WRITTEN QUESTION P-1326/02 by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The European Arrest Warrant.
Date: 2002-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, European arrest warrant, Internet, extradition, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/3

(2003/C 192 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1326/02

by Earl of Stockton (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 May 2002)

Subject: The European Arrest Warrant

Is it the opinion of the European Commission that proposals for a European Arrest Warrant, as drafted,
would not cover conduct in one Member State which is not contrary to the law of that Member State?

If such conduct was illegal in another Member State, will the Commission confirm that that Member State
will not be entitled to invoke the European Arrest Warrant to demand the extradition of any persons
involved?

Does the Commission consider that material posted onto the Internet in one Member State, or posted
abroad via international mail, is conduct occurring exclusively in that Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

The framework decision on the European arrest warrant yet to be adopted formally by the Council is based
on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. This means that the decision made by the
judicial authority of one Member State, to require the arrest and surrender of a person, should be
recognized and executed in the other Member State.

To be effective mutual recognition has to diminish the scope of the double incrimination principle which,
as far as extradition is concerned, allows a Member State not to surrender a person for committing acts
which are not considered as criminal offences in its territory.

In the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant (1), the double incrimination principle has been
excluded for a list of 32 categories of offences, when those offences are punishable, under the law of the
issuing Member State, by at least three years imprisonment. This means that, when, according to the law
of the issuing Member State, an act will fall under one of those 32 types of conduct and is punishable by
at least three years imprisonment, the executing judicial authority shall not verify that the act is also an
offence according to its national law.

When the offence is not in the list or is not punishable in the issuing Member State by at least three years
imprisonment, the executing judicial authority can refuse to surrender the person if the acts which have
given rise to the European arrest warrant are not considered as offences according to its own national law
(article 4(1)). Nevertheless, the appreciation of double incrimination has to be made in a soft way. The
executing authority shall appreciate whether the acts are offences according to its national law, but shall
not consider whether the definition of the offences are exactly the same (some of the components can
differ) or whether the level of punishment is comparable. On this point the European arrest warrant differs
from the former extradition procedure because the requirement of a minimum penalty in the executing
Member State has disappeared.

The judicial authority can only issue a European arrest warrant for the purpose of conducting a criminal
prosecution if, according to its own national law,
it has jurisdiction on the offence, and the acts are
considered as offences punishable by at least one year imprisonment. Of course the judicial authority of a
Member State will not be able to issue a European arrest warrant for something which is considered as an
offence by the law of another Member State but not by its own.

In the context of illegal material posted on the Internet, it is currently for Member States’ national laws to
determine whether such conduct falls within their jurisdiction. Eurojust may assist in co-ordination of
investigations and prosecutions involving more than one Member State.

C 192 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

During discussions in the Council on the Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on the sexual
exploitation of children and child pornography (2),
the
minimum rules on jurisdiction ensure that at least one Member State will always have jurisdiction to
prosecute child pornography on the Internet where material was posted from, or posted to, the territory of
a Member State. The Commission has adopted the same approach in its proposal for a Framework
Decision on racism and xenophobia (3). The Commission has not proposed in these instruments that such
conduct should be considered as occurring exclusively in a particular Member State. Nevertheless, the issue
of exclusive jurisdictional rules will be addressed by the Commission later this year in its Communication
on jurisdiction the context of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.

the Commission has sought

to ensure that

It has to be noted, that the analysis of jurisdictional issues provided in this answer only applies in the
context of the European arrest warrant, and that the situation is different in civil law cases.

(1) Based on the commission proposal, which is published in OJ C 332 E, 27.11.2001.
(2) OJ C 62 E, 27.2.2001.
(3) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2003/C 192 E/004)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1410/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Distortion of competition on the internal market due to unlawful State aid

Now that the European market for postal services has been liberalised to a somewhat greater extent and
the monopoly is being further restricted, the problems with post offices cross-subsidising commercial
operations with revenue derived from their monopoly, traditional operators abusing their dominant
positions, etc., ought to be a thing of the past. Yet, despite the relevant European directives, it seems that it
is still not clear what is lawful and what is not.

The Belgian Post Group is increasingly devoting its attention to commercial operations. It may be queried
not only whether they yield any profit but also how they are financed.

The same is true of ABX, the logistics branch of the Belgian railways, NMBS/SNCB. This parcel delivery
service is making a loss and forms part of NMBS/SNCB. On 22 February 2002, the Belgian government
again granted it a loan of EUR 50 million from that government agency.

A case in which the German Post Office is accused of illegally receiving State aid, which will undoubtedly
be of relevance to the above Belgian operators as a precedent, has been dragging on for years without any
decision being reached.

1. What is the Commission’s view of these developments on the ground, which ultimately thwart the
Commission’s desire to bring about a single market?

2. What will the Commission do in the near future with regard to these very specific cases?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 2002)

As progress in opening postal monopolies will indeed come at a gradual pace, the period ahead will be
marked by the co-existence of services covered by the postal monopoly and services open to competition.
In these circumstances the Commission intends to remain extremely vigilant
the incumbent
beneficiaries of the monopoly do not exploit the monopoly resources or other State resources at their
disposal to leverage their dominance into markets open to competition.

that

Within the last two years, the Commission has proven its vigilance. This is necessary because the interests
of consumers and European industry require modern and competitive postal services. Electronic commerce
cannot develop in Europe without a highly performing postal delivery.