framework Decision. LT has, however, confirmed this was unintentional and that they intend to rectify the problem. Amended legislation:: "A person extradited or 
surrendered by a foreign State may be re-
extradited or surrendered to a third State for a 
criminal act for which he was previously sur-rendered or extradited, or any other criminal act which was committed prior to his extradition or surrender, only when the State which has 
surrendered or extradited the person in question 
gives its consent. If a person was surrendered to the Republic of Lithuania under the European arrest warrant, the same person may be surrendered to another Member State for criminal 
acts committed prior to his surrender in the cases 
provided for in points 2-4 of Part 1 of this Article.
" 
 
 
EN 119   EN 17. LUXEMBURG  
Recommendations EAW report 19-11-2007 
(10086/1/07 REV 1 CRIMORG 101)  Follow up report 10-8-2009 and 04-08-2010 
New developments  There have b een no legislative changes since 
01-04-2007.  
However as at 04-08-2010, a bill amending 
the Luxemburg implementing legislation (Law of the 17 March 2004 on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States) has been drafted and 
is currently going through the legislative 
process. This proposed legislation addresses a number of the evaluation report recommendations 
1 - Amend Article 37 of the law of 17 March 2004 to comply with Article 32 of the Framework Decision as an issuing State (see 7.2.1.1). 
 An amendment proposed in the draft bill will 
address this issue 
2 - Ensure coordination and regular contacts between 
the Sirene Bureau and the issuing judicial authorities 
in Luxembourg, to harmonise drafting methods for SIS forms relating to EAWs issued in Luxembourg (see 7.2.1.2). 
 A 'circulaire' issued by the judicial authorities 
gives guidance through the different steps of 
proceeding in executing EAWs  
3 - At national level, clarify the provision on temporary surrender, particularly as regards the valid grounds for detention during temporary surrender 
(see 7.2.1.5). LU.= issuing authority : In case of temporary 
surrender to the authorities of LU, the ground for detention is the international arrest warrant 
issued by the judge ("juge d'instruction") LU, 
which is the basis for the EAW. This warrant is served to the requested person at the moment of his surrender and corresponds to an arrest order, serving as a basis for 
detention. (Art. 103 CIC).  
 
4 - Make use of the possibility offered by the EAW 
form (heading (g)) as regard s the seizure and handing 
over of property held by the wanted person (see 7.2.1.7). 
  
5 - Amend Article 37 of the law of 17 March 2004 to 
comply with Article 32 of the Framework Decision See response to 1 above 
 
EN 120   EN as an executing State (see 7.3.1.1). 
 
6 - Consider a legislative amendment concerning 
arrangements for the receipt of EAWs (acceptance of 
the EAW in forms other than the original or a 
certified true copy of the original) when arrest is carried out on the basis of a SIS alert (see 7.3.1.2). 
 An amendment proposed in the draft bill will 
address this issue 
7 - Look in depth at the issue of extending the principle of mutual recognition as regards the limits which the executing authority should respect when 
examining an EAW. Specific training on this subject 
could be planned (see 7.3.1.3). The LU executing author ity, when examining 
the transmitted EAW, cannot go beyond the conditions set out in the law and in the FD. In 
this context the request for additional 
information in order to clarify occurring contradictions (in the adequacy of legal qualifications compared to the facts) is admissible.  
8 - Make clear whether the law on judicial supervision is applicable in EAW cases (see 7.3.1.6).  If conditional release can be applied with real 
guarantees against the escape from surrender, 
such a release with judicial supervision is 
perfectly possible even without express provision in the law.  
 
9 - Consider amending Article 10(4) of the law of 17 
March 2004 and organise prio r consultation on this 
subject with the two other Benelux States (see 7.3.1.7). An amendment proposed in the draft bill will 
address this issue 
10 - Consider amending the law of 17 March 2004 as 
regards the transposition of Article 17(7) of the 
Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.8). An amendment proposed in the draft bill will 
address this issue 
11 - Consider the possibility of transposing Article 
16(2) of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.9). 
 This does not need to be inserted into the 
provisions of the law but can simply result from an internal instruction 
12 - Consider the possibility of organising training sessions on the EAW for all practitioners (see 7.3.1.10). 
  
13 - Consider the possibility of allowing the police to 
have access to the social security database and the tax 
administration database (see 7.3.1.11). The access has been allowed by the law of 5 
June 2009, entitled "Loi du 5.6.2009 relative à 
l’accès des autorités judiciaires, de la Police et 
de l’Inspection générale de la Police à certains traitements de données à caractère personnel". 
 
EN 121   EN  
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009 
  
Language flexibility French, German or English 
 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 24 hours 
 
Proportionality test  Yes, person absconded or living outside LU, 
minimum penalty of 6 months imprisonment imposed or to be expected  
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 1) LU issuing state: If requested, LU has no 
problem in agreeing to a contact with a LU lawyer; the question of cost: free consultation is governed by the rules on judicial assistance-conditions concerning the financial situation 
of the requesting person are applicable. 
 2) No 
Accessory surrender In case of two or more infringements, from 
which one (or more) does not satisfy the 
conditions of applicability of the EAW, Art. 
60 and 61 CP allows including all of them in one EAW, as the sanction to be applied will be that which is for eseen for the infringement 
which meets the criteria of the EAW; this 
sanction can be than doubled, but cannot 
exceed the sum of the sanctions defined for the different infringements.  
Flagging Decision of the Prosecutor 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests?  
Seizure and handover of property In practice on the basis of separate MLA 
request 
Principle of direct contacts Yes. No central authority, except for requests 
 
EN 122   EN for transit  
Integration of Recital 12 in implementation law  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes 
4 months requirement Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back Article 20 of the Law of 22 March 2004 
mentions the conditions of the Law of 25 April 2003 concerning the transfer of convicted persons (law approving the additional Protocol of 18.12.1997 to the 
European Convention of 25.05.1987 
concerning transfer). 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Yes, subject to the condition that the 
competent Luxembourg authority commits to 
execute the sentence in compliance with Luxembourg law (as this is not a mandatory refusal case, there might possibly be surrender rather than refusal). 
 
Age of criminal liability  18 yrs; in serious cases surrender of minors 
between 16-18 yrs possible 
Statistics  Yes, 2007 and 2008: 
Website JUMAR IT system for judicial authorities 
includes info and forms relating to EAW 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions : - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007 
  
Reporting breaches to the deadlines, LU makes 
no mention in legislation of this requirement, 
however it does not see any obstacle in doing so. EAW evaluation: in LU breaches of time limits 
have not occurred in 2006, 2007 and 2008. An 
amendment proposed in the draft bill will address 
this issue 
The legislation of LU provides for a hearing only, not for a temporary transfer, as is possible under Art 18 and 19 FD (Evaluation report: due to lack of title for detention during the temporary surrender to LU). LU can temporary surrender a See above (recommendation 3) 
 
EN 123   EN person to another MS. 
ART 32: LU did not make any statement at the 
time of the adoption of the Framework Decision (JO L 190 of 18.7.2002, p. 19). The transitional 
provision is applicable where LU is both the 
issuing and executing Member State contrary to the Framework Decision. This means that LU will not apply surrender arrangements to EAWs issued by other Member States for offences before 7 
August 2002 but they will not, in addition, be 
able to issue EAWs fo r offences committed prior 
to that date. Contrary to the Framework Decision, requests for offences committed prior to 7 August 2002 will be treated by LU under previous extra-dition arrangements. An amendment proposed in the draft bill will 
address this issue 
 
 
EN 124   EN 18. MALTA 
Recommendations EAW report 19-6-2008 
(9617/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 75)  Follow up report 21-7-2009 
 No further legislative measure adopted since 1 
April 2007. 
Guidelines for the police on issuing and 
executing EAWs have been produced.  
1 - It is recommended that the Maltese authorities take care to ensure, in accordance with the current 
practice, that the execution of EAW and SIS alerts and the consequent arrest of persons is not delayed 
because of the certification by the AG (see 7.3.1.1).  
2 - Adopt a flexible approach in those cases of 
provisional arrest, where a SIS alert has not been 
issued, as regards the 48 hour time-limit for receiving 
a translated EAW: the discharge of the person solely because of the lack of a translated EAW should be avoided. The receipt of an EAW in the language of the issuing State should be taken into consideration to 
avoid jeopardizing the execution procedure and every 
attempt should be made to obtain the information required by the law within 48 hours by other means (direct contacts with issuing authorities, recourse to Eurojust), while respecting the defendant's rights (see 7.3.1.3).  
3 - Envisage addressing the issue of grounds for non-
recognition in the light of the spirit of mutual 
recognition and mutual trust in order to have a 
position closely in line with the Framework Decision. In particular, consider amending the implementing 
legislation as regards the transposition of Article 4.7(a) of the Framework Decision, so as to make it an 
optional ground for refusal (see 7.3.1.4). 
'extraneous considerations' and 'prescription'   
4 - Consider the possibility, at least in cases where 
there are manifest and objective grounds for refusal, of anticipating the Magistrate's intervention to raise the invalidity of the EAW's request with a view to avoiding the arrest. An amendment to the 
implementing law should be envisaged (see 7.3.1.5).  
5 - Consider measures to prevent domestic national 
appeals before the Constitutional Court from 
hindering the surrender of requested persons within the time-limits provided for by the Framework  
 
EN 125   EN Decision (see 7.3.1.6). 
6 - Consider amending the implementing law as 
regards the transposition of Article 17(7) of the Framework Decision, so as to bring domestic law in 
line with current practice (see 7.3.1.7).  
7 - Prevent the absence/unavailability of one of the 
specialised officials dealing with EAW from 
hampering the execution of EAWs. In particular, the involvement and training of one or more Magistrates and prosecutors in the AG's office should be envisaged (see 7.3.1.10).  
8 - Update the Fiche Francaise in accordance with the 
latest amendments to the implementing legislation 
(see general conclusions).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Maltese and English 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 48 hours 
Proportionality test  Person must be 'unlawfully at large'.  
In practice only for serious offenses. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (1) 
(2) no 
Accessory surrender  
Flagging no 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property yes 
 
EN 126   EN Principle of direct contacts Yes 
Integration of recital 12 in implemen tation law Yes (non exhaustive), and 13 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity yes 
4 months requirement Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back Based on Framework Decision on the EAW 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  9 yrs, adapted regime for minors from 9-14 
and 14-18 years 
Statistics  2007:yes 
Website Forms and guidelines on the practical 
application are electronically available 
Competence ECJ  Yes  
 
Case law/preliminary questions: -  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
The Attorney General in MT is required to 
transmit and certify EAWs (in particular that the incoming request has come from an authority having the function of issuing arrest warrants in the requesting country), renunciations to the speciality rule, consents to further surrender to a 
third Member State and consents to further 
extradition to a third country. The Attorney General is also in charge of consenting to the issue of a EAW and lodging an appeal in respect of a person. Given the attributions of the Attorney 
General which are of an administrative nature as 
well as of a judicial nature, the Commission believes that MT has not properly transposed the Framework Decision.  
No deadline is provided for making the decision 
following the highest appeal (the MT Court of Criminal Appeal). Thus both the 60 and 90 day 
deadlines could in principle be exceeded.  
 
EN 127   EN No obligation in The law to report breaches of 
time limits to Eurojust. Breaches of time limits are reported to Eurojust as 
a matter of good practice 
Article 21 – Competing in ternational obligations 
MT legislation is contrary to this article. 
MT has provided that where there is a speciality 
condition imposed by a third state this constitutes a mandatory ground for refusal. In addition there is no provision to request the consent of the third state. However MT has informed the Commission 
that in practice, MT will always ask for a third 
state's consent. This may not be in line with the Framework Decision since refusal should only be possible once it is established that consent has not been given.  
In relation to Article 23(2) MT has gone beyond 
the Framework Decision in its implementing law in specifying that the surrender is not allowed 
before 7 days from the arrest.  
MT has in transposing Article 23(4) allowed for 
discharge of the person as an alternative to postponement. The grounds for discharge (where it would be "unjust or oppressive" to extradite the 
person) are vague to contrast with the Framework Decision. The postponement of the surrender for 
humanitarian reasons is not specifically foreseen 
as it is for the hearin g according to their 
legislation.  
Art 29 MT has not transposed paragraph 4 on 
rights acquired in the property   
 
 
EN 128   EN 19. NETHERLANDS 
Recommendations EAW report 2-12-2008 
(15370/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 185)  Follow up report 31-7-09 
 The relevant law has not been amended since 
1-4-2007. 
1. Update the existing guidelines on the use and completion of the EAW form (Provisional Method of 
Operation) in the light of practice and the experience 
gained (see 7.2.1.1). This has been completed and it will be 
formally adopted in October 2010. 
2. Provide public prosecutors with appropriate training and promote the assisting role of the IRCs with a view to improving the quality of outgoing EAWs (see 7.2.1.2). The Studiecentrum Rechtspleging (national 
training centre for public prosecutors and judges) does provide a mandatory training which addresses amongst others the EAW. 
3. Screen all the existing SIS alerts and take the necessary steps to ensure that all those based on 
International arrest warrants are replaced by SIS 
alerts based on EAWs (see 7.2.1.3). When reviewing a SIS alert periodically this 
issue will be addressed on a case by case basis. The Netherlands considers this to be a 
transitional problem. Most of the SIS alerts 
for extradition from before 2004 will have been withdrawn by now. All SIS alerts after the entry into force of the implementation legislation (12 May 2004) are based on an 
EAW. 
4. Amend the implementing law so that it conforms to the Framework Decision as regards scope in both 
prosecution and conviction cases (see 7.3.1.1). This recommendation addresses an issue that 
would only be of interest for cases concerning 
minor offences, punishable by less than one year. In view of the ongoing discussion in Brussels on the proportionality when issuing an EAW, no change of the Dutch legislation 
has been prepared 
5. Adapt the implementing legislation to facilitate the enforcement in NL of sentences passed against the 
Netherlands nationals, in line with the letter ("undertake to execute") and spirit of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.2). This will be part of the legislation in 
preparation implementing the FD 
2008/900/JHA. 
6. Correct the practice of systematically asking for a copy (with translation) of the full text of the issuing Member State's legislation applicable to the case 
underlying the EAW (see 7.3.1.3). Following the Supreme Court's decision of 8 
July 2008 no longer texts of issuing Member States' applicable provisions are requested. 
 
7. Produce precise written guidelines to assist the 
SIRENE bureau officers when checking incoming 
SIS alerts, with a view to ensuring a consistent policy for flagging cases (see 7.3.1.4). The practice has been changed and a 
consistent policy is ensured. The executing 
judicial authority, the Public prosecutors office in Amsterdam is consulted by the SIRENE office before a flag may be put on a 
 
EN 129   EN SIS alert.  
8. Repeal Article 11 of the implementing law (see 
7.3.1.5). Article 11 will not be repealed. There is no 
legal reason for it. 
9. Consider amending the implementing legislation 
so that there is no automatic link between consent to surrender and renunciation of the entitlement to the 
speciality rule, as a means of promoting the use of the 
abbreviated procedure (see 7.3.1.7). After careful consideration by the prosecutors 
office Amsterdam res ponsible for all the 
incoming EAW, and reviewing the day to day 
practice over a longer period there is no 
evidence to be found that persons do not agree to the simplified procedure because the speciality rule does not apply. Thus there is no longer a reason to change the existing 
legislation. 
Furthermore to give a follow up to this 
recommendation would be contrary to the ideas voiced in Brussels to make more use of the declaration envisaged in article 27 FD EAW. 
10. Supplement the criteria applicable to detention in 
EAW procedures so that detention pending surrender 
may be ordered on grounds other than the risk of absconding with a view not to hampering the proceedings underlying the EAW (see 7.3.1.8). Such change of legislation is still under 
consideration. 
11. Abandon the current practice of requiring the 
original of the EAW or a copy of the EAW with the signature of the issuing authority and signed by an official who is competent within the court or the 
public prosecutor's office to state that the document is 
a copy of the original EAW, as a prerequisite for a court decision on surrender (see 7.3.1.9). This practice is fully compatible with the FD 
EAW thus it will not be  abandoned. However, 
it will be changed once the complete EAW can be entered in the SIS. 
12. Introduce some mechanism for the review of the public prosecutor's decision to refuse an EAW (see 7.3.1.10). This recommendation will not be 
implemented. Nothing in the FD EAW obliges to do so. The recommendation is the outcome of personal considerations of the 
evaluation team. The underlying reasoning of 
the evaluation team that lead to this recommendation is neither based on concrete negative findings nor is it shared by the competent judicial authorities, including the 
court in Amsterdam, or by the government of 
The Netherlands. 
13. Enlarge or reorganise, as felt necessary, the trial capacity of the Amsterdam District Court with a view to ensuring that EAW cases ar e dealt with within the 
time limits of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.11). This has been done 
14. Amend the implementing law so that the fact that 
a decision on surrender has not been issued within the prescribed 90-day time limit does not entail the The advantages and disadvantages of such 
change of legislation are still under 
 
EN 130   EN suspension of the detention pending surrender, and 
exceptions to the general rule are admissible based on 
the circumstances of the case (see 7.3.1.12). consideration. 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Yes, English accepted for EAW and 
additional information 
Time limit for translated EAW The Netherlands accepts EAWs in English 
aswell. 
Provisional arrest  Yes, 22 days 
Proportionality test  Yes, on a case by case basis  
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 1) yes 
2) yes 
Accessory surrender Yes for issuing, not for executing 
Flagging Sirene officials after consultation of the 
executing judicial authority, the Public 
Prosecutor's office in Amsterdam. 
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests  Civil Judge 
Seizure and handover of property Restrict ed to property found in possession of 
the requested person when arrested  
Principle of direct contacts No central authority, direct contact between 
judicial authorities is promoted. 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back Domest ic law, based on the 1983 CoE 
 
EN 131   EN convention 
24/7 rota  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No, see comments recommendation 5 
Age of criminal liability  12 yrs, specific regimes for the categories 
between 12-16 and 16-18 yrs 
Statistics  2007:yes 
Website  Yes  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
- Following the Supreme Court's decision of 8 July  2008 texts of issuing Member States' applicable 
provisions are no longer requested. 
- Wolzenburg (ECJ - C-123/08) 
In relation to a EAW for the purposes of serving a 
custodial sentence legislation require not only that the sentence be for at least 4 months but simultaneously that the related offence be punishable by at least 12 months. This is contrary 
to the Framework Decision. See comments recommendation 4 
NL shall refuse surrender if the Dutch executing 
judicial authority finds that there can be no doubt 
that the requested person is innocent. NL has stated this will only occur “in exceptional cases” and if “it has become crystal clear to the executing judicial authority that the person could 
not have committed the offence”, for instance 
“where the person can immediately prove beyond any doubt that he was being kept in custody at the time of the offence”. Nevertheless the Commission is of the view that making this a ground for refusal is contrary to the Framework 
Decision, since it might require an examination in 
substance of the case, and also contrary to the principle of mutual trust between Member States. The Netherlands will not a bolish this provision. It 
re-iterates that the provision is necessary in the 
rare case where before the surrender of the person it is already clear that the person will be released immediately after the surrender because there is no case against him of he is not the person 
wanted.  
However rare these cases are, they have occurred 
in other Member States such as Belgium and one of the Baltic States. 
Thus this provision is a provision that strengthens 
procedural safeguards of individuals subjected to 
an EAW. 
 
NL has stated that it will not surrender a national 
for the prosecution for an offence that is not an See comments on recommendation 5. 
 
EN 132   EN offence under Dutch law, because it is impossible 
under the relevant treaties and the national law to 
transfer a person where the requirement of double 
criminality has not been met. It does not see a contradiction with the Framework Decision, since the Framework Decision does not regulate return but leaves that to the Member State. Nevertheless it is clear that one of the principal advantages of 
this Framework Decision compared with previous 
extradition arrangements is the removal of the double criminality requirement in relation to the Article 2(2) list of categories of offences. NL's position obviously runs counter to this.  
NL legislation makes no mention of the requirement in case of breach of time limits. In practice Eurojust will be informed. 
In spite of Article 24, in NL, the Ministry of 
Justice rather than the executing judicial authority 
is responsible for postponed or temporary 
surrender. The Minister of Justice is responsible for the 
proper administration of justice in The 
Netherlands. Due to this responsiblity he is under 
Dutch law the only authority competent in cases of postponed or temporar y surrender to balance 
the two interests at stake: the interest of the issuing judicial authority by the surrender and the 
interest of the Dutch prosecutor by continuation 
of the pending prosecution in The Netherlands in another case. That is what the Minister of Justice does on the basis of the advice of the executing judicial authority and the prosecutor handling the 
Dutch criminal case. 
 
 
EN 133   EN 20. POLAND  
Recommendations EAW report 14-12-2007 
(14240/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 158)  Follow up report 4-8-09 and 02-08-2010 
New developments 
 PL has modified its legislation on the EAW 
on 5 November 2009 (the bill has been published in OJ 2009.206.1589 from 5 
December 2009), in force since 8 June 2010. 
Summary of introduced changes:
 
- possibility to issue the EAW request if the 
offence, which falls within the jurisdiction of Polish courts, has been committed outside the 
Polish territory (art. 607a of Criminal 
Proceedings Code (CPC)); - possibility to issue the EAW ex officio by the circuit court or by the circuit court on the request of the district court in relation to the judicial and executive stage of proceedings 
(art. 607a of CPC); 
- possibility to transfer the EAW to the Police unit cooperating with Inte rpol with the request 
to institute an international searching of the requested person in the case there is suspicion 
that he or she is staying in the territory of 
another Member State of the EU (art. 607d § 1 of CPC); - possibility to issue requests also as regards evidences (art. 607h § 1 of CPC) and 
introducing mechanism to execute this kind of 
requests in PL (new art. 607wa of CPC); - possibility to apply provisional arrest up to 100 days (by the circuit court on the request of the prosecutor) based on the information that in the issuing State there is the final and 
valid custodial sentence or a detention order 
(art. 607k § 3 of CPC); - possibility to apply provisional arrest up to 7 days before receiving the EAW, if the issuing authority requests so and ensures that there is 
the final and valid custodial sentence or the 
detention order (art. 607k § 3a of CPC); - clearing the doubts concerning the 60-days period for issuing surrender decision, or 10 days, if the requested person agrees on the surrender (art. 607m § 1 i 1a of CPC); 
- possibility of the temporarily surrender of 
the requested person based on the agreement between issuing and executing authorities (art. 607o § 2 of CPC). 
1 – To consider solutions, which may for exampl e All prosecutorial units which deal with the 
 
EN 134   EN include the setting up of a national platform 
involving all national authorities involved in EAW 
procedures, to increase standardisation of procedures 
and the search for common good practices (see 7.1.4.). EAW requests receive regularly instructions 
from the supreme prosecutor’s office (since 
31 March 2010 – Prosecutor’s General 
Office).  
2 - To update the guidelines of the National Prosecutor of 2005, based on the experience gained during the last two years, and to ensure that they are well disseminated, including among Judges (see 
7.1.4.). In 2009 the National Prosecutor’s Office 
published a joint publication entitled “Rules on mutual legal cooperation in criminal matters during the preparatory proceedings”, 
concerning among others the specific issues 
of the EAW procedure. 
3 - During training sessions, to put specific emphasis on the use of the EAW form and on the use of the SIS (see 7.1.5.). Issues concerning the use of the SIS are 
regularly discussed with prosecutors during the training sessions. 
4 - To take appropriate measures to be able to provide detailed statistics on EAW procedures (see. 7.3.1.5.). PL has provided statistics for 2007, 2008 and 
2009. 
5 - To amend the Constitution and the legislation regarding the surrender of Po lish nationals in order to 
implement the partial abolition of double criminality 
check and to make it optional for the Courts to refuse 
the execution of the EAW on the basis of territoriality (see 7.2.1.)  
6 - To amend the Constitution and the legislation in 
order to abolish, in EAW procedures, the exception for political offences (see 7.2.2.).  
7 – To finalise as soon as possible the legislative 
procedure already launched (draft bill already proposed in Parliament) and to adopt particularly the 
amendments relating to the possibility for the 
competent Court to issue an EAW on its own initiative in trial and post-trial cases (see 7.3.1.1.);- the deletion of the requirement of indications that the person is on the territory of an EU State (see 7.3.1.3.);- the extension of the possibility to issue an 
EAW in cases where the Court has jurisdiction over 
the case even though the offence was not committed in Poland (see 7.3.1.4.). New legislation in force since 8 June 2010. 
- 7.3.1.1. – see: art. 607a of CPC; - 7.3.1.3. – see: art. 607a of CPC; 
- 7.3.1.4. – see: art. 607a of CPC; 
8 - To reflect at national level on the way to ensure 
that EAWs are issued only when the seriousness of the offence justifies the co-operation measures which the execution of the EAW will require (see 7.3.1.2.). The recommendation was discussed at length 
with the Prosecutor’s General Office. However in the view of absence of such obligation in the FD on EAW and the legality 
principle established in Polish CPC, any 
legislative action seems to lack sufficient legal base. 
9 – To consider solutions to ensure, before the issuing of the EAW, a systematic verification of the Such verification is carried out by 
prosecutorial units (on a basis of instructions 
 
EN 135   EN existence of other EAWs or criminal proceeding 
against the same person (see 7.3.1.5.). from the supreme prosecutor’s office). 
10 – To reflect upon the possibilities to create direct 
links between the two EAW registers kept by the 
Ministry of Justice and by the National Prosecutor's 
Office or to merge these registers (see 7.3.1.5.). Due to the establishment of the General 
Prosecutor’s Office outside of the structure of 
the Ministry of Justice, currently there is no 
possibility to merge these registers. 
11 – To consider using the assistance of the College of Eurojust in cases wher e repeated difficulties are 
experienced with a specific Member State and where the practice in that Member State seems to be in contradiction with the Framework Decision on the 
EAW (see 7.3.2.2). 8.1.4. As executing Member 
State Appeal and circuit prosecutors, if consider it 
necessary, are entitled to undertake direct contacts with Eurojust on a basis of § 316 of the internal rules of the procedure of prosecutor’s offices (OJ 2010.49.296). 
12 - To rectify the EJN Atlas with regard to the designation of the authorities competent to receive an EAW (see 7.4.1.1.). Due to the institutional changes, up-to-date 
information to the EJN Atlas is currently in preparation. 
13 - To initiate work in order to allow the reception of original EAWs in electronic format (see 7.4.1.2.).  
14 - To ensure that the National Prosecutor's Office 
and, at circuit level, prosecutors with adequate experience in EAW procedures are available 7 days a week (see 7.4.1.3.) At circuit prosecutor’s offices prosecutors are 
available 7 days a week. 
15 – To accelerate the preparations and internal discussions related to the use of the SIS, especially 
regarding the judicial control on flagging (see 
7.4.1.4.). See point 3 
16 – To consider amending the legislation to ensure 
that, in all cases, the person arrested on the basis of an EAW has the right to see a defence counsel during the period of provisional arrest (see 7.4.1.5.). The person arrested on the basis of the EAW 
has the right to legal aid and legal cousel on general rules (see: “G eneral information, 
General Council recommendations 2009”). 
However at this point it has to be underlined 
that the prosecutor may not refuse the 
presence of a legal counsel during the hearing of the arrested person (no grounds for such an action in CPC). 
17 – To amend the legislation in order to provide explicitly that the original EAW and its official translation are not necessary for the decision of the 
Court on temporary detention and to set longer time 
limits for the production of such material for the decision on the execution of the EAW (see 7.4.1.6.). New legislation in force since 8 June 2010.. 
Possibility to apply provisional arrest up to 100 days (by the circuit court on the request 
of the prosecutor) based on the information 
that in the issuing State there is the final and valid custodial sentence or a detention order (art. 607k § 3 of CPC); 
Possibility to apply provisional arrest up to 7 
days before receiving the EAW, if the issuing 
authority requests so and ensures that there is 
 
EN 136   EN the final and valid custodial sentence 
18 - To consider amending the legislation in order to 
accept EAWs in languages other than Polish, including, if possible, English (see 7.4.1.6.).  
19 – To consider amending the legislation and 
increasing the awareness among judges regarding the 
partial abolition of the double criminality 
requirement (see 7.4.1.8.).  
20 - To consider amending the legislation in order to 
make it (at least) possible to execute the EAW with regard to accessory offences (see 7.4.1.9.). No basis for such amendment in FD on EAW 
21 - To amend the legislation regarding the time limit 
for the whole procedure leading to the decision on the execution of the EAW and, in the meantime, to interpret the current legislation as providing that the 
60 days time limit covers both the first instance 
procedure and the appeal procedure (see 7.4.1.10.). New legislation in force since 8 June 2010. 
- see: art. 607m § 1 and § 1a of CPC; 
22 - To ensure that all breaches of time limits are 
notified to Eurojust and to clarify, for example 
through training efforts, the division of tasks regarding this notification to Eurojust (see 7.4.1.11.). Notification of the breaches of time limits is 
in the competence of Prosecutor’s General Office (see: § 308 of the internal rules of the procedure of prosecutor’s offices; OJ 2010.49.296). 
23 - To ensure that the information provided to the executing State at the time of the physical surrender 
of the person includes information on the duration of 
the detention (see 7.4.1.12.). Issues discussed during the training sessions 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility 
 No 
 
Time limit for translated EAW  7 days (see: art. 607k § 3a of CPC); 
Provisional arrest  
 Up to 7 days before receiving the EAW (see: 
art. 607k § 3a of CPC); 
- up to 100 days for the purpose of the 
surrender of the requested person (see; art. 
607k § 3 of CPC); 
 
EN 137   EN Proportionality test  
 No, legality principle 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) As regards the legal aid for the persons in 
detention no additional provisions are fore-
seen as the general framework will apply. 
This is: legal representation as right, if the person cannot afford provided by the state; legal representation always provided if minor, deaf, mute, blind or if there is a doubt con-
cerning his/her cautiousness and whenever the 
court considers if necessary for a reason making the defence difficult; the costs of legal aid are counted according the general rules and if cannot be borne by the defendant will be covered by the state treasury. 
 
Accessory surrender No 
 
Flagging PL entered Schengen on 21-12-2007 
Flagging is in the competence of the circuit 
courts (see: § 328a of the rules of the procedure of common courts; OJ 07.38.249) 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests The Inspector General for the protection of 
personal data 
Seizure and handover of property New legislation in force since 8 June 2010. 
- see: art. 607 & 607wa of CPC; 
Principle of direct contacts Yes, MoJ appointed as central authority 
Integration of Recital 12 in implementation law  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity No 
4 months requirement  Cf FD. It’s not clear what requirement is 
meant by that. If it relates to the requirement mentioned in art 2.1 of the FD, then it was implemented in art. 607b CPC, which excludes issuing of EAW in cases of sentences shorter than 4 months
 
Regime for transfer back Persons  surrendered under the EAW, on 
condition of being returned after the final 
judgement has been passed against them, are returned automatically to the executing state 
24/7 rota? Yes 
 
EN 138   EN In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No  
Age of criminal liability  Generally 17 yrs, yet there are exceptions. 15 
yrs - in a case of committing a listed, serious offences (f.ex. homicide, serious bodily harm, rape if the victim is a child under 15 yrs old). 
Statistics  Yes: 2007, 2008:and 2009 
Website www.ms.gov.pl  (available in Polish) 
Jurisdiction ECJ  No 
 
Case law/preliminary questions: -  
COM Implementation Report of 2007 
  
In PL, Article 607 (w) of the domestic law states 
that the fact that an act is not a criminal offence 
according to the PL law does not prevent the EAW from being executed as far as the EAW 
concerns a foreigner. A contrario, this could mean 
that there is no possibility to execute a EAW without checking the dual criminality even for the list of 32 offences contained in Article 2 of the Framework Decision when it concerns nationals and therefore render the domestic provision 
contrary to the Framework Decision. 
In PL, amendments to the Criminal Procedure 
Code have extended the list of obligatory grounds for refusal. According to those amendments, the execution of a EAW is not possible if its execution would breach the freedoms and rights of a person, when EAW concerns (i) an offence 
committed without violence for political reasons, 
(ii) and offence committed by a national on the territory of Poland or on board of Polish aircraft or ship, and (iii) an act committed by a national abroad, which does not constitute an offence 
according to Polish law. Such grounds for refusal 
are not provided for in the Framework Decision and thus are contrary to it.  
Art 4(3) part 3 FD: PL’s legislation is not 
sufficiently clear in this matter and could allow  
 
EN 139   EN for refusal where a final judgment has been 
passed in any other State, including third states. 
Article 4(6) has been transposed as a mandatory ground for nationals, residents and people in 
asylum, which may be contrary to the Framework 
Decision In the event of residents this ground of refusal is 
optional (see: art. 607s § 2 of CPC). 
Article 607(t) of the Polish law states that surrender can be granted under the condition that the requested person will be sent back to PL when the final judgment is rendered. This would amount to the guarantee under Article 5(3) being 
made automatic as the judge would have no 
discretion in deciding whether or not he could ask for the guarantee. Although this has not yet been confirmed by PL, it appears that the provision of the domestic law may not be in line with the Framework Decision. In our opinion art. 5(3) of FD on EAW allows for 
such an interpretation that Member State can choose to use such pos sibility in every case 
concerning its nationals or residents. 
Under Article 611(k) of the Polish law, additional 
information can be asked to the Court by the 
Ministry of Justice. The intervention of the Ministry of Justice at this stage of the proceedings does not seem to be in line with the Framework Decision. Art. 611k refers to the cooperation with the ICC 
and is irrelevant for the EAW proceedings as 
such. 
Article 12 FD, keeping the person in detention: all Member States have implemented this article, although PL legislation does not specifically refer 
to measures to prevent absconding. In the event of the revoking of the provisional 
arrest, general provisions concerning provisional measures would apply (the competent authorities 
are to choose between a bail, police supervision, 
prohibition of leaving the State; they are also allowed not to apply any provisional measures, if there is no need for them). 
PL has not transposed Article 22 (notification of the decision)  
 
 
EN 140   EN 21. PORTUGAL  
Recommendations EAW report 26-04-2007 
(7593/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 59)  Follow up report 03-08-2009 and 02 -08-2010 
New developments 
 Penal code amended in September 2007; Article 
5 now comprises a reference to the applicability 
of PT law on acts committed outside national 
territory for PT nationals and customarily residents relating to certain crimes 
Handbook updated and pu blished on website 
Area dedicated to the EAW created at the site of 
the Documentation and Comparative law Office 
(http://www.gddc.pt
)  
Case law published on 
http://195.23.47.101/manda do/pesquisa/pesquis
apalavrafora.htm  
1 - To take steps to ensure greater compliance with 
the requirements set out in the Attorney-General's references to provide copies of all EAWs issued by 
Portugal to the CA and to the national member of 
Eurojust. (See 7.2.1.1.).  
2 - To formulate a written request to the General 
Secretariat of the Council of the EU seeking rectification of the Official Journal in respect of the linguistic error contained within the Portuguese text of Article 5 paragraph 1 of the FD. (See 7.2.1.2.).  
3 - To undertake such residual measures as may be 
necessary to complete the process of providing 
Public Prosecutors with appropriate and direct 
access to the SIS (See 7.2.1.6.).  
4 - To put guidance in place to ensure that the 
Portuguese SIRENE bureau notifies all of Portugal's relevant issuing JAs in cases where additional EAWs arise in respect of the same requested person. (See 7.2.1.7.).  
5 – To ensure that the EAW handbook is published 
electronically on the HABILUS case management 
system utilised by Portugal’s Court Clerks. (See 
7.2.2.1.). Handbook has been revised in July 2007 and 
published on the website (English version: 
http://195.23.47.101/ma ndado/manual/Manual_
MDE_INGLES_REVISTO.pdf )  
6 - That a review of Portugal's implementing 
legislation be undertaken so that those Articles which have been implemen ted contrary to the FD, 
or which are lacking in legal certainty, may be reconsidered and redrafted accordingly. (See No amendments to the EAW law. 
 
 
EN 141   EN 7.3.1.1.). 
i.a. refusal grounds 
- 11(d) death penalty 
- 11(e) political grounds - 12 (1) (c) jurisdictional locus omitted - 12 (1) f confused wording 
7 - That consideration be given to creating a rota of 
Public Prosecutors to enable greater provision of appropriate on-site legal advice within the SIRENE 
bureau. (7.3.1.3.).  
8 – That an invitation be issued to Portugal’s 
executing JA requesting that it contribute, in a 
manner deemed appropriate, to the permanent informal working party on the EAW. 
(See 7.3.2.3.). The position in August 2010, is that the 
Conselho Superior da Magistratura (Supreme 
Judicial Council) has designated Judge (Juiz Desembargador) Fernando Ventura to participate in the referred working group. 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Yes, relating to Spanish 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes 48 h 
Proportionality test  Yes. The PT handbook contains a generic 
advise that 'the EAW should be used in an 
efficient, effective, proportional manner, taking account of the legitimate goals of co-operation, as a tool for the prevention and re-pression of crime. There is also a need to 
adjust this instrument, which is based upon 
the deprivation of personal freedom, to the prosecution of more serious or more dama-ging crime that may substantially justify it.'  
It recommends also considering alternatives to 
the EAW. 
Case law of the Supreme Court prohibits 
disproportionate use of EAWs 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following (1) 
 
EN 142   EN situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (2) 
Not explicitly mentioned, possible in 
conformity with the domestic legislation, state 
paid assistance, if insufficient financial resources are demonstrated for Portugese nationals, EU citizens, third country nationals and stateless persons holding a residence permit valid in the EU  
Accessory surrender Not explicitly in the legislation. 
Issuing: possible on case by case basis 
Executing: possible 
Flagging  
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
Seizure and handover of property   
Principle of direct contacts Yes  
Integration of recital 12 in implementati on law No. recital 13 has been integrated 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back 83 CoE convention  
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No  
Age of criminal liability  16 
Statistics  Yes, 2007 and 2008  
Website  Yes, partly in English 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes  
 
Case law/preliminary questions 
http://195.23.47.101/mandado/pesquisa/pesquisapalavrafora.htm  
 
EN 143   EN COM Implementation Report of 2007   
No deadline for Constitutional Court  
In relation to Article 5(1) FD PT law does not 
provide for a possibility to retrial in cases where the requested person has not taken part in the proceedings which may in practice be a serious 
issue.   
 
 
EN 144   EN 22. ROMANIA 
Recommendations EAW report 27-4-2009 
(8267/09 CRIMORG 53) Follow up report 3-8-09 and 30-07-2010  
New developments New legislation was adopted in Romania with 
effect from 10 November 2008 (Law no. 
222/2008). This legislati on amends Title III of 
Law No. 302 of 28 June 2004 on the international judicial cooperation in criminal matters Law 322/2004, which implemented the FD on the EAW in Romania. The 2008 amending legislation 
(which also implemented three other FDs) was 
introduced in respect of the EAW to adjust some procedural aspects or to eliminate some procedural loopholes and did not amend the substance of the original implementing law on the EAW 
Preparation of implementation of the 
recommendations has started . 
1.- Encourage direct contacts of the competent 
judicial authorities with their foreign counterparts and devise measures necessary to establish such contacts (including appropriate telecommunications equipment) (see 7.1.3).  
2.- Promote specialisation of judicial authorities 
in EAW cases (see 7.1.4). This recommendation on specialisation was very 
much embraced by the Ministry of Justice and 
Citizens Liberties and by practitioners, who 
considered that it will assure uniformity and efficiency of the procedures. Decisions are to be taken, especially at the level of the Superior Council of Magsitracy. 
3.- Create appropriate mechanisms, able to provide complete, up-to-date and easily 
accessible information, for gathering and 
processing data on all incoming and outgoing EAWs (see 7.1.5).   
5.- Continue efforts to provide systematic training 
programme on EAW matters  as well as language 
training for practitioners (judges, prosecutors and court staff) (see 7.1.6)  Guidelines for judges and prosecutors have been 
published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Citizens Liberties and a series of newsletters have been  sent to courts and 
prosecutor's offices to fa cilitate the issue and 
transmission of the EAW  
Within the PHARE Project RO 05/1B/JH/03 
“Strengthening of the institutional and legal frame of international judicial cooperation in Romania” (institutional partnership project between 
 
EN 145   EN Romania and Austria), finalized in May 2008, 
The Manual on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal 
Matters for Judges and Prosecutors and The 
Manual on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal 
Matters for Court Clerks were drafted, including 
dispositions on the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.  
Within the same program, as well as in 
others, several seminars were organized to 
discuss, among other topics, the aspects 
regarding the issue, completion and transmission of the European Arrest Warrant. The manuals have been sent, in printed and electronic formats, to all the participants in the training seminars organized within the program (about 1000 participants). The manuals were posted on the websites of the Ministry of Justice and Citizens Liberties, the Superior Council of Ma gistracy and of the 
Prosecutor’s Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 
A national handbook on the EAW is being 
drafted by the Ministry and will be disseminated electroncially. 
The Ministry organises working meetings and 
seminars for practitioners through the National Magistrates School and the National Court Clerk's School 
An electronic guide on International Judicial 
Cooperation in Criminal Matters is available on www.just.ro
. Magistrates and Clerks have access 
to an Intranet Portal on International cooperation on Criminal matters and to a Romanian translation of the EAW handbook  
The Romanian Judicial network on judicial 
cooperation in criminal matters meets twice a 
year and has the EAW on its agenda at each meeting 
5.- Take measures, as c onsidered appropriate, to 
promote training of lawyers on EAW matters (see 7.1.6). See response to 4 above 
6.- Develop a uniform practice to verify if a 
wanted person is located on Romanian territory 
prior to issuing an EAW (see 7.2.1).  
7.- Create mechanisms to enable judicial  
 
EN 146   EN authorities to check the existence of pending 
cases against given individuals prior to issuing an 
EAW (see 7.2.2). 
8.- Promote the uniform understanding of the effects of the prosecutorial closure of the case 
under Article 881(5) of the implementing law, e.g. by issuing guidelines for prosecutors (see 7.3.1.1).  
9.- Develop uniform practice concerning the 
application of Article 883 of the implementing law on apprehension and arrest of the requested 
person based on an Interpol alert (see 7.3.1.2).  
10.- Take the necessary steps to promote the use 
of preventive measures alternative to detention in 
EAW cases where appropriate, including– if necessary – amending Article 90 of the implementing law (see 7.3.1.3).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Yes French and English 
Time limit for translated EAW As soon as possible  
48 h after the arrest of the sought person 
Provisional arrest  48 hours in exceptional circumstances 
Proportionality test  Yes 4 yrs maximum penalty threshold for 
prosecuting cases. (art 148 of the Romanian Criminal Procedural Code) 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 1) no – only consular assistance 
2) no – only consular assistance 
Accessory surrender Not in legislation, however possible in 
executing EAWs 
 
EN 147   EN Flagging -Not yet a Schengen member 
Competent authority for Art. 111 Schengen requests Not yet a Schengen member 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts The Romanian Courts are encouraged to 
contact directly the executing foreign authorities. Any difficulty will be solved with the assistance of the Romanian MJo. (art.83 paragraph (3) of the Law no. 302/2004 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law No (the transposition of the recital is not 
mandatory but it can help in order to 
understand and give a corr ect interpretation to 
the provisions of the FD) 
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and comp licity When the offence underlying the EAW is one 
of the 32 offences listed in art. 2 paragraph 2 of the FD, the dual criminality check is not performed, irrespective of the degree of participation of the offender 
Art 85 paragraph 2 of the implementation law 
states that for the other offences, surrender shall be granted on condition that the deeds
 
underlying the issuing of the EAW constitute offences according to Romanian Law 
4 months requirement Transposed in  article 81 paragraph (1) of the 
Law no. 302/2004 
Regime for transfer back The transposition law provides that " a 
Romanian citizen shall be surrendered based 
on a European arrest Warrant issued in view 
of criminal prosecution or trial on condition that, should a penalty depriving of freedom be handed down, the pers on surrendered will be 
transferred to Romania to serve the penalty." 
The transfer procedure procedure will take 
place under the provisions of the European Convention on the transfer of sentenced persons, Strasbourg, 1983 
24/7 rota Yes 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No 
Age of criminal liability  14 years 
 
EN 148   EN Statistics  Yes: 2007, 2008 and 2009 
Website Yes 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
Decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice no. 581 of 18 February 2008  
"An analysis of the above legal provisions, and of the other provisions of  the special law that 
regulate the execution of European arrest warrants,  shows that the role of the Romanian court, 
in this procedure, is limited to checking whet her the formal conditions of the warrant have 
been met - aspects relating to the existence of the imputed criminal acts, and whether or not 
the measure of provisional detention is ju stified, exceed the limits imposed by Law No. 
302/2004- and to dealing with an y objections regarding identi ty raised by the requested 
person and with the grounds for refusal of su rrender that the requested person may invoke." 
Preliminary question addressed to the ECJ on 28-07-2010 (C-264/09 ) 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
The list provided for in article 2 of the 
Framework Decision has been transposed with some adaptation made for linguistic reasons in 
order to comply with domestic law. Those 
adaptations render the scope of the offences for which dual criminality is abolished wider than what is provided for in the Framework Decision. There is no reference to kidnapping or to hostage taking, rather a general statement on illegal 
depravation of freedom, illegal arrest and abusive 
investigation The 2008 amendment brings the RO law in line 
with the FD.  
Article 5(2) has not been properly implemented as the domestic law states that a EAW will be executed if the legal system of the issuing Member State provides for the possibility of reviewing the sentence after a service of at least 
20 years. As a result, this provision appears to be 
contrary to the Framework Decision. Art 87 of the implementation law provides that 
the execution of an EAW may be subject to the condition that, should the offence be punished with life imprisonment, the legal system of the issuing Member State provides either for the 
possibility of conditional release
 after a service of 
20 years, or for clemency measures 
No mention in the law of the obligation to notify Eurojust in case of breach of time limits. According to the provisions of article 95 
paragraph 5 of the transposition law "When, for exceptional reasons, the time limits in this Article cannot be observed, the executing Romanian judicial authority shall inform the Eurojust, 
specifying the reasons for the delay" 
Regime for transfer back The amendm ent to the law of 2008 limits the 
application of the ground for refusal of article 
4(6) to those cases in which the judge grants (in 
 
EN 149   EN the same court procedure) the execution of the 
foreign penalty. 
 
 
EN 150   EN 23. SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Recommendations EAW report 31-3-2009 
(7060/1/09 CRIMORG 33)  Follow up report 31-7-2009 
New developments  
 The Slovak Republic has adopted Act 
No 154/2010 on the European arrest warrant 
(‘EAW’), due to enter into force on 
1 September 2010. This Act repeals the original transposing legislation, Act No 403/2004 on the EAW, as amended.  
1.- Consider rewording the implementing law to 
ensure greater clarity (see 7.1.1). The new Act takes into account the request 
for greater accuracy and clarity of legislation 
2.- Consider drafting an easy-to-use ('user- friendly'), comprehensive manual, including best practices, for judges and prosecutors (see 7.1.5). Judges and prosecutors have access to the 
Slovak version of the European handbook for issuing the EAW and to the EJN Judicial 
Atlas on the website of the Ministry of 
Justice. Practical issues regarding the functioning of the EAW are dealt with on an ongoing basis as part of the Justice Academy’s training activities.  
The provisions of Section 41 of the new Act 
govern assistance from the Ministry of Justice to judicial authorities, where this is necessary, as follows: 
Section 41- Assistance  
The Ministry of Justice shall provide all necessary 
assistance to the judicial authorities of the State of origin and the executing judicial authorities in 
connection to any actions undertaken pursuant to 
this Act
.’ 
3.- Take measures to ensure that information on the 
Slovak Republic is availabl e in the EAW-Atlas (see 
7.1.6). Because the new Act on the European arrest 
warrant was under preparation, and because of changes in the court system in Slovakia, the information on Slovakia in the EAW Atlas 
has not yet been finalised. It is intended that 
the information will be added to the EJN website by the end of 2010. 
4.- Further promote the use of the European Judicial Network in EAW cases by facilitating access of practitioners to the information provided on the EJN website (see 7.1.6). A direct reference to the EJN website has 
been published on the Ministry of Justice’s website, in the section on information for judicial bodies. The EJN and its use by 
practitioners forms part of the training 
activities of the Ministry and the Justice Academy. 
5.- Further promote among practitioners the use of The issue of the possible use of Eurojust in 
 
EN 151   EN Eurojust as a means to facilitate exchange of 
information and provide assistance in resolving 
difficulties, both when issuing and executing EAWs 
(see 7.1.7). EAW procedures forms part of the training 
activities of the Ministry and the Justice 
Academy for judges and prosecutors. 
6.- Consider providing more facilities for 
practitioners to improve their language skills (see 7.1.8). The training of judges, prosecutors and 
judicial officials in Slovakia is provided by the Justice Academy, which is an organisation funded from the budget of the Ministry of Justice. The Justice Academy provides 
continuous training for candidate prosecutors 
and senior court officials, and lifelong learning activities for prosecutors and judges, including language training.  
7.- Consider simplifying the procedure for issuing an EAW in pre-trial proceedings (see 7.2.1.1). 
  
8.- Consider introducing a specific provision on the 
issue of proportionality or drawing up a list of 
indications that can be used by practitioners as a basis 
for a proportionality test when issuing an EAW (7.2.1.3). The new wording of Section 5(3) addresses 
the issue of examining proportionality in the 
issuance of EAWs as follows: 
‘(3) A court shall not issue a European arrest 
warrant if it is clear before such issuance that the requesting of the person from a foreign country 
would cause a degree of harm disproportionate to 
the significance of the criminal proceedings or to the consequences of the criminal act.’ 
9.- Bring Sections 4(5) of the implementing law in 
line with the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.1) This issue has been reso lved in the new Act, 
which has been brought into line with 
Article 2 of the Framework Decision. The new wording of Section 4(2) provides as follows:  
‘(2) A European arrest warrant may be executed:
(a) if it was issued in relation to criminal 
proceedings regarding an act which is classed as a criminal act under Slovak law and under the law 
of the State of origin, and if it is possible, under 
the law of the State of origin, to impose a custodial sentence with an upper tariff limit of at least 
twelve months, and if there are no grounds to 
refuse execution of the European arrest warrant; 
(b) if it was issued for the purposes of executing a 
custodial sentence already imposed for an act which is classed as a crime under the law of the 
Slovak Republic and the State of origin, if the 
sentence or its remaining period is at least four months and if there are no grounds to refuse 
execution of the European ar rest warrant. Neither 
any other sentences nor the remaining portions of these other sentences are included in this 
calculation.’  
 
EN 152   EN 10.- Consider setting up clear provisions on the time 
limits for the receipt of (language-compliant) EAWs 
(see 7.3.1.2). This issue has been reso lved in the new Act as 
follows:  
The time limit for issuing the original of the 
EAW and its translation into the official language of the State is fixed as 40 days from the arrest of the person. If this 40-day deadline is not met, the court must release the detained person from preliminary custody. A 
period of 18 days has been fixed for the 
issuance of the EAW, or of a document confirming its existence (without translation into the official language of the State concerned), if the person was detained and 
taken into preliminary custody on the basis of 
an SIS alert. If this deadline is not met, the court has the power to decide, upon a proposal from the prosecutor, whether to release the person from pre-sentence custody.  
11.- Consider amending Section 17 of the implementing law as regards the necessity of 
mandatory detention in th e case of listed offences 
(see 7.3.1.3). This issue has been resolved in the new Act 
by removing mandatory detention in these 
cases. 
12.- Remove the reference to  "important interests of 
the Slovak Republic" from Article 15(1) of the implementing law (see 7.3.1.4). The reference to ‘important interests of the 
Slovak Republic’ has been left in place in the new Act, in Section 12, which determines the procedure for the flagging of an SIS alert by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This provision 
extends the principle of maintaining public 
order ( ordre public ) into proceedings 
regarding the EAW. 
13.- Consider converting the ground for refusal based on territoriality into an optional ground for refusal (see 7.3.1.5). This issue has been resolved in Section 23(2) 
of the new Act, which governs the optional grounds for refusal to execute an EAW:  
‘(2) Execution of a European arrest warrant may 
be refused if: 
(...) (d) the European arrest warrant concerns acts 
which, under Slovak law, are considered to have 
been committed either partially or entirely on Slovak territory, on a vessel sailing under the 
Slovak flag or on an aircraft registered in the 
register of Slovak aircraft; execution of the European arrest warrant may also be refused in 
this case if the act is not considered a criminal act 
under Slovak law, or  
(...)’
 
14.- Include specific provisions on additional consent Th is issue has been resolv ed in the new Act in 
 
EN 153   EN and consent to subsequent surrender in the 
implementing law so as to conform to the Framework 
Decision (see 7.3.1.7). the separate Section 35, which reads as 
follows: 
‘Section 35 - Additional consent and consent 
to subsequent surrender  
(1) The provisions of the first, third and fifth part 
shall also be applied, as appropriate, to proceedings regarding a request from the Member 
State to which the person has been surrendered 
from the Slovak Republic for consent for the following:  
(a) to prosecute the person for a crime committed 
before the surrender and different from the one for which the person was surrendered on the basis of 
a European arrest warrant, or to execute a 
different custodial sentence than the one for which the person was surrendered, 
(b) to surrender to a different Member State on the 
basis of a European arrest warrant for criminal prosecution or to execute  a custodial sentence.
The competent executing j udicial authority for 
proceedings under paragraph (1) is the one which 
took the decision on the execution of the European 
arrest warrant to which the request for additional consent or consent for subsequent surrender 
relates. The executing judicial authority shall take 
a decision on the request in paragraph 1 within 30 days. If the decision on the execution of the 
European arrest warrant under Section 21(2) was 
taken by the prosecutor and the conditions for a decision on consent are not met, the prosecutor 
shall submit a request for a decision to be taken by 
the court which would be competent to take a decision under Section 22.  
(3) The executing judicial authority shall return 
the request, without taking a decision, to the 
authority of the State of origin which made the 
request for additional consent, if, during the proceedings, it finds that the person: 
(a) consented to surrender to this Member State 
and renounces their entitlement to the application 
of the speciality principle under Section 31(1), 
(b) agreed, after surrender to this Member State, that he or she would explicitly renounce 
entitlement to apply the speciality principle under 
Section 31(1) in relation to the criminal acts covered by the request for additional consent and 
which were committed before the surrender.  
(4) The procedure in the general regulation on 
criminal procedure applies to proceedings on requests from a different Member State and to 
which the person was surrendered on the basis of 
a European arrest warrant, for consent to surrender the surrendered person to a third State
 
15.- Consider including in the implementing law a 
specific provision on temporary surrender in line with This issue has been resolved in the new Act 
with the separate Section 30, which reads as 
 
EN 154   EN the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.8). follows:  
‘Section 30 - Temporary surrender of a requested 
person 
(1) At the request of a judicial authority of the 
State of origin the court may allow the temporary 
surrender of a person to the State of origin if, 
following a decision on the execution of a 
European arrest warrant, a decision was taken to 
postpone surrender under Section 29(1). If a 
prosecutor took a decision on a European arrest 
warrant in accordance with Section 21(2), the 
decision on the temporary surrender of a person shall be taken by a court, on a proposal by the 
prosecutor. The terms of the temporary surrender 
of a person shall be agreed in writing directly between the court and the judicial authority of the 
State of origin. The court may allow the temporary 
surrender of a person only when it has no effect on their ability to make a statement in the 
proceedings on their surrender.  
(2) If the court allows the temporary surrender of 
a person, it shall also require that during the 
temporary surrender the person must be held in 
custody. If, in its request for the temporary surrender of a person, the judicial authority of the 
State of origin does not stipulate the period of time 
for which it is requesting surrender, nor state the procedures which it wishes to execute in relation 
to the person, the court shall ask it to send an 
updated request containing this information. In 
this case it may impose an appropriate deadline 
for the submission of an updated request.’
 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility Slovak language required.  
Special language regimes have been arranged 
on the basis of bilateral agreements with AT (German),CZ (Czech) and PL (Polish). 
Time limit for translated EAW 40 days 
Provisional arrest  40 days 
Proportionality test  Proportionality is governed by the Act for the 
issuance of the European arrest warrant in Section 5(3) of the new Act, which reads as follows:  
‘(
3) A court shall not issue a European arrest 
 
EN 155   EN warrant if it is clear before such issuance that the 
requesting of the person from a foreign country 
would cause a degree of harm disproportionate to the significance of the criminal proceedings or to 
the consequences of the criminal act.’
 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)
  
Accessory surrender Accessory surrender is possible under 
Section 4(6) of the new Act, which provides that: 
‘(6) If a person’s surrender is requested in relation 
to several criminal acts, of which at least one meets the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 5, a 
European arrest warrant may also be executed or 
issued in order to prosecute for other criminal acts or to execute other sentences which would 
otherwise be inadmissible on the grounds of the 
magnitude of the sentence or the remainder of the sentence.’ 
Flagging Flagging of the alert shall be done by the 
prosecutor in accordance with Section 12 of 
the new Act, which reads as follows:  
‘Section 12.- Preliminary examination of the 
alert 
If the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter “the Public Prosecutor”) finds that the alert in 
Section 3(l) does not comply with the law, 
with international commitments or with the essential interests of the Slovak Republic, or if conditions set out in separate legislation have been met
8), it shall order SIRENE to flag the 
alert; this body shall flag the alert 
immediately. The flagging of an alert prevents the detention of a person; an alert flagged in this way may only be used to seek a person in 
order to determine their place of residence.  
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  
 
EN 156   EN Seizure and handover of property Possible, SK authorities prefer MLA  
Principle of direct contacts Slovakia has not designated a central 
authority pursuant to Article 7(2) of the Framework Decision. Section 36 of the new 
Act governs in general terms direct contact 
between judicial authorities. 
Integration of Recital 12 in implementation law  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement   
Regime for transfer back Dom estic law/1983 CoE convention  
24/7 rota  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? The general rule established by Section 23(4) 
applies:  
‘(4) The fact that the requested person is a citizen 
of the Slovak Republic does not constitute grounds 
to refuse execution of a Eu ropean arrest warrant.’ 
The question of introducing optional grounds 
to refuse execution of a European arrest 
warrant pursuant to Article 4(6) is being 
examined at national level. . 
Age of criminal liability  14 years 
Statistics  Yes, 2007, 2008 and 2009 
Website  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes (2009) 
 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
No deadline for deciding the highest appeal 
(Supreme Court)  
SK law does not provide for temporary surrender 
pursuant to article 24(2). SK has informed the Commission that the provisions contained within 
Article 24 of the Framework Decision may be 
implemented by a new amending legislation which should be adopted in June 2007 This issue has been resolv ed in the new Act with 
the separate Sections 29 and 30, which read as follows:  
‘Section 29 - Postponement of surrender 
(1) A court or prosecutor which took a decision on the 
execution of a European arrest warrant may decide, by 
 
EN 157   EN issuing a resolution, to postpone its implementation, if 
criminal proceedings against the person are ongoing 
in the Slovak Republic or if the person is serving or is due to serve a custodial sentence for a different 
criminal act than the one for which the European 
arrest warrant was introduced. No complaints are admissible against the decision of a court or 
prosecutor to postpone surrender.  
(2) If the reasons underlying the decision to postpone 
surrender have changed substantially, the executing 
judicial authority which took a decision pursuant to 
paragraph 1 may revoke its decision. Appeals against this decision are inadmissible.  
Section 30 - Temporary surrender of a requested 
person 
(1) At the request of a judicial authority of the State of 
origin the court may allow the temporary surrender of 
a person to the State of origin if, following a decision on the execution of a European arrest warrant, a 
decision was taken to postpone surrender under 
Section 29(1). If a prosecutor made a decision on a 
European arrest warrant in accordance with 
Section 21(2), the decision on temporary surrender of a person shall be taken by a court, on a proposal by 
the prosecutor. The terms of temporary surrender of a 
person shall be agreed in writing directly between the court and the judicial authority of the State of origin. 
The court may allow the temporary surrender of a 
person only when it has no effect on their ability to make a statement in the proceedings on their 
surrender. 
(2) If the court allows the temporary surrender of a 
person, it shall also require that during the temporary 
surrender the person must be he ld in custody. If, in its 
request for the temporary surrender of a person, the judicial authority of the State of origin does not 
stipulate the period of time for which it is requesting 
surrender, nor state the procedures which it wishes to execute in relation to the person, the court shall ask it 
to send an updated request containing this 
information. In this case it may impose an appropriate 
deadline for the submission of an updated request
 
Article 25(5) SK has made no provision for 
transit from a third state   
28(3) has not been transposed by SK This i ssue has been resolved in the new Act with 
the separate Section 35, which reads as follows:  
Section 35 - Additional consent and consent to 
subsequent surrender  
(1) The provisions of the first, third and fifth part shall 
also be applied, as appropriate, to proceedings regarding a request from the Member State to which 
 
EN 158   EN the person has been surrendered from the Slovak 
Republic for consent for the following: 
(a) to prosecute the person for a crime committed before the surrender and different from the one for 
which the person was surrendered on the basis of a 
European arrest warrant, or to execute a different 
custodial sentence than the one for which the person 
was surrendered, 
(b) to surrender to a different Member State on the basis of a European arrest warrant for criminal 
prosecution or to execute a custodial sentence.
The competent executing judicial authority for proceedings under paragraph (1) is the one which took 
the decision on the executio n of the European arrest 
warrant to which the request for additional consent or consent for subsequent surrender relates. The 
executing judicial authority shall take a decision on 
the request under paragraph 1 within 30 days. If the decision on the execution of the European arrest 
warrant under Section 21(2) was taken by the 
prosecutor and the conditions for a decision on 
consent are not met, the prosecutor shall submit a 
request for a decision to be taken by the court which would be competent to take a decision under 
Section 22.  
(3) The executing judicial au thority shall return the 
request, without taking a decision, to the authority of 
the State of origin which made the request for 
additional consent, if, during the proceedings, it finds that the person: 
(a) consented to surrender to this Member State and 
renounces their entitlement to the application of the speciality principle under Section 31(1), 
(b) agreed, after surrender to this Member State, that 
he or she would explicitly renounce entitlement to apply the speciality principle under Section 31(1) in 
relation to the criminal acts covered by the request for 
additional consent and which were committed before surrender.  
(...)’
 
SK has not transposed Article 28 at all in the 
transmitted legislation This issue has been resolv ed by the provisions of 
Section 33 to 35 (see above) 
 
 
EN 159   EN 24. SLOVENIA  
Recommendations EAW report 22-9-2008 
(7301/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 44)  Follow up report 30-04-2009 and 03-08-2010 
New developments 
 
The recommendations correspond to the situation 
existing in Slovenia at the time of the evaluation visit. As regards proposed legal amendments, reference is made where, according to the draft the expert team was provided w ith, action is taken in the 
Act on cooperation in criminal matters with the 
European Union Member States. In February 2008 a new single act has come 
into force comprising all instruments of 
cooperation in the field of criminal law within 
the EU  - Act on International Co-operation in 
Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union of 25 October 2007, which entered into force on 24 February 2008 
(hereinafter referred to as: ZSKD ČEU). The 
latter has among others substituted also the provisions of the Act on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures (hereinafter referred to as: ZENPP), by which the Republic of Slovenia had initially 
implemented the Council Framework 
Decision of 13 June 2002 on the EAW and the surrender procedures. The indicated Act also supplemented, upgraded and eliminated some deficiencies with regard to which the 
Republic of Slovenia was criticized during the 
implementation - evaluation phase 
1 – To consider establishing tools aimed at facilitating the practical application of the EAW by practitioners, such as guidelines to assist judicial authorities to fill in the EAW and other means deemed appropriate to provide expertise to those 
involved in EAW procedures and to further circulate 
the information available on the application of the EAW in practice (see 7.1.9). The Republic of Slovenia didn't adopt any 
special national manuals in connection with the implementation of the EAW, since we believe that the European handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant is sufficient. 
Namely, it contains all necessary information 
in connection with the order and transmission of the warrant; in addition, the institute of the European arrest warrant was comprehensively and from various aspects also presented in various educational seminars for criminal 
judges and state prosecutors. However, we 
would like to add that all practicians who are responsible for the issuing and implementation of European arrest and surrender warrants have access to the national 
case-law in connection with the 
implementation of the warrant in the Republic of Slovenia as well as to all other internet sites, which contains sufficient and comprehensive information on the EAW. They are also in due time notified by the 
Ministry as well as the EJN contact points 
about new developments, modifications and recommendation adopted or agreed upon among various institutes.  
 
EN 160   EN 2 - To adopt measures to ensure that appropriate 
training programmes are put in place, so that 
extensive and regular trai ning on EAW is provided to 
judges, state prosecutors and defence lawyers (see 7.1.10). The institute of the European arrest warrant 
was comprehensively and from various 
aspects also presented in various educational 
seminars for criminal judges, state prosecutors as well as lawyers, moreover several publications regarding the implementation as well as the application of the EAW are available to all practicians, so we believe that 
all interesting parties have enough 
information on the EAW. Several seminars on the application of the EAW in practice were also organized by the Ministry over the last two years 
3 - To re-examine the transposition of the Framework Decision into national law as regards the speciality 
rule, so that the taking of the surrendered person into 
custody is expressly included in the scope of the domestic legislation (see 7.2.3). As we already explained during the evaluation 
phase, it is not possible to impose a detention 
against the person to which the principle of 
speciality applies, however the requesting person may be put in the police "custody" before the latter is brought before the investigative judge 
4 - To consider establishing a mechanism allowing the Slovenian judicial authorities, when proceeding 
against a person surrendered pursuant to an EAW, to 
check the conditions of the surrender, with a view to respecting the speciality rule (see 7.2.3). As pointed out before, only the court may 
issue a decision on detention in criminal 
proceedings, that is, in a judicial procedure. 
Indeed, the court does not verify ex officio in the process of surrender whether the person sought has already been convicted or other criminal proceedings against him or her are 
underway. It is, however, a fact that Act on 
criminal procedure makes provision in Article 227 that the person charged has to be asked at the first hearing whether he or she has already been convicted and whether the conviction has been erased, when and why and whether 
and when he or she has served the sentence, 
whether another procedure for another criminal offence against him or her is underway, meaning effectively that the court also indirectly verifies the provision of the 
principle of speciality. It is also the role of the 
District state prosecutor that on the "surrender hearing" brings up all circumstances, relevant to a decision on surrender, among which is also the circumstance about the ongoing investigations - criminal proceedings against 
the requested person before the competent 
Slovenian authorities.  
5 - To re-examine the transposition of the Framework Decision into national law as regards the subsequent surrender, so that the surrendered person may be re-surrendered solely with his consent to a Member State other than the executing State without the The provision of article 28/2 (b) of the FD is 
implemented in the article 44 in relation to article 45 of the ZSKZD ČEU, which among 
others determines that  the principle of 
speciality shall not apply if the person 
 
EN 161   EN consent of the latter (see 7.2.4). e xpressly renounced his entitlement to the 
speciality rule before or after the surrender. 
The person surrendered to the Republic of 
Slovenia may renounce his entitlement to the principle of speciality for criminal offences committed prior to his surrender before the national court where the criminal procedure for the criminal offence committed prior to 
the surrender is being conducted or before the 
investigating judge of the court competent for the execution of the sentence or surrender procedure. The person must be instructed on the meaning of the principle of speciality, the 
consequences of renunciation of entitlement 
to the principle of speciality and on the fact that renunciation is voluntary and may not be revoked. The surrendered person without a counsel must also be instructed that he is 
entitled to engage a counsel of his own 
choice, etc…" 
6 - To amend the implementing law so that it conforms to the Framework Decision as regards the list of offences not covered by double criminality (see 7.3.1.1)  ZSKZDČEU implements an entire list of 
criminal offences referred to in Article 2 of the Framework Decision. Consequently, the criminal offence of »swindling«, as well as the "illicit trafficking in prohibited drugs" is included in the list and the criminal offence of 
extortion is no longer limited only to the 
qualified form. The list is as follows :  
- participation in a criminal organization; - terrorism;  - trafficking in human beings; 
- sexual exploitation of children and child 
pornography; 
- illicit trafficking in prohibited drugs; - illicit trafficking in arms, ammunition and 
explosives; 
- corruption; 
- fraud, including fraud that threatens the 
financial interests of the European Communities within the context of the Convention on the Protection of the Financial Interests of the Europ ean Union of 26 July 
1995; 
- money laundering; 
 
EN 162   EN - forgery of money;  
- computer-related crime; 
- criminal acts against environment and 
natural goods, including unlawful trade in threatened animal speci es and plant species 
and varieties; 
- facilitation of unlawful crossing of the state 
border and residence within the state; 
- murder and grievous bodily injury;  
- illicit trade in human organs and tissue; - kidnapping, unlawful deprivation of liberty 
and hostage taking; 
- racism and xenophobia; 
- group robbery or armed robbery; 
- illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including 
antiquities and works of art;  
- swindling; - racketeering and extortion; 
- forgery of industrial products and sale of 
such products; 
- forgery of official documents and trading in 
them;  
- forgery of payment instruments; - illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and 
other growth promoters; 
- illicit trafficking in nuclear and radioactive 
substances; 
- trafficking in stolen vehicles; - rape; 
- arson, 
- criminal acts within the jurisdiction of the 
International Criminal Court, established by the Rome Statute, 
- hijacking of an aircraft or ship; 
 
EN 163   EN - sabotage. 
7 - To re-examine the tran sposition into national law 
with regard to the penalty threshold referred to in Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision (see 
7.3.1.1)2. As we already pointed out the Slovenian 
judicial authorities understand this provision as set out in the Framework Decision, 
meaning that they do not verify double 
criminality in relation to offences for which they should not verify it in compliance with the Framework Decision. However to clarify this provision, the wording regarding the 
threshold for sentences has been corrected in 
Article 8 of ZSKZD ČEU in order to be more 
understandable. 
 The new provision of the article 8 of the 
ZSKZDČEU determines that 
"…notwithstanding the double criminality, 
surrender shall be admissible if the warrant is issued for the criminal offence sanctioned by the law of the issuing Member State by imprisonment of not less than three years as 
the maximum sentence of deprivation of 
liberty and if such offence is classified under the law of this Member State as one of the following types of criminal offences…" - consequently the threshold is the same as in the Article 2(2) of the Framework Decision  
8 - To take steps to correct the current judicial 
practice of checking the factual description of the 
EAW against their own Penal Code in respect of the offences listed in the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.2). We believe that this conclusion of the 
evaluation team was to  general and unfounded 
and did not reflect the whole judicial practice. If this was indeed the case, significantly more orders would be rejected, which is not true, as confirmed by statistical data. 
9 - To take steps to correct the practice and the underlying legal criteria applicable to detention in EAW proceedings, in particular as regards Slovenian 
nationals and residents (see 7.3.1.3). The institute of detention or other alternative 
measures is regulated in the Article 23 of ZSKZDČEU, which provides for a measure 
proportionate to a concrete situation, since in 
compliance with Article 192 of ZKP, to ensure the presence of the person charged (and, consequently, to successfully complete the procedure of the surrender of the person 
sought) instead of detention, the following 
measures may be ordered: writ of summons, compulsory appearance, promise of the charged person not to leave his or her residence, restraining orders, reporting to a police station, bail, and house arrest. When 
deciding on which measure to apply, the court 
has to comply with the conditions laid down for individual measures. When deciding on 
 
EN 164   EN the measure, the court may not use measures 
more stringent than those required to achieve 
the court’s purpose, since the Constitutional 
Court of the Republic of Slovenia has decided that automatic detention is not in compliance with the Constitution. Therefore, for each individual case, it has to be assessed whether to issue a detention against the person or a 
whether more lenient measure is more 
appropriate (bail, house arrest etc). Moreover, for a detention order to be issued, more facts need to be considered, such as flight risk.  
 
However we should pointed out that indeed 
there were some changes in the ZSKZD ČEU. 
According to article 17 of the ZSKZD ČEU, 
the investigative judge, after the verification that EAW contains all the data required for 
taking a decision on its execution and if it 
complies with the terms as stated in Article 8 issues an order on forced production of the requested person. If an arrest warrant has been issued, police officers may arrest the requested person also without a prior order on 
forced production as referred to in the 
preceding paragraph if there is a risk that he will abscond or go into hiding. Consequently the provision that investigative judge must first summon the individual to a hearing has 
been abolished. 
10 - To take the necessary step s to ensure that in the 
course of an EAW procedure the existence of 
ongoing investigations or proceedings against the requested person, or prior convictions, is checked (e.g. through appropriate databases or other means) (see 7.3.1.5). The uniform  electronic evidence which 
enables the systematic verification of current 
investigations or proceedings against the person sought is already applicable in practice (separate evidence for courts as well as for the prosecutor's offices). 
11 - To take the necessary measures to ensure that Slovenia will enforce sent ences passed against its 
own nationals and residents in the issuing Member 
State for offences not punishable under Slovenian law (see 7.3.1.6). The institute of the execution of sentences 
passed against Slovenian nationals and residents imposed in the issuing state is also regulated by the new implementing law - article 72, which determines  that if 
the national court receives an order 
against a national of  the Republic of 
Slovenia or of another Member State residing in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, or an alien who is in possession of a permanent residence permit in the Republic of Slovenia, with the aim of executing a custodial sentence, precautionary or other sanction that is 
 
EN 165   EN carried out by detention order, and all 
other conditions are met for the surrender of such a person, and the person has agreed to serve the sentence in the Republic of Slovenia and the national court binds itself to enforce the judgement, the order sh all be treated as a 
request for the execut ion of a custodial 
sentence, precautionary or other sanction that is carried out by detention order. In 
such a case, the criminal judgement imposed in the issuing State, shall be enforced in the Republic of Slovenia also if the offence in the order is not a criminal offence under the law of the Republic of Slovenia. 
If the order allowed for the surrender of a 
national of the Republic of Slovenia, or a 
national of a Member State, residing in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, or an alien who is in possession of a permanent residence permit in the Republic of Slovenia, 
conditioned by returning the person to the 
Republic of Slovenia after the proceeding is concluded, the criminal judgment imposed by the court of the ordering State shall be enforced in the Republic of Slovenia, even if 
the offence in the order is not a criminal 
offence under the law of the Republic of Slovenia as well as without the consent of the person. 
12 - To abrogate Article 36(3) of the implementing law (see 7.3.1.7). The ZSKZD ČEU eliminated the provision, by 
which the Republic of Slovenia implemented Article 32 of the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest and surrender 
warrant, and consequently limited the 
application of this institute to criminal offences committed after 7 August 2002 
13 - To consider amending the implementing legislation with a view to establishing clear rules enabling courts executing EAWs to proceed to seize property in the possession of the requested person 
that may be used as evidence, or that has been 
acquired by him as a result of the offence, without a prior request from the issuing authority (see 7.3.1.8). With regard to this recommendation it has to 
be mentioned that the provision of the Framework Decision that governs the seizure of items is partly implemented in Article 24 of 
ZSKZDČEU, and partly also in the existing 
national regulations – Criminal code. In accordance with the Slovenian legislation, items from a criminal offence must be seized – this includes items that were used or 
intended for use while committing a criminal 
offence, or were produced with a criminal offence, as well as unlawful pecuniary 
 
EN 166   EN advantage and items that could be used as 
evidence in a criminal proceeding. 
Article 24 of the ZSKZD ČEU also determines 
that if the issuing judicial authority so orders in a warrant or when so determined by the national criminal code, the investigating judge shall seize and hand over the items that might serve as evidence in criminal proceedings to 
the issuing judicial authority. If the issuing 
judicial authority orders a temporary protection of the request for the seizure of financial profit, the investigating judge shall order temporary protection of the property in 
the Republic of Slovenia. The court shall 
decide on the seizure in a decision whereby it decides on the surrender.. Items, financial benefit or property as referred to in the preceding paragraphs shall be seized and 
handed over also in the case when the 
surrender cannot be carried out because the requested person has died or absconded. If the domestic court seized items or financial benefit or property in criminal proceedings that is underway, it shall retain the items or 
hand them over temporarily to the issuing 
Member State, on condition that they are returned. The issuing state shall return items from the first and second paragraphs of this Article if the administering state or a third 
person is entitled to them 
14 - To re-examine the transposition of the Frame-work Decision into national law as regards transit of 
non-Slovenians in conviction cases, so that a statement by the requested person that he wishes to serve the sentence in the issuing Member State is not required (see 7.3.1.9). The provision in the ZSKZD ČEU is the same 
as it was in the ZENPP. 
15 - To re-examine the transposition of the Frame-
work Decision into national law, so that transit cases 
from third States to another Member State are 
expressly addressed by the implementing legislation, and so that conditions similar to those of transit within the European Union apply (see 7.3.1.9). The situation regulated in paragraph 5 of the 
article 5 of the FD is implemented in the 
second paragraph of the article 37 of the 
ZSKZDČEU, which determines that if transit 
across the territory of another Member State is necessary in order to implement the extradition of a person from the third country, the court shall send to the ministry the 
relevant documents, so that the ministry can 
request the permission for transit 
 
General information   
 
EN 167   EN General Council recommendations 2009  
Language flexibility Yes, English,  Slovene, (article 15 of the 
ZSKZDČEU) - additional flexibility arises 
also from the before mentioned provision, 
which gives the investigative judge the 
possibility to  order that the warrant is ex 
officio translated into the Slovenian or English languages, when the detention has been imposed against the requested person.  
Time limit for translated EAW 10 days (Decision is within the competence of 
the judicial authority which determines an 
appropriate time limit  not exceeding ten 
days.) 
Provisional arrest  48 hours 
Proportionality test  With rEgard to the question of the 
proportionality test, we assess that there is no 
need to include the explicit provision in the implementing law, since the principle is actually being tested in practice as proceeding from the Constitution of the Republic of 
Slovenia.  
The condition to issue a European arrest 
warrant is that in the Republic of Slovenia a decree on a detention order has been issued, typically due to the reason of flight risk, which is indicated under Point 1 of the first 
paragraph of Article 201 of the Criminal 
Procedure Act of the Republic of Slovenia. When issuing a detention order, one of the circumstances to be ascertained is the proportionality of the measure vis-avis the 
violation of the constitutionally protected 
right to personal liberty. If a concrete criminal offence, of which an individual is suspected on good grounds, is either by its content or due to the anticipated sentence of small weight (that is, regardless of the statutory 
sentence), a detention order is not issued for 
this individual. In such a case, a European arrest warrant cannot be issued, since the 
supposition for issuing such a arrest warrant has not been substantiated. 
However, even if a final detention order is 
issued in accordance with domestic legislation, this does yet not mean that an European arrest warrant will be issued, since the proportionality of such a measure has to 
be considered each time. 
 
EN 168   EN The verification of proportionality is indeed 
not written expressly in the secondary 
legislation; however, it proceeds from the 
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and is part of the criminal proceedings of the Republic of Slovenia, since it is mandatory for the court always to verify proportionality between the weight of the criminal offence, 
the validity of suspicion and the reasons for 
detention or arrest. In practice, this means that the proportionality verification has been performed while issuing the decree on detention, and without a decree on detention, 
it is not possible to issue a European arrest 
warrant. Verification of the principle of proportionality when deciding on the issue of detention orders (and on their subsequent 
prolongation) and other measures related to 
the violation of personal liberty is generally 
accepted in case-law, also due to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of 
Slovenia
. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) 1)Mandatory defense with a legal 
representative is stipulated in Article 70 of the Criminal Procedure Act; namely, if it involves cases when the accused person is mute, deaf or otherwise incapable to defend himself, 
when a criminal proceeding is initiated 
against him/her for a criminal offence, for which a prison sentence of thirty years is prescribed under law, or if he/she is brought to an investigating judge or if detention is 
ordered against him/her. In these cases the 
president of the court shall impose a legal representative by official duty, if the accused person doesn't take one on his/her own. Otherwise, in accordance with Article 71 of 
the Criminal Procedure Act, the accused 
person, who by his/her own financial conditions cannot pay for a legal representative, shall be at his/her own request or if in the interest of justice imposed a legal representative by official duty. The costs of 
the legal representative shall be considered 
under costs of a criminal proceeding. In accordance with Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the accused person has been found guilty, the court shall order that the 
accused person must reimburse all costs of the 
criminal proceeding; however, it may also exempt the accused person from the reimbursement of all costs or labour costs, if due to his/her payment the support of the 
 
EN 169   EN accused person or persons that the accused 
person is obliged to support would be 
endangered. If the criminal proceeding is 
suspended or a judgment is issued, by which the accused person is acquitted from the allegation, or if the allegation is rejected or a decision is issued, by which the allegation is rejected, the court shall order that the costs are 
charged to the budget. 
2)According to article 16 of the ZSKZD ČEU 
the requested person must have a counsel during the entire surrender procedure from the bringing to the investigating judge or from the 
first hearing involving decision on the 
surrender until the executi on of the surrender. 
If the requested person does not take a defence counsel, the president of the court shall appoint him ex officio  
Accessory surrender No  
Flagging Judicial authorities 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests Competent courts as well as the Ministry of 
the Interior - Police- International Police Co-operation Division 
Seizure and handover of property With regard  to this it has to be mentioned that 
the provision of the Framework Decision that governs the seizure of items is partly 
implemented in Article 24 of ZSKZD ČEU, 
and partly also in the existing national regulations – Criminal code. In accordance with the Slovenian legislation, items from a criminal offence must be seized – this 
includes items that were used or intended for 
use while committing a criminal offence, or were produced with a criminal offence, as well as unlawful pecuniary advantage and items that could be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding. 
Principle of direct contacts Yes, according to the first paragraph  of the 14 
of the implementing law ( ZSKZD ČEU) the 
issuing and executing judicial authorities must communicate directly as a rule.  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law Yes  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement   
 
EN 170   EN Regime for transfer back The person would be automatically returned, 
without any further formalities or consultations, 
however Slovenia has not had any practical 
case yet - article 72 of ZSKZD ČEU (if the 
order allowed for the surrender of a national of the Republic of Slovenia, or a national of a Member State, residing in the territory of the Republic of Slovenia, or an alien who is in 
possession of a permanent residence permit in 
the Republic of Slovenia, conditioned by returning the person to the Republic of Slovenia after the proceeding is concluded (point 3 of Article 11), the criminal judgment 
imposed by the court of the ordering State 
shall be enforced in the Republic of Slovenia, even if the offence in the order is not a criminal offence under the law of the Republic of Slovenia as well as without the 
consent of the person) 
24/7 rota? Yes 
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Yes, if the national court receives an order 
against a national of the Republic of Slovenia 
or of another Member State residing in the 
territory of the Republic of Slovenia, or an alien who is in possession of a permanent residence permit in the Republic of Slovenia, with the aim of executing a custodial 
sentence, precautionary or other sanction that 
is carried out by detention order, and all other conditions are met for the surrender of such a person and the person has agreed to serve the sentence in the Republic of Slovenia and the national court binds itself to enforce the 
judgement, the order shall be treated as a 
request for the execution of a custodial sentence, precautionary or other sanction that is carried out by detention order. In such a case, the criminal judgment imposed in the 
issuing State of the order, would be enforced 
in the Republic of Slovenia also if the offence in the order is not a criminal offence under the law of the Republic of Slovenia 
Age of criminal liability  14 years 
Statistics Yes, 2007, 2008: and 2009 
Website  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes  
 
 
EN 171   EN Case law/preliminary questions  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
SI has not specifically transposed Article 26 FD The provision of the article 26 of the FD is 
transposed in different legal instruments - new 
implementing law - 2 paragraph of the article 33 
of the ZSKZD ČEU as well as in the provision of 
the Criminal Code:  
2 paragraph of the article 33 of the ZSKZD ČEU- 
determines that upon the surrender of the 
requested person, all information connected with 
the duration and type of measures taken in order to provide the presence as referred to in Article 23 of this Act shall be submitted to the issuing judicial authority  
Article 15 of the Criminal Code determines that 
any period of detention and confinement during 
the extradition procedure, or sentence of imprisonment served under the judgment of a foreign court, if it becomes known at a later time, shall be credited towards the sentence imposed 
for the same criminal offence by the domestic 
court. If sentences are of different types, the domestic court shall deci de on the appropriate 
method of deduction of the period served abroad. If the convicted person server together more sentences than they were imposed on him in the 
judgment before the domestic court, the surplus 
shall deem him wrongfully convicted 
Article 45 of the Criminal code - determines that 
time spent on remand shall be counted as a part of the sentence of imprisonment or shall be credited 
towards a fine. 
it is contrary to the Framework Decision 
that requests received by SI for offences 
committed prior to 7 August 2002 will be treated under previous extradition arrangements (art 32 FD) Article 32 of the FD was not transposed in the 
new law, consequently Slovenia does not have 
any limitation regarding the time of the commission of the criminal offence. 
 
 
EN 172   EN 25. SPAIN  
Recommendations EAW report 30-3-2007 
(5085/2/07 REV 2 CRIMORG 5)  Follow up report 27-11-09 
New developments  
1 – That measures are put in place to ensure uniform 
compliance, by Spain’s issuing JAs, of their statutory duty to provide the CA with copies of all EAWs 
issued and transmitted. (See 7.2.1.1). Issuing JAs generally do send copies of 
EAWs issued and transmitted now. 
2 – That consideration be given by the Spanish 
authorities to the preparation of a form of words/brief 
explanatory memorandum to expressly confirm, for the benefit of executing MSs (in particular common law countries) that prosecution decisions have de facto been reached in respect of all EAW prosecution 
requests, but that before such a decision can formally 
be taken, the Spanish Procedural Code requires the hearing of the person. (See 7.2.1.3). No such memorandum has been done, but 
permanent contact is established with the 
executing MS to clarify this on a case by case basis. 
3 – That the Spanish authorities reappraise the current practice of causing all requested persons to be transported to Madrid rather than directly to the locality of the issuing JA itself. (See 7.2.1.6). No legislative change h as been introduced in 
this regard up to now. Nevertheless, Spain considers this issue as one of the possible future changes of the implementing law. 
4 – To ensure that measures are put in place to ensure that only judicial scrutiny results in flagging or a 
request for further information being raised in respect 
of EAWs received via the International Police Cooperation Unit. (See 7.3.1.1). The IPCU requests judicial scrutiny when 
flagging or further information is needed . 
5 – To examine the quality of linguistic provision 
available to requested persons  and their legal advisors 
before the executing JA and to take such remedial action as may be required. (See 7.3.1.2). Examining the quality of linguistic assistance 
is difficult because the other language is not known by JAs- however, this is a matter of concern for all authorities involved. 
6 – To update the Fiche Française, ensuring that greater clarity is expressed in respect of the 
procedures which may be adopted in the case of 
EAWs concerning minors. (See 7.3.1.3) The FF has not been updated. The practice in 
Spain so far is to surrender minors ageing 14-
18 to the issuing MS. 
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility EAWs via SIS will be translated by ES 
Time limit for translated EAW  
 
EN 173   EN Provisional arrest  Yes 72 hours  
Proportionality test  Yes 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) There is no provision for these sort of cases.  
Accessory surrender Yes  
Flagging Judicial authority 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests  National Agency for Data Protection. 
Courts of the Administrative Jurisdiction 
Seizure and handover of property Yes  
Principle of direct contacts MoJ central authority 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back The Art 5(3) FD guarantee is sufficient basis 
for surrender and return of own nationals. 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the 
nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is 
execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? No such case has arisen so far.  
Age of criminal liability  18 yrs, derogations possible in serious cases 
for 14-18 yr old  
Statistics  Yes, 2007 and 2008 
Website  www.prontuario.org  detailed and regularly 
updated practical guide on international 
 
EN 174   EN judicial assistance  
www.mjusticia.es  contains a chapter on the 
functioning of EAW 
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions: - 
COM Implementation Report of 2007: no remarks stem from the 2007 COM report.  
 
EN 175   EN 26. SWEDEN  
Recommendations EAW report 21-8-2008 
(9927/2/08 REV 2 CRIMORG 79)  Follow up report 23-7-09 and 29-07-2010 
 In Sweden no new national legislative 
measures have been adopted since 1 April 
2007 regarding the EAW.  
Therefore Sweden has no new information to 
provide in this regard. 
1 - Institute the necessary  mechanisms to provide 
complete and reliable statistics on European Arrest Warrants issued, executed or rejected by the Swedish authorities (see 7.1.7 and see footnote 2 in page 28). SE has provided statistics for the year 2007, 
2008 and 2009 
2 - Adopt measures to ensure that appropriate training programmes are put in place, so that 
extensive and regular training on EAW is provided, 
mainly to judges and defence lawyers (see 7.1.8).  
3 - Consider taking appropriate measures to ensure 
that EAWs in conviction case s are issued either by a 
judicial authority or under the supervision of a judicial authority, in line with the provisions of the Framework Decision (see 7.2.1.1).  
4 - Produce written guidelines to assist those bodies 
and institutions entitled to request the issue of an 
EAW in conviction cases (see 7.2.1.2).  
5 - Consider amending the legislation so that there is 
no need to summon the person concerned to appear in 
court when the detention order is requested with a view to further issuing an EAW (see 7.2.1.3).  
6 - Amend the legislation so that the provisions of the 
Framework Decision on temporary surrender are made effectively applicable, by enabling the competent authorities to provide guarantees that the 
requested person will be sent back to the executing 
State (see 7.2.1.4).  
7 - Amend the implementing legislation in order to 
ensure that renunciation of the entitlement to the speciality rule will be valid only if it is given before a judicial authority and after consultation with a legal counsel (see 7.2.1.5).  
8 - Take the necessary steps to ensure that existing 
SIS alerts based on International arrest warrants are 
replaced with SIS alerts based on EAWs (see  
 
EN 176   EN 7.2.1.6). 
9 - Reconsider the current practice of adding 
restrictive validity flags to SIS-alerts without prior consultation of a judicial authority (see 7.3.1.1).  
10 - Update the information on the national 
authorities competent to receive an EAW provided in 
the EAW Atlas and the Fiches Françaises, as well as 
in the notifications to the General Secretariat of the Council (see 7.3.1.2). Sweden has updated the Fiches Françaises 
and the notifications to the General Secretariat 
11 - Amend the implementing legislation in order to ensure that consent to surrender and renunciation of the entitlement to the speciality rule will be valid only if it is given by the requested person before a 
judicial authority and after consultation with a legal 
counsel, in line with Article 13 of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.3).  
12 - Clarify the deadline fo r the prosecutor to refer 
the case to the court for a decision on surrender, in order to enable the latter to meet the required time limits in accordance with Article 17 of the 
Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.4).  
13 - Consider amending the implementing law so that 
the statutory time limits for appeal do not lead to a 
breach of the time-limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision (see 7.3.1.6).  
14 - Take the measures considered necessary (e.g. 
through an addition to the Prosecutors' Manual) to ensure that the provisions of the implementing law on competing EAWs are fully complied with (see 
7.3.1.8). 
  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility English/Danish/Norwegian 
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes, max 72 hrs 
Proportionality test  An arrest warrant may only be issued if it 
appears justified to do so in view of the nature and seriousness of the crime and the circum-
stances in general, and when the harm to the 
 
EN 177   EN individual and the delay and costs that can be 
expected in the case are taken into account. 
Prosecutor's manual comprises detailed 
guidance on proportionality; no specific guidelines for EAWs in conviction cases. 
Is it possible for a sought person to get (state paid) legal assistance provided by X in the following situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the 
basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column) (1) Yes in accordance with the condition in 
the Swedish Code on Judicial Procedure. As a main rule a state paid public defence counsel is appointed for the underlying Swedish 
procedure  
(2) No  
Accessory surrender Yes (if dual criminality) 
Flagging International police cooperation unit 
Competent authority for Art 111 Schengen requests The Swedish National Police Board  
Seizure and handover of property Partly transposed 
Principle of direct contacts Yes, MoJ Central authority 
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law No  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  Cf FD 
Regime for transfer back Domestic provision 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality? Yes 
Age of criminal liability  - 15 yrs 
- issuing a EAW for a person under the age of 
18 yrs is possible if it concerns serious criminality or if the person has a strong connection with Sweden or if there is a special reason 
Statistics Yes - 2007, 2008 AND 2009 
 
EN 178   EN Website  
Jurisdiction ECJ Yes 
 
Case law/preliminary questions  
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
With reference to the implementation of Art 4(1) 
FD, SE has stated they will follow the Framework Decision in practice, however such statements do not amount to correct transposition of the 
Framework Decision.  
 
 
EN 179   EN 27. UNITED KINGDOM  
Recommendations EAW report 7-12-2007 
(9974/2/07 REV 2 EXT 1 CRIMORG 96)  Follow up report 13 October 2009 
New developments The UK has not  implemented any legislative 
changes into its domestic legislation since 1 
April 2007. The last amendments came into 
effect on 15 January 2007. 
1 – That the statutory issues particularised in section 7.3.1.2 of this report ( refusal on the basis of ECHR 
issues and on grounds incompatible with the FD (Art 
4.4, and 4.7.b ) be addressed in the light of ECJ 
interpretational jurisprudence (in particular the 
Pupino case) so that the UK position may be brought 
more closely into line with the FD.  
2 - That the authorities of the UK re-examine the 
avenues of appeal available to requested persons and consider how best domestic processes may be streamlined to give effect to the surrender time limits set out in the FD (see 7.3.1.3).  
3 – That the UK prioritises its efforts to identify an 
appropriate test case in which the necessity of the 
non-statutory certification process may be examined 
(see 7.3.1.1).  
4 - That the UK prioritises its efforts to identify 
appropriate test cases in which guidance can be sought concerning the extent to which supplementary information may be relied upon to remedy deficiencies in EAWs received by the UK as an 
executing Member State (see 7.3.1.1) or, 
alternatively, if a Warrant does not contain the statement referred to in Section 2 (2) legislative changes are considered to remedy the situation regarding the provision of supplementary information.  
5 - That, in light of the outcome of the test case(s) 
taken pursuant to recommendations 3 and 4, the UK 
authorities consider whether there is a need to 
introduce further legislation to close any remaining lacunae (see 7.3.1.1).  
6 - That the UK examine its system of handling 
incoming requests via the Interpol channels for surrender where there is no EAW copy and no UK link. The criteria for giving a follow up to such a 
request should not be based on a UK perception of 
the seriousness of the offence (see 7.3.1.5 and  
 
EN 180   EN 7.3.1.1). 
7 - That consideration be given to the creation of a 
suitable forum whereby the various JAs of the UK can undertake an exchange of views and best 
practices (see 7.3.1.1. and 7.3.2.1).  
8 – That immediate measures be put in place to 
facilitate the timely and adequate provision of legal 
aid to persons subject to EAW surrender requests in England and Wales (see 7.3.1.6).  
 
General information  
General Council recommendations 2009   
Language flexibility No  
Time limit for translated EAW  
Provisional arrest  Yes  
Proportionality test  Yes 
Is it possible for a sought pe rson to get (state paid) 
legal assistance provided by X in the following 
situations: 
(1) in X for the underlying X criminal proceedings 
when he is arrested in another Member State on the basis of a X EAW and 
(2) in another Member State, for the underlying 
criminal proceedings when he is arrested in X on the 
basis of an EAW of the other state? 
(X = state in the head of the relevant column)  
Accessory surrender  
Flagging Not applicable  
Competent authority for Art. 111 Sc hengen requests Not applicable  
Seizure and handover of prope rty Separate mla request 
Principle of direct contacts Via central bodies  
Integration of recital 12 in implementation law  
Dual criminality abolished for attempt and complicity Yes  
4 months requirement  Cf FD 
 
EN 181   EN Regime for transfer back Domestic legislation based on EAW FD 
24/7 rota?  
In case of refusal of surrender for the execution of a 
sentence on the ground that the sought person has the nationality, or is a resident of the executing State, is execution of that sentence possible in the executing 
state when there is no dual criminality?  
Age of criminal liability  10 (Englan d, Wales and Northern Ireland), 8 
(Scotland) 
Statistics  2007: yes 
Website Monthly updated intranet guidebook for 
prosecutors 
Jurisdiction ECJ No 
 
Case law/preliminary questions:- 
COM Implementation Report of 2007   
In relation to Article 1(1), however, it is noted 
that the UK refuses to surrender the requested 
person unless the investigations have been closed. 
Moreover the UK will rarely use provisional arrest in the process of executing an EAW, and therefore will not arrest the requested person until the certification has been granted. This appears to the Commission as contrary to the definition and 
the scope of the EAW as defined in Article 1(1) 
of the Framework Decision, and in practice leads to serious difficulties.  
In the UK the transposing legislation applies only 
to the Member States which have been listed by Decree or Order. The Commission has not fully been informed of these lists, although it should be 
notified of any relevant transposing measure 
including secondary national legislation  
For reasons of national security, the Secretary of 
State in the UK may overrule the decision of the judge or direct the judge if he believes that the requested person was acting in the interests of the UK by carrying out actions conferred or imposed 
by or under an enactment, or is not liable as a 
result of an authorisation given by the Secretary of State for his action. This is contrary to the Framework Decision, since this ground for  
 
EN 182   EN refusal is not envisaged and moreover it transfers 
the decision making power from the executing 
judicial authority to the Executive. 
UK has introduced additional grounds for refusal based on the passage of time and extraneous 
considerations, which may go beyond the Framework Decision. Such grounds for refusal may be established on a relatively low standard of proof and once raised, compel the judge to look 
into the substance of the underlying case and the 
conduct of the issuing Member State.  
UK has introduced additional grounds for refusal 
arising from the application of Treaties or Conventions which have not been set aside by the Framework Decision.  
The UK has also specified that surrender to a 
Member State is barred by special hostage taking 
considerations in specific situations where the 
International Convention against the Taking of Hostages of 18 December 1979 applies. This is 
contrary to the Framework Decision as this instrument regulates relations between Member 
States in surrender procedures and as such the 
Framework Decision has replaced a number of other instruments which cannot be used in order to add grounds for refusal in dealing with Member States. However, those instruments 
remain unaffected when Member States deal with 
third countries.  
Article 5(1) guarantee. Of these only UK imposes 
additional conditions, not envisaged in the Framework Decision, in relation to the conduct of the hearing, such as the right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance of one’s own choosing or where appropr iate to be given free 
legal assistance and to obtain the examination of 
witnesses on one’s behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against oneself.  
Article 8 – Content and form of the European 
arrest warrant 
The UK has not included in its legislation all the 
information in Article 8(1) nor indicated whether 
it uses the correct form. It has done so because a 
non EU Member State may be designated under Part One of the Act provided that it does not operate the death penalty and is a Schengen State. The UK has, nevertheless, stated that in practice it 
uses the form in the annex to the Framework 
Decision. This again does not satisfy the  
 
EN 183   EN requirement of legal certainty. UK’s legislation 
may give rise to difficulties, as it appears to be 
somewhat confusing.  
Also problematic, the UK form must indicate that 
the requested person was convicted in his presence or give evidence that the individual “deliberately absented himself from his trial” whereas the form annexed to the Framework 
decision simply states that the requested person 
shall be present unless indicated otherwise. 
UK has added a stage for the execution of a EAW, which is not required by the Framework Decision and according to how it is dealt with may be contrary to the Framework Decision. UK has imposed a certification or pre-endorsement 
stage for a EAW to be valid. This supplementary 
formality is to be complied with by the central authority, which, in practice often acts as an executive authority. 
The judgment of the House of Lords in Dabas v. 
HCJ Madrid (2007) UKHL 06, has however 
reduced the importance of the certification stage in the UK, finding that the EAW in itself could constitute a certificate.  
UK seem to send back an incomplete form and to 
require almost systematically that a new EAW is issued which cause great difficulties to some MS 
which cannot reissue EAW and cause delays in 
any event.  
UK does not allow a EAW to be transmitted 
directly where the location of the person is known  
In UK, requests for further information before the 
surrender decision comprise details concerning the statutory requirement that the requested person in any conviction case is declared to be "unlawfully at large" i.e. the person has been convicted and is liable to immediate arrest and 
detention. However the Commission has been 
informed that such a requirement should be abolished pursuant to the adoption of the Police and Justice Act, which entered into force on 1st January 2007.  
UK no deadline is provided for making the 
decision following the highest appeal (House of 
Lords). Thus both the 60 and 90 day deadlines 
could in principle be exceeded. Times limits are far from being respected by the UK, as they are not transposed in the Extradition Act 2003 and  
 
EN 184   EN are often delayed by appeal procedures. No 60 
day time limit is imposed for surrender after the 
arrest of the requested person. The only time limit 
which is mentioned in the Extradition Act 2003 is the 10 day limit after the final decision of Article 17(2). A first instance appeal must be lodged within 7 days of the surrender decision with the hearing taking place within 40 days of the arrest 
of the requested person. A second appeal to the 
House of Lords or to the Privy Council is then possible, provided the requested person obtains leave to do so. The leave application may be made to the Appeal Court within 14 days after the 
1st decision or if it is refused directly to the 
House of Lords within 28 days of that refusal. If the leave is granted (and there is no statutory limit set for the granting of leave), the appeal shall commence within 28 days of the grant for leave. 
No statutory limit is set neither for the hearing 
nor for the decision. As a result of this procedure, the UK's average time for a surrender procedure to be completed is 28 days when the requested person has agreed to the surrender and 65 days when the requested person does not consent to the 
surrender and appears to be exceeding the delays 
set by the Framework Decision. 
UK has in transposing Article 23(4) allowed for discharge of the person as an alternative to postponement. The grounds for discharge (where it would be "unjust or oppressive" to extradite the 
person) are vague to contrast with the Framework 
Decision. The postponement of the surrender for 
humanitarian reasons is not specifically foreseen as it is for the hearin g according to their 
legislation.  
 
 
EN 185   EN PART IX - STATISTICAL CHARTS IN  RELATION TO TH E EUROPEAN ARREST 
WARRANT  
 
EN 186   EN 0100200300400500600
2005 2007 2009BE
issued
executed
0100200300400500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009CZ
issued
executed
020406080100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009DK
issued
executed
05001000150020002500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009DE
issued
executed
01020304050
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009EE
issued
executed
020406080100120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009EL
issued
executed
0100200300400500600700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009ES
issued
executed
0500100015002000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009FR
issued
executed
 
EN 187   EN 01020304050
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009IE
issued
executed
020406080100120140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009IT
issued
executed
01020304050
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009CY
issued
executed
050100150200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009LV
issued
executed
0100200300400500600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009LT
issued
executed
01020304050
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009LU
issued
executed
020040060080010001200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009HU
issued
executed
01234567
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009MT
issued
executed
 
EN 188   EN 0100200300400500600
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009NL
issued
executed
02004006008001000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009AT
issued
executed
010002000300040005000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009PL
issued
executed
050100150200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009PT
issued
executed
0500100015002000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009RO
issued
executed
020406080100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009SI
issued
executed
 
EN 189   EN 0100200300400500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009SK
issued
executed
020406080100120140
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009FI
issued
executed
050100150200250300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009SE
issued
executed
050100150200250
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009UK
issued
executed