Resolution on the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (C4-0640/96)
Date: 1997-09-18
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European convention, Greece, Portugal, Treaty on European Union, criminal law, extradition, political asylum













EUR-Lex - 51997IP0265 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51997IP0265

Resolution on the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (C4-0640/96)  


Official Journal C 304 , 06/10/1997 P. 0131 





A4-0265/97Resolution on the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (C4-0640/96)The European Parliament,- having regard to the Council Act of 27 September 1996 drawing up the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union (C4-0640/96) ((OJ C 313, 23.10.1996, p. 11.)) (hereinafter 'the Convention'),- having regard to the European Human Rights Convention of 4 November 1950, and in particular Articles 3, 5 and 6 thereof,- having regard to the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 and the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 27 January 1977,- having regard to Article K.1, point 7, Article K.3(2) and the second paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union,- having regard to the Council Act of 10 March 1995 drawing up the Convention on the simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union ((OJ C 78, 30.3.1995, p. 1.)),- having regard to its resolution of 20 January 1994 on participation by the European Parliament in international agreements by the Member States and the Union on cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs ((OJ C 44, 14.2.1994, p. 180.)),- having regard to its resolution of 30 January 1997 on combating terrorism in the European Union ((OJ C 55, 24.2.1997, p. 27.)),- having regard to the Action Plan drawn up by the High-Level Group for combating organized crime ((OJ C 251, 15.8.1997, p. 1.)),- having regard to the agreement reached by the Intergovernmental Conference at the European Council meeting of 16 and 17 June 1997 in Amsterdam on the draft Treaty of Amsterdam (hereinafter referred to as the Amsterdam Treaty), and in particular Part I thereof,- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Institutional Affairs (A4-0265/97),A. whereas 'extradition' is used below to denote the surrender of a person, by order of the judicial authorities of a Member State of the European Union, to those of another Member State, for the purpose of prosecution or execution of a sentence,B. whereas judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union in criminal matters must be improved substantially, and thus rendered more effective, in order to combat crime, organized or otherwise, in particular terrorism, trafficking in persons and offences against children, illicit drug trafficking and illicit arms trafficking, acts of active or passive corruption, fraud and other offences, and to ensure that no Member State can become a safe haven where a criminal can be safe from prosecution and punishment by another Member State,C. whereas the system of extradition seems to have less and less justification and raison d'être within a Union of States governed by the rule of law and equally respectful of human rights (cf. new Article F of the Treaty on European Union inserted by the Amsterdam Treaty), in which internal borders seem to be gradually losing their significance and whereas this system should ultimately be abandoned in favour of an automatic extradition procedure or the simple handing over of the persons sought, subject to respect for fundamental rights and the judicial nature of the procedure,D. whereas the improvement in judicial cooperation in criminal matters with regard to extradition can and should be achieved primarily by eliminating de jure and de facto obstacles to improving the efficiency thereof,E. whereas the more efficient prosecution and execution of sentences in the European Union associated with the improved extradition procedure must not harm the rights of the defence, as laid down in the European Human Rights Convention and interpreted by the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights,F. whereas the deprivation of liberty of a person who is the subject of an extradition procedure may entail violation of that person's fundamental rights, which is why decisions on extradition should be taken as swiftly as possible,G. whereas extradition is a key instrument of judicial cooperation in criminal matters as set out in Article K.1 of the Treaty on European Union and whereas reservations in respect of the Convention are contrary to that objective,H. whereas improving the extradition procedure will immediately reduce offenders' chances of escaping prosecution or punishment simply as a result of having crossed an internal border between Member States,I. convinced that the improvement and coordination of extradition procedures should, given that they entail harmonization of the different legal situations within the European Union, be seen as an important contribution to achieving an 'area of freedom, security and justice',J. convinced that the agreement reached between the Member States on 27 September 1996 concerning the Convention will in principle help to improve extradition between the Member States of the European Union, subject, however, to the proviso that the Member States make no - or only extremely restrained - use of the numerous opportunities for entering reservations against individual obligations under the Convention,K. convinced that only the Court of Justice of the European Community can guarantee uniform implementation of the obligations laid down in the Convention, and that the failure to include any provisions relating to the role of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, in particular as regards preliminary rulings on the provisions of the Convention, is a particularly serious omission from the Convention, above all in view of the risk that different interpretations and practices may be established by the courts in the various Member States,L. aware that, under the new Article K.7 of the Treaty on European Union inserted by the Amsterdam Treaty, the Court of Justice of the European Communities will - subject to certain conditions - in future also have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the interpretation of conventions and on the validity and interpretation of the measures implementing them, and to rule on any disputes between Member States and the Commission regarding the interpretation or application of conventions,M. whereas the provision added in Article K.3(b) of the Treaty on European Union by the Amsterdam Treaty makes facilitating extradition a specific objective of judicial cooperation in criminal matters,N. convinced that the importance of the Convention for improving judicial cooperation in criminal matters makes it one of the 'principal aspects of activities' of the Union within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union, which is why the Presidency should have consulted the European Parliament on the Convention and should have ensured that its views were duly taken into consideration,O. concluding that the failure to consult the European Parliament on the Convention (just as previously on the Council Act of 10 March 1995 drawing up the Convention on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union) is contrary to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union,P. expecting that the Council's practice of not consulting the European Parliament, which runs counter to the second paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union, will in future no longer be possible following the new unequivocal provision inserted in Article K.11(1) by the Amsterdam Treaty,Q. convinced that, as repeatedly called for by the European Parliament, an interinstitutional agreement must be concluded with the Council on the European Parliament's participation in the drawing up of legal instruments under Title VI of the Treaty on European Union in order to guarantee that the provisions of Article K.6 and the new Article K.11 are implemented in a manner consistent with the Treaty,1. Regrets that the Convention was concluded without the European Parliament's having been informed and consulted by the Presidency, as provided for in the second paragraph of Article K.6 of the Treaty on European Union;2. Welcomes the basic objectives contained in the Convention and the numerous points where it represents progress compared with the European Extradition Convention signed on 13 December 1957 within the framework of the Council of Europe;3. Regrets the lack of confidence among Member States and the resulting lack of clarity in the wording of the Convention as it may allow collaborating with or participating in an armed gang to remain excluded from extradition with the undesirable consequence that the leaders of terrorist and criminal organizations will set up with complete impunity in those countries where it is not an extraditable offence;4. Calls in consequence for an agreement on minimum legal standards governing citizens' rights in the extradition procedure, with regard inter alia to regular reviews of the validity of the detention, defence rights, the maximum length of detention and time limits for rulings;5. Expresses its disappointment that in the Convention - despite the introductory statement of mutual confidence in the structure and operation of their legal systems and in the ability of all Member States to ensure a fair trial - it was necessary to concede to the Member States in the case of nearly every innovation the possibility of excluding or altering its legal effects by entering reservations, such as:- in the case of the abolition of the requirement that the offence be punishable in both states (principle of dual criminality) with regard to conspiracy and association to commit offences for certain types of organized crime,- the ban on the possibility of regarding offences as political offences,- the inclusion of fiscal offences in the list of extraditable offences,- the obligation also to extradite own nationals,- the abolition of the prohibition of re-extradition to another Member State;6. Calls on the Member States, as constitutional democracies, to refrain in the interests of safeguarding human rights and fundamental freedoms from applying Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the framework of the Convention, and calls for this to be emphasized in the preamble to the Convention;7. Welcomes the procedure established in the new Sole Article of the Protocol to the Amsterdam draft Treaty on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union as a guarantee that the right of asylum cannot be invoked by nationals of a Member State for purposes inconsistent with those for which it is provided;8. Calls on the Council to adopt the agreements and measures necessary to prevent any national of a Member State charged with a terrorist crime or cooperation with an armed gang from obtaining political asylum or refugee status in another Member State;9. Calls on the Member States, in accordance with Recommendation No 14 of the Action Plan drawn up by the High-Level Group for combating organized crime, to ratify the Convention as soon as possible, and by the end of 1998 at the latest, and to declare, when giving the notification pursuant to Article 18(4) of the Convention, that the Convention will apply even prior to its entry into force to their relations with Member States that have made the same declaration;10. Calls on the Member States, in connection with notification, to make no - or only extremely restrained - use of the numerous opportunities for declaring reservations, in order to prevent the continued existence of differing legal conditions for extradition;11. Takes the view that harmonizing the relevant legislation at European level is the best means of eliminating national reservations;12. Regrets that the Convention is not a step towards harmonization of criminal law in this area with a view to the required European legal and judicial area and that no provision has been made for any definite timetable or any sanctions to achieve such harmonization;13. Calls on Member States intending to enter reservations to begin immediately the legal and legislative preparatory work that will enable them, as soon as possible and at the latest within five years of the entry into force of the Convention, to withdraw their reservations or, in the case of the extradition of own nationals, no longer to demand them;14. Calls on Greece and Portugal, in connection with the declarations which they have made on constitutional grounds, to examine whether it is possible to interpret or, if necessary, revise their Constitutions in such a way as to obviate their refusal to extradite a foreigner for 'activities in defence of freedom' or a person under threat of a life sentence, thereby expressing their confidence in the structure and operation of the judicial systems in the Member States of the Union;15. Calls on the Council to consider now whether jurisdiction should be given to the Court of Justice of the European Communities instead of waiting until one year after entry into force of the Convention to address the matter; in doing so, in the light of the compromise reached by the Amsterdam European Council on the role of the Court of Justice in conventions under Title VI, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction for this Convention at least to the extent that it will in future have a general jurisdiction for conventions pursuant to Article K.7 of the Treaty on European Union, added by the Amsterdam Treaty;16. Calls on the Member States to make efforts, particularly from a practical point of view, to eliminate the diverse - and partly bureaucratic and administrative - reasons for delays in extradition and so considerably speed up the extradition procedure;17. Calls on the Council to review the Convention later in order to determine whether the opportunities for entering reservations can be eliminated or at least reduced;18. Calls on the Council to review the Convention later in order to determine whether an absolute deadline should be laid down for completion of the extradition process, not only for the sake of efficiency but also, and above all, on the ground of strict respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which are among the fundamental principles of the European Union and specifically protected by Article F and Article F.1 inserted by the Amsterdam Treaty; finally calls on the Council to ensure that the extradition process and the timetable for it can be clearly understood by those concerned;19. Calls for work on the creation of the 'area of freedom, security and justice' to continue resolutely with a view to setting up a European 'legal and judicial area' in order gradually to bridge the gap between the close integration of economic systems which has already been achieved and the disparities between legal systems in the Member States;20. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.