Report from the Commission on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [SEC(2007) 979]
Date: 2007-07-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU law - national law, European arrest warrant, extradition, international criminal law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, judicial proceedings

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 11.7.2007 
COM(2007) 407 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 
on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 

[SEC(2007) 979] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
1. 

METHOD 

Pursuant to Article 34 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European 
arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender  procedures  between  Member  States1,  the  Commission 
presented  a  revised  report  evaluating  the  application  of  this  instrument  ("the  Framework 
Decision") by all the Member States2. 

The second report being presented here is in response to a call made by the Council (Justice 
and Home Affairs) on 2 June 20053 to update this evaluation to 1 June 2007 with the entry of 
Romania and Bulgaria into the Union on 1 January 2007. The evaluation criteria used by the 
Commission  for  this  report  are  the  general  criteria  now  normally  applied  for  evaluating  the 
implementation  of  framework  decisions  (practical  effectiveness,  clarity  and  legal  certainty, 
full application, compliance with the time limit for transposition)4 and criteria specific to the 
arrest warrant, principally the fact that it is a judicial instrument, its efficiency and its rapidity. 

To  produce  this  report  the  Commission  has  based  itself  primarily  on  the  new  national 
provisions  giving  effect  to  the  arrest  warrant  as  sent  in  by  the  Member  States,  on  their 
published  comments  on  the  first  report,5  and  on  the  supplementary  information  supplied  by 
the  Council  General  Secretariat,  in  particular  the  available  replies  to  the  statistical 
questionnaire  sent  to  the  Member  States  by  the  Council  Presidency6  and  the  declassified 
evaluation reports produced for Belgium7, Denmark8 and Estonia9. The Commission has also 
conducted  a  bilateral  dialogue  with  the  designated  national  contact  points  and  attended  the 
dialogue set up by the European Parliament with the national Parliaments on the subject10. 

2. 

EVALUATION 

2.1. 

Now general practice despite some initial difficulties with transposition 

The  arrest  warrant  is  a  success.  This  report  shows  how  its  use  has  grown  year  by 
year, in practice making it easy for judges to get persons handed over within binding 
time limits that are much shorter than with conventional extradition procedures (see 
2.1.1).  The  Commission  does,  however,  highlight  in  this  report  the  transposition 
difficulties  that  had  to  be  overcome  in  2005,  some  of  them  stemming  from 
constitutional requirements (2.1.2).  

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 
COM(2005) 63 and SEC(2005) 267 of 23.2.2005, revised by COM(2006) 8 and SEC(2006) 79. 
Council press release No 8849/05, 3.6.2005, p. 10; document No 8842/1/05, 19.5.2005. 
COM(2001) 771 of 13.12.2001, point 1.2.2. 
COPEN 118 of 2.9.2005. 
COPEN 75 of 15.4.2005. 
16454/1/06 REV1 COPEN 128 dated 3 January 2007. 
13801/1/06 REV1 COPEN 106 dated 6 December 2006. 
5301/01/07 REV1 COPEN 6 dated 20 February 2007. 
European Parliament recommendation to the Council on the European arrest warrant, 2005/2175(INI), 
15.3.2006. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.1.  The use of the European arrest warrant is now standard practice.  

The  total  number  of  requests  exchanged  between  Member  States  has  risen  sharply. 
The European arrest warrant has therefore not only virtually replaced the extradition 
procedure  within  the  European  Union,  but  the  use  made  of  it,  because  of  its 
advantages, is now much more widespread. The remaining cases of non-application 
mainly concern certain restrictions on: 

•  the transitional application of the European arrest warrant (Article 32/FR, IT and 
AT  made  the  appropriate  statements,  but CZ, LU, SI did so incorrectly). Article 
30(1) of the Italian Law states, however, that its provisions apply only to requests 
for execution of European arrest warrants issued and received after its entry into 
force, i.e. 14 May 2005; this is not in conformity with the Framework Decision. 
CZ  and  LU  have  made  statements  that  are  not  consistent  with  Article  32  of  the 
Framework Decision in that they concern European arrest warrants for which CZ 
and LU are both issuing States and executing States. For CZ, this difficulty was 
resolved by the adoption of an amendment to the law of transposition which came 
into force on 1 July 2006. In addition CZ now accepts and issues arrest warrants 
for  offences  committed  before  1  November  2004,  except  in  the  case  of  its  own 
nationals.  For  offences  committed  by  Czech  citizens  prior  to  1  November  2004, 
no surrender is possible other than by application of the European Convention on 
Extradition  and  its  two  Protocols  of  15  October  1975  and  17  March  1978.  For 
offences  committed  by  Czech  citizens  after  1  November  2004,  surrender  is  still 
subject to reciprocity;  

•  the  surrender  of  nationals  (Article  33/AT,  which  notified  the  Council  to  this 
effect,  and  also  DE  for  part  of  2005-2006  and  CY  and  CZ,  two  countries  that 
authorise  surrender  of  their  nationals  only  for  offences  committed  after 
1 November  2004  for  CZ  and  1  May  2004  for  CY).  For  PL,  the  surrender  of 
nationals is possible since the law was amended on 7 November 2006, but double 
criminality is always checked. 

Although  there  is  no  common  statistical  tool  shared  by  all  the  Member  States,  the 
data they have sent in seem to confirm that the European arrest warrant is now used 
as a matter of course everywhere and the general trends illustrated suggest that the 
procedure is effective.  

For the whole of 2005, nearly 6 900 warrants were issued by the 23 Member States 
that  sent  in  figures11,  twice  as  many  as  in  2004.  In  over  1  770  cases,  the  person 
wanted  was  traced  and  arrested.  Unofficial  figures  for  2006  confirm  this  upward 
trend from year to year. 

The warrants were transmitted mainly by Interpol (58% of all those issued) and/or by 
the Schengen Information System, in the 13 Member States with access to it (52% of 
the  same  total).  In  most  of  the  remaining  cases  the  European  arrest  warrants  were 
figure 
simply  sent  direct  between 

the  Member  States  concerned12.  The 

11 

12 

BE and DE were unable to send in figures for 2005 (COPEN 52 9005/4/06 REV 4 of 30.6.2006 plus 
REV 5 of 18.1.2007).  
The sum of the figures 58% and 52% is higher than 100% as a single warrant can be sent by a number 
of different channels. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
communicated by 23 Member States for the total number of European arrest warrants 
received was over 8 500, i.e. more than the number issued, since a European arrest 
warrant can be sent to more than one Member State. 

In 2005 over 1 770 wanted persons were arrested on the basis of a European arrest 
warrant in the 23 Member States considered above. Of those arrested over 86% were 
actually surrendered to the issuing Member State (1 532 persons surrendered) (60% 
in 2004). Half of those surrendered in 2005 had given their consent to the procedure 
(a third in 2004). And over a fifth of those surrendered in 2005 within the European 
Union  were  nationals  (or  residents)  of  the  Member  State  that  agreed  to  their 
surrender,  a  guarantee  under  Article  5(3)  of  the  Framework  Decision  having  been 
required in half the cases. 

The  other  types  of  guarantees  which  may  be  required  in  cases  of  sentencing  in 
absentia or life sentences, are rarely asked for, except for certain countries such as 
NL  that  demands  it  systematically,  thereby  causing  problems  for  the  executing 
countries. 

Overall the figures available for 2005 confirm that with the European arrest warrant, 
surrenders are effected within much shorter time limits than in the past. On average 
the  time  taken  to  execute  requests,  which  used  to  be  around  a  year  under  the  old 
extradition  procedure,  has  been  reduced  to  under  5  weeks  (43  days  to  be  precise), 
and even 11 days in the frequent cases13 where the person consents to surrender (the 
corresponding figures for 2004 being around 45 and 15 days respectively). However, 
this  average  must  not  hide  the  fact  that  certain  countries  (IE  and  UK)  take  much 
longer  and  even  exceed  the  maximum  time  limits  set  in  the  Framework  Decision, 
something  the  Commission  very  much  regrets.  In  2005,  the  Commission  noted 
around  80  cases  (scarcely  5%  of  surrenders)  where  the  90-day  time  limit  set  in 
Article  17(4)  of  the  Framework  Decision  could  not  be  respected.  The  Commission 
would  point  out  that  while  all  delays  are  systematically  reported  to  Eurojust  by 
certain countries, this is not true for all of them and would urge all Member States to 
make the appropriate efforts. 

In  practical  terms,  if  the  form  of  the  European  arrest  warrant  annexed  to  the 
Framework Decision (Article 8) satisfies virtually all the Member States, experience 
shows that the sections relating to the identification of the person and the description 
of the offence must be completed with utmost care14. It should also be noted that the 
European Judicial Network has made information available on line to make it easier 
to  identify  the  appropriate  national  judicial  authorities  (Article  10(1))15  and  that 
Eurojust  has  published  guidelines  for  deciding  on  competing  European  arrest 
warrants (Article 16(2))16. 

13 

14 
15 
16 

The  statistics  for  IE  (answer  to  question  7.2  "between  a  week  and  a  year")  have  not  been  included 
(COPEN 52 REV 4 of 30.6.2006). 
RJE 6 of 31.3.2006. 
http://www.ejn-crimjust.eu.int 
Annex II to the annual Eurojust report for 2004. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.2.  Difficulties  with  transposition  deriving  from  constitutional  requirements  in  certain 

Member States have now been overcome. 

Conflicts  of  laws  prevented  full  application  of  the  Framework  Decision  throughout 
the  Union  for  a  time  in  2005  and  2006.  All  or  some  of  the  national  implementing 
provisions were found to be unconstitutional in certain Member States (PL, DE, CY) 
in  2005.  The  Commission  is  pleased  to  report  that  these  difficulties  have  been 
overcome and today are no longer an obstacle to application of the European arrest 
warrant. 

In the first case (PL), only the provision of the law authorising surrender of nationals 
was  deemed  unconstitutional  (Article  55(1)).  But  this  provision  continued  to  be 
applied until 6 November 2006, the deadline set by the Constitutional Court to allow 
the  Government  time  to  bring  the  constitution  into  line  with  the  European 
obligations17.  During  this  period  PL  therefore  continued  to  surrender  its  nationals. 
The Polish Code of Criminal Procedure was amended following the revision of the 
Constitution on 7 November 2006. Although the amendments did not enter into force 
until 26 December 200618, the new Article 55 of the Constitution was made directly 
applicable  in  Polish  law  from  7  November  2006  by  decision  of  the  Constitutional 
Tribunal. 

In the second case (DE), the Constitutional Court considered it necessary to annul the 
entire  law  adopted  for  the  execution  of  the  European  arrest  warrant,  on  the  ground 
that certain provisions were in conflict with the Basic Law. So between 18 July 2005 
and  2  August  2006,  the  date  on  which  the  new  German  implementing  law  took 
effect,  DE  stopped  surrendering  or  even  extraditing  its  nationals.  It  agreed  to 
surrender  other  wanted  persons  only  under  the  extradition  arrangements.  It  did, 
however, continue to issue European arrest warrants for other Member States19. 

This  situation  gave  rise  to  an  unprecedented  period  of  legal  uncertainty.  Two 
Member States (ES and HU) invoked a principle of reciprocity and during this period 
refused to recognise the European arrest warrants that DE continued to issue. ES and 
HU  considered  that  as  DE  was  no  longer  applying  the  principle  of  mutual  trust,  it 
could not demand in return that the other Member States accept its requests for the 
surrender of non-nationals. This situation ended on 2 August 2006 with the entry into 
force of the new implementing law adopted on 20 July 2006. 

In the third case (CY), the Supreme Court held that the surrendering of Cypriots was 
unconstitutional,  obliging  the  Government,  as  in  PL,  to  embark  on  a  constitution 
revision,  which  came  into  force  on  28  July  200620.  The  new  Article  11  as  thus 
amended  places,  however,  a  time  constraint  on  the  possibility  of  surrendering 
nationals  inasmuch  as  this  is  possible  only  for  acts  committed  after  the  date  of 

17 

18 
19 

20 

Decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court  (PL)  P  1/05  of  27.4.2005,  published  in  the  official  reports  of 
decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal (Orzecznictwie Trybunalu Konstytucyjnego. Zbiór urzendowy) 
2005 ser. A No 4, item 42.  
Articles 607p, 607t, 607w of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure.  
Decision of the Constitutional Court (DE) of 18.7.2005, BvR 2236/04, also available in 58 NJW (Neue 
Juristische Wochenschrift) 2289 (2005). 
Supreme Court (CY) decision of 7.11.2005, Ap. No 294/2005 (an English summary is also available: 
Council document No 14285/05 of 11.11.05). 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accession of CY to the Union, i.e. 1 May 2004. The Constitution thus revised allows, 
moreover, the extradition of Cypriots for acts committed subsequent to the revision 
on the basis of international conventions ratified by CY.  

It  is  also  noteworthy  that,  conversely,  in  several  other  Member  States  the  higher 
courts have upheld domestic provisions authorising the surrender of nationals (CZ21, 
EL, PT, etc.). In this respect the Constitutional Court of CZ has come out on the side 
of effective transposition of the Framework Decision. In its decision of 3 May 2006, 
the  Constitutional  Court  refused  to  annul  the  transposition  law  concerning  the 
European  arrest  warrant  on  the  ground  that  the  Member  States  of  the  European 
Union had to have mutual trust in each other’s legal systems, including in criminal 
matters, and that Czech citizens, being in possession of European citizenship, had to 
assume  the  obligations  as  well  as  enjoy  the  rights  that  went  with  that  status. 
Accordingly,  the  temporary  surrender  of  a  Czech  citizen  for  sentencing  or 
punishment is not contrary to the Czech Constitution, which cannot be construed as 
forming an obstacle to the effective transposition of a rule of European law.  

Overall,  this  emphasises  the  importance  Member  States  must  place  on  creating 
greater  consistency  between  their  internal legal  systems  with  a  view  to  transposing 
framework decisions. Close attention must also be paid to what the Court of Justice 
had to say in response to the request for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Court 
of Arbitration concerning the basis for Article 35 TEU.  

In  that case,  a non-profit association,  Advocaten voor de Wereld, lodged an appeal 
before  the  Belgian  Court  of  Arbitration  against  the  law  of  19  December  200322 
transposing  the  Framework  Decision  in  BE  on  the  ground  that  it  was  incompatible 
with Articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution. The Constitutional Court stayed 
the proceedings and referred two questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary 
ruling on the Framework Decision’s compatibility with Article 34(2)(b) TEU, which 
provides  that  framework  decisions  may  be  adopted  only  for  the  purpose  of 
approximation  of  the  laws  and  regulations  of  the  Member  States,  and  on  the 
conformity of the abolition of double criminality checks with Article 6(2) TEU and, 
more particularly, with the principles of legality in criminal matters and of equality 
and non-discrimination guaranteed by that provision.  

In  his  conclusions,  Advocate-General  Colomer  stated  that  the  Framework  Decision 
was  not  contrary  to  Articles  34(2)(b)  and  2(2)  and  that  it  infringed  neither  the 
principle  of  legality  in  criminal  matters  nor  the  principle  of  equality  and  non-
discrimination. In its judgment23 the Court followed the Advocate-General’s opinion 
and rejected all the arguments advanced by Advocaten voor de Wereld.  

The  balance  sheet  regarding  the  surrender  system  introduced  by  the  Framework 
Decision is thus largely positive.  

21 
22 
23 

Constitutional Court decision of 3.5.2006, 434/2006 Sb. 
Moniteur belge of 22.12.2003, 2nd edition, p. 60075. 
Judgment of 3 May 2007 in Case C-303/05, not yet reported. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2. 

A largely positive transposition balance sheet 

2.2.1.  New implementation measures notified since 2005 

The  new  domestic  legislative  measures  taken  by  Member  States  have  in  particular 
helped to define more closely the legal basis making it possible at national level to: 

•  take over execution of the sentence on the wanted person (Article 4(6)/BE)24; 

•  provisionally arrest a person forming the subject matter of an Interpol alert issued 
by  a  Member  State  which  is  not  yet  party  to  the  Schengen  Information  System 
(Article 9(3)/NL, SE, PL)25; 

•  allow  accessory  surrender (for offences not all of which fall within the scope of 

the Framework Decision) (HU)26. 

These measures meet a need identified in the first report and confirmed in practice. 
They deserve to be considered good practice for those Member States which do not 
yet afford the same possibilities.  

It should also be noted that: 

•  CZ  has  amended  its  transposition  law  so  as  to  give  full  retroactive  effect  to  the 
European arrest warrant27. The amendment entered into force on 1 July 2006. As 
indicated  above,  there  remains  a  limitation,  however,  in  the  case  of  Czech 
nationals  in  that  the  arrest  warrant  still  cannot  apply  to  offences  committed  by 
them before 1 November 2004; 

the 

•  DE  adopted  a  new  transposition  law  on  20  July  2006.  Entering  into  force  on  2 
August  2006, 
the  above-mentioned 
law  enables  compliance  with 
Constitutional  Court  decision.  Article  80  of  the  new  German  law,  interpreted  in 
conformity with the Constitutional Court decision, nevertheless stipulates that in 
“mixed” cases  for  which there  is  no clear  national or foreign reference  a double 
criminality  check  should  be  carried  out  and  that  the  seriousness  of  the  alleged 
offence  should  be  weighed  against  the  effectiveness  of  any  proceedings  –  a 
provision which is seemingly incompatible with the Framework Decision; 

•  MT  has  adopted  a  new  law  amending  the  MT  transposition  law  concerning  the 

European arrest warrant, which entered into force on 19 September 2006.  

Following  the  Commission’s  first  report,  SI  expressed  its  intention,  like  CZ,  of 
amending its legislation in order to give full force to the European arrest warrant. As 
at 1 June 2007, the amendment had yet to be adopted. 

24 
25 
26 
27 

Paragraph 2.2.1 of the first report. 
Paragraph 2.2.2 of the first report. 
Article 2 of the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Extradition of 13.12.1957. 
Paragraph 2.1.1 of the first report. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.2.  Comments and new information submitted following the first evaluation 

Most  Member  States  reacted  in  writing  to  the  Commission’s  first  report.  Their 
comments,  which  were  published  by  the  Council28,  induced  the  Commission’s 
departments  to  revise  partially  the  document  annexed  to  this  report.  Of  these 
comments, more than half consist of information which the Member States should in 
the  first  place  have  transmitted  to  the  Commission  under  Article  34  of  the 
Framework Decision, a quarter are justified by errors of fact or interpretation in the 
first  report,  and  the  remainder  involve  assessments  which  the  Commission  cannot 
share or mere observations.  

In the light of these comments, while the general conclusions of the Commission’s 
revised  first  report  remain  valid,  the  transposition  balance  sheet  takes  on  a  better 
appearance. Having said that, more still needs to be done in the area of compliance 
with the Framework Decision.  

2.2.3.  More still needs to be done 

The  improvements  which  the  Member  States  have  made  since  2005  to  the  state  of 
transposition of the Framework Decision, which overall is satisfactory, nevertheless 
leave intact the principal shortcomings highlighted by the Commission in its previous 
report.  

For  the  record,  apart  from  the  above-mentioned  problems  concerning  the  temporal 
application of the European arrest warrant (CZ and PL for nationals, LU, SI) and the 
surrendering  of  nationals  (CY),  it  is  regrettable  to  still  have  to  note  the  following 
defects in transposition:  

•  modification of the required minimum sentence thresholds (Article 2/NL, AT, PL; 

Article 4(7)(b)/UK);  

•  reintroduction  of  double  criminality  checks  in  respect  of  the  entire  list  of  32 
offence categories (Article 2/IT) or a single category (BE, SI29, UK – where part 
of  the  offence  is  committed  in  its  national  territory,  PL  systematically  for  their 
nationals);  

•  appointment  of  an  executive  body  as  the  competent  judicial  authority  in  whole 

(Article 6/DK) or in part (DE, EE, LV, LT);  

•  decision-making  powers  entrusted  to  the  central  authorities,  going  beyond  the 
mere  role  of  facilitation  which  the  Framework  Decision  makes  it  possible  to 
assign to them (Article 7/EE, IE, CY);  

•  alteration of grounds for mandatory non-execution (Article 3(1)/DK, IE); Article 
3(2)/IE),  or  worse,  introduction  of  grounds  for  refusal  going  beyond  the 
Framework Decision (Article 1(3)/EL, IE, IT, CY, PL) or not provided for therein, 
such  as  those  based  on  the  application  of  treaties  or  conventions  not  expressly 
ruled  out  by  the  Framework  Decision  (Article  3/NL,  UK).  The  new  MT  law 

28 
29 

http://ue.eu.int/cms3_Applications/applications/PolJu/details.asp?lang=FR&cmsid=545&id=66 
Draft law planned by SI for 2007. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
amending  the  transposition  law  concerning  the  European  arrest  warrant  has, 
however, abolished certain grounds for refusal such as those based on unjust and 
oppressive circumstances as provided for in Article 16(2) of the domestic law;  

•  imposition of additional conditions (Article 5(1)/MT, UK; Article 5(3)/NL, IT) or 
of particulars or documents not mentioned on the form (Article 8(1)/CZ, IT, MT). 
With regard to CZ, the Commission has been informed that a Ministry of Justice 
circular  dated  19  May  2006  states  that  the  form  to  be  used  for  issuing  an  EAW 
will  be  that  contained  in  the  Framework  Decision,  a  circular  being  a  legislative 
instrument under Czech law. Moreover, a request for additional information may 
be made by the Czech judicial authorities only where they act as issuing authority. 
In  practice,  some  countries  (UK,  IE)  seem  to  ask  almost  systematically  for 
additional information or even to insist on the arrest warrant being re-issued – a 
requirement  which  poses  problems  for  certain  countries  whose  legislation  does 
not allow this and which lengthens proceedings considerably;  

•  in  relation  to  the  surrender  of  nationals,  introduction  of  a  time  limit  (Article 
4(6)/CZ  and  PL  for  nationals)  or  reintroduction  of  double  criminality  checks 
(Article  5(3)/NL,  PL)  and  of  conversion  of  the  sentence  imposed  in  another 
Member State (CZ, NL, PL);  

•  procedural  vagueness  when  it  comes  to  obtaining  the  wanted  person’s  consent 

(Article 13/DK; Article 14/DK);  

•  diversity  of  practices  in  relation  to  "accessory  surrender"  (situation  where  the 
European arrest warrant concerns not only an offence covered by the Framework 
Decision but also other offences outside the Framework Decision’s scope) due to 
the  lack  of  any  express  provision  in  the  Framework  Decision  (Article  16).  Such 
surrender is possible in at least nine Member States (DK, DE, EE, ES, FI, LV, LT, 
AT,  SE).  In  France,  it  is  for  the  courts  to  decide  whether  such  surrender  is 
possible since the law does not cover such an eventuality; 

•  absence of a maximum time limit for the higher courts’ decision (Article 17/CZ, 
MT, PT, SK, UK) or a total maximum time limit exceeding the standard 60 days 
(BE) or the 90-day ceiling in the event of a final appeal (FR, IT).  

3. 

CONCLUSION 

This report confirms the general conclusions drawn with respect to 2004. Despite an 
initial delay of up to 16 months (IT) and hiccups caused by constitutional difficulties 
in  at  least  two  Member  States  (DE  during  part  of  2005  and  2006,  CY),  the 
implementation of the Framework Decision has been a success. The European arrest 
warrant has been operational throughout all the Member States including BU and RO 
since  1  January  2007.  Its  positive  impact  is  borne  out  daily  in  terms  of  judicial 
control, efficiency and speed, always with full respect for fundamental rights. 

Although  the  need  for  certain  improvements  in  transposition  became  apparent  in 
2005,  these  corrections  remain  peripheral  to  the  process.  The  list  of  those  Member 
States  which  need  to  make  an  effort  to  comply  fully  with  the  Framework  Decision 
(notably CZ, DK, EE, IE, IT, CY, LU, MT, NL, PL, SI, UK) is still a long one.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Given  its  nature,  the  present  evaluation  is  without  prejudice  to  any  future  in-depth 
analysis  of  practice.  Hence  the  Commission  is  also  taking  part  fully  in  the  mutual 
evaluation  exercise  (peer  review) concerning the application  of the European arrest 
warrant  and  has  sought  in  this  report  and  in  the  enclosed  annex  to  underscore  the 
practical  aspects  of  the  Framework  Decision’s  implementation  in  the  27  Member 
States. 

EN 

10 

   EN