WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/01 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union, European arrest warrant, United States, death penalty, extradition, judicial cooperation, terrorism

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/43

reproduction for private use, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation. The Directive
gives Member States certain flexibility in determining the form, detailed arrangements and level of fair
compensation. Account should also be taken of
the particular circumstances of each case. Fair
compensation is a new concept introduced by the Directive. It is not identical with equitable remuneration
schemes (the ‘levies’). The Directive does not explicitly address such levy schemes. However, all Member
States, with the exception of Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom currently have already in place
remuneration schemes for private copying applying to blank recording media, equipment or both. Many of
them are considering whether to rationalise or extend theses schemes in relation to the media or
equipment to which they currently apply.

The Directive recognises that digital private copying (as opposed to analogue)
is likely to be more
widespread and have a greater economic impact. When applying the private copying exception, the
Directive requires Member States to take account of the application or non-application of technical
measures. The Directive introduces a comprehensive legal framework for the protection of technological
measures which provides an incentive towards the use of such measures.

In the run up to implementation, the Commission has organised a series of informal meetings with the
purpose of assisting Member States in transposing the Directive consistent with its aims. Thereafter, the
Commission will examine the impact of the Directive on the functioning of the internal market on a
variety of issues including private copying and the use of technological measures both in the context of the
Contact Committee established by the Directive and also in accordance with the review procedure laid
down by the Directive.

(1) OJ L 167, 22.6.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3359/01

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL)
and Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: European arrest warrant and the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA

We have gathered from press reports that the United States of America and the European Union are
pursuing an agreement that would pave the way for the extradition of suspected terrorists to the USA
under the new European arrest warrant by ensuring that the death penalty would not be applied in certain
cases. We have also taken note of the global assurances given by the US Ambassador to the EU,
Mr Rockwell Schnabel, that the death penalty would not be applied to suspected terrorists extradited from
Europe; however, with regard to that matter, the US Ambassador emphasised the need for some countries
‘to change things, including their constitutions’ and added that ‘there is agreement to pursue that’.

Bearing in mind that opposition to the death penalty is one of the fundamental principles of the EU,
enshrined as it is in the constitutions and in the specific laws of many of its Member States, and that the
new powers conferred on the President of
the United States since 11 September 2001 (including
entrusting military courts with jurisdiction, in summary proceedings, over foreigners suspected of terrorist
activities) would nullify any assurances given by State or Federal authorities of the USA, would the
Commission clarify the juridical nature and the scope of the negotiations with the USA going on in such a
context and restate its determination not to enter any agreement which would compromise,
limit or
modify EU opposition to the death penalty under any circumstances, particularly those involving
emergency extradition procedures?

C 172 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

Generally, although the differences of view between the United States and the Union on the death penalty
are well known, the Union regularly recalls its opposition to this punishment and invites the United States
to at least respect certain strict minimum standards for use of the death penalty, notably in relation to
juveniles and mentally retarded. These standards have been set down in the guidelines to Union policy
towards third countries on the death penalty. It goes without saying that the Commission will continue to
actively convey this policy to American authorities.

Regarding the more specific issue of an agreement between the United States and the Union on
extradition, under Articles 38 and 24 of the Treaty on European Union, for an agreement with a third state
on matters of judicial cooperation in criminal questions to be concluded, the Council, acting unanimously,
needs to authorise the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that
effect. Once the negotiations are finalised, the agreement is concluded by the Council acting unanimously
on a recommendation from the Presidency.

The Council has not yet been seized formally to give such an authorisation to the Presidency, let alone
taken a decision on it. No authorisation having been given yet,
it has not been possible to start
negotiations. Nevertheless, it is correct that the possibilities of an agreement under Articles 38 and 24 of
the Treaty on European Union on judicial cooperation in criminal matters between the United States and
the Union are currently being explored.

In any event, it would seem impossible to include the United States in the European arrest warrant system
as such. Indeed the title of the initiative the Commission took in September 2001 is ‘Council Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States’ (1). The
European arrest warrant system is for Member States only, and it is not intended that persons could be
transferred under this system from a Member State to a third country, such as the United States. If the
above-mentioned agreement between the Union and the United States were to cover the field of
extradition, it could thus be expected to contain provisions different from the ones in the European arrest
warrant Framework Decision.

While it must be pointed out that under the rules of Articles 38 and 24 of the Treaty on European Union,
it would not be for the Commission, but for the Union as such to enter into an agreement with a third
country such as the United States, the Commission can clearly restate its determination that if and when it
will exercise the role conferred upon it by the Treaties in this matter, it will do so in the strictest respect of
Article 2 paragraph 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2), which provides that
‘No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed’, as well as Article 19 paragraph 2 of the
Charter, reading ‘No one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk
that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment’.

(1) COM(2001) 522 final.
(2) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.

(2002/C 172 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3373/01

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(28 November 2001)

Subject: Relations between the European Union and the Palestinian Authority

On 18 November the EU Troika D composed of Belgian Prime Minister Verhofstad, Commission President
Prodi and High Representative for Foreign Policy Javier Solana D met the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel
Sharon.

According to international press reports, Prime Minister Sharon asked the European Union at that meeting
to stop funding the Palestinian Authority directly ‘because these funds are helping to buy arms which are