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 surrender procedures between Member States    {SEC(2011) 430 final}
Date: 2011-04-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: extradition, international criminal law, judicial cooperation, judicial proceedings, legal process, mutual recognition principle

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 11.4.2011 
COM(2011) 175 final 

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 surrender procedures between Member States 

{SEC(2011) 430 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 3 

BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................... 4 

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES IN THE MEMBER STATES SINCE 1 APRIL 2007 ... 5 

THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE STRENGTHENING OF THE 
PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED OR ACCUSED PERSONS IN 
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................... 5 

THE ISSUE OF PROPORTIONALITY...................................................................... 7 

THE WORK AHEAD.................................................................................................. 8 

ANNEX 1 — Statistical data relating to the European arrest warrant..................................... 11 

EN 

2 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

More  than  seven  years  have  passed  since  the  Council  Framework  Decision  of 
13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant (hereinafter ‘EAW’) and the surrender 
procedures between Member States1 (hereinafter ‘the Council Framework Decision’) 
entered into operation on 1 January 2004. Available statistics compiled for the years 
between  2005  and  20092  (see  Annex  1)  record  54 689  EAWs  issued  and  11 630 
EAWs  executed.  During  that  period  between  51 %  and  62 %  of  requested  persons 
consented to their surrender, on average within 14 to 17 days. The average surrender 
time for those who did not consent was 48 days. This contrasts very favourably with 
the pre-EAW position of a one-year average for the extradition of requested persons 
and  has  undoubtedly  reinforced  the  free  movement  of  persons  within  the  EU  by 
providing a more efficient mechanism to ensure that open borders are not exploited 
by those seeking to evade justice. 

Nevertheless,  the  past  seven  years  have  also  shown  that,  despite  its  operational 
success, the EAW system is far from perfect. Member States, European and national 
parliamentarians, groups from civil society and individual citizens have all expressed 
some concerns in relation to the operation of the EAW and in particular its effect on 
fundamental  rights.  There  are  also  shortcomings  in  the  way  some  Member  States 
implement the Council Framework Decision. 

Since December 2009, as a result of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the 
legally  binding  nature  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  the  provisions  in  the 
Lisbon  Treaty  governing  legislative  instruments  in  the  area  of  police  and  judicial 
cooperation  have  changed  the  context  in  which  the  EAW  operates.  In  accordance 
with the Treaty, whenever a pre-Lisbon instrument such as the Council Framework 
Decision is amended, the Commission's power to take infringement proceedings and 
the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice becomes applicable to the amended 
measure. In any event those powers will apply after 1 December 2014 at the end of 
the  transitional  period  laid  down  in  the  Treaty.  In  addition,  any  amendment  of  the 
Council  Framework  Decision  means  that  the  new  rules  introduced  by  the  Lisbon 
Treaty  for  the  adoption  of  legislative  measures  in  this  area  will  apply.  These  rules 
include co-decision between the European Parliament and Council and the possibility 
of the non-participation of some Member States3. 

Another  important  effect  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  is  that  it  makes  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights4 legally binding5. Moreover, the EU will sign up as an entity to 
the European Convention on Human Rights.6 The Commission has recently adopted 
a strategy to ensure respect for the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights7 and this will 

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. 
Council 9005/5/06 COPEN 52; 11371/5/07 COPEN 106; 10330/2/08 COPEN 116; 9743/4/09 COPEN 
87; 7551/7/10 COPEN 64. 
Pursuant to Protocols 21 and 22 of the Lisbon Treaty UK, IE and DK do not participate in measures in 
the area of Justice and Home Affairs. The UK and IE have the possibility to opt in to a measure. 
OJ C364 18.12.200, p. 1. 
Article 6(1) TEU. 
Article 6(3) TEU. 
COM(2010) 573 final. 19.10.2010. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
inform its approach to all new and existing legislative and non-legislative initiatives 
(including  the  EAW)  as  well  as  the  approach  of  Member  States  when  they  are 
implementing or applying the Council Framework Decision. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

in  20068  and  20079; 

This third report and the accompanying Staff Working Document draw on a number 
of  sources:  the  previous  reports  of  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Article  34  of  the 
Council  Framework  Decision 
the  final  report  and 
recommendations  of  the  fourth  round  of  mutual  evaluations  carried  out  by  the 
Council  of  the  European  Union  (hereinafter  ‘Council  recommendations’)10  and 
adopted  by  the  Council  in  June  201011;  the  outcome  of  an  experts  meeting  on  5 
November  2009;  answers  provided  by  the  Member  States  to  requests  for  updated 
information from the Commission on 30 June 2009 and 25 June 2010; and case law 
where  applicable.  The  information  obtained  from  the  Member  States  varied  in 
content  and  in  quality,  making  it  more  difficult  to  produce  a  fully  comprehensive 
analysis and comparison covering all Member States.12 

The accompanying Staff Working Document contains a large amount of information 
on  the  current  position  in  relation  to  the  EAW.  This  should  be  of  assistance  to 
practitioners in general as well as to the Member States in the follow up to the round 
of peer evaluations by the end of June 2011 as agreed by the Council.13 Part I of the 
Staff  Working  Document  contains  a  short  descriptive  analysis  regarding  those 
Member  States  that  have  introduced  amending  legislation  since April  2007.  Part  II 
gives  an  overview  of  Member  States'  current  positions  in  relation  to  the  Council 
recommendations.  Part  III  gives  details  of  a  number  of  EU  legislative  instruments 
that amend or complement the Council Framework Decision on the EAW. Parts IV 
and V contain some current information on the EAW and the Schengen Information 
System  and  Eurojust  respectively.  Part  VI  sets  out  the  decisions  of  the  Court  of 
Justice  of  the  European  Union  relevant  to  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  the 
EAW.  Part  VII  gives  the  reference  numbers  of  the  individual  Council  evaluation 
reports  of  the  Member  States  and  Part  VIII  provides  tables  on  each  Member  State 
setting out the following information: 

•  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  individual  evaluation  reports  of  the  Council 
and  the  Member  States’  responses  where  these  have  been  provided;  general 
information  on  the  application  of  the  Council  Framework  Decision  in  each 
Member State, with reference to issues raised in the Council Recommendations; 

•  the  observations  set  out  in  the  implementation  report  of  the  Commission  from 

2007 and the responses of Member States where provided. 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 

13 

COM(2005)  63  and  SEC(2005)  267  of  23.2.2005,  revised  by  COM(2006)  8  and  SEC(2006)  79  of 
24.1.2006. 
COM(2007)407 and SEC(2007) 979 of 12.7.2007. 
Council 8302/4/09 COPEN 68; 7361/10 COPEN 59; 8465/2/10 COPEN 95. 
Council 10630/1/10 Presses 161 p.33. 
In response to its requests for information in 2009 and 2010 the Commission received very little or no 
information from Cyprus, Malta or the United Kingdom. 
Council 10630/1/10 Presse 161 p.33 and 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.23 — Recommendation 20. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
Part IX contains some further statistical data in chart form. 

3. 

LEGISLATIVE  CHANGES 
1 APRIL 2007 

IN  THE  MEMBER  STATES  SINCE 

The  responses  received  by  the  Commission  to  its  requests  for  information  from 
Member  States  indicate  that  fourteen  Member  States  (AT,  BG,  CZ14,  EE,  FR,  HU, 
IE, LV, LT, PL PT, RO, SK and SI) have made amendments to their implementing 
legislations. The Commission acknowledges and welcomes the fact that many of the 
amendments  take  account  of  the  recommendations  of  the  Council  and  the 
Commission.  One  Member  State  (LU)  amended  one  article  of  its  transposing 
legislation  in  2010  and  a  legislative  proposal  addressing  a  number  of  the 
recommendations  is  currently  going  through  its  parliamentary  procedure.  As  is 
apparent from the tables in Part VIII of the Staff Working Document, the extent of 
the 
to  another  and  not  all 
recommendations are reflected in the letter of the law. 

improvement  varies  greatly  from  one  state 

Twelve Member States (BE, CY15, DK, DE, EL, ES, FI, IT, MT, NL, SE, UK) have 
not  made  amendments  to  their  respective  legislations,  although  they  were 
recommended  to  do  so  in  previous  Council  and  Commission  reports.  This  is  even 
more regrettable in the case of Member States that were expressly mentioned in the 
2007  Report  of  the  Commission  as  requiring  an  effort  to  comply  fully  with  the 
Council Framework Decision (CY, DK, IT, MT, NL, UK). 

For  those  Member  States  where  new  legislation  was  adopted,  a  brief  descriptive 
analysis  of  the  amendments  is  provided  in  Part  I  of  the  Staff  Working  Document 
accompanying  this  report.  The  overall  position  of  all  Member  States  is  set  out  in 
detail in the Tables in Part VIII of the Staff Working Document. 

Some of the recommendations required practical measures rather than legislation and 
the  Commission  acknowledges  the  work  done  by  Member  States  in  streamlining 
their EAW systems and providing training, information and contact points. However 
the  consistent  application  of  the  EAW  and  the  mutual  trust  that  is  essential  to  its 
operation  depend  to  a  large  extent  on  it  being  implemented  in  conformity  with  the 
Council Framework Decision. The current shortcomings in transposition with respect 
to  each  Member  State  are  presented  in  an  accessible  format  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document accompanying this report. The Commission expects that this will provide 
a tool for those Member States to bring their legislation implementing the EAW into 
compliance with the Council Framework Decision. 

THE  EUROPEAN  ARREST  WARRANT  AND  THE  STRENGTHENING  OF 
THE PROCEDURAL RIGHTS OF SUSPECTED OR ACCUSED PERSONS IN 
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 

While  welcoming  the  fact  that  the  EAW  is  a  successful  mutual  recognition 
instrument  in  practice,  the  Commission  is  also  aware  of  the  EAW's  remaining 

Further legislative amendments are currently being prepared in CZ. 
The latest information received from CY in August 2009 was that new legislation had been proposed. 

4. 

14 
15 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
received 

representations 

from  European 

imperfections,  notably  when  it  comes  to  its  implementation  at  national  level.  The 
and  national 
Commission  has 
parliamentarians,  defence  lawyers,  citizens  and  civil  society  groups  highlighting  a 
number  of  problems  with  the  operation  of  the  EAW:  no  entitlement  to  legal 
representation in the issuing state during the surrender proceedings in the executing 
state; detention conditions in some Member States combined with sometimes lengthy 
pre-trial  detention  for  surrendered  persons  and  the  non-uniform  application  of  a 
proportionality  check  by  issuing  states,  resulting  in  requests  for  surrender  for 
relatively  minor  offences  that,  in  the  absence  of  a  proportionality  check  in  the 
executing state, must be executed. 

From  the  issues  raised  in  relation  to  the  operation  of  the  EAW  it  would  seem  that, 
despite the fact that the law and criminal procedures of all Member States are subject 
to the standards of the European Court of Human Rights, there are often some doubts 
about standards being similar across the EU. While an individual can have recourse 
to  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  to  assert  rights  arising  from  the  European 
Convention  on  Human  Rights,  this  can  only  be  done  after  an  alleged  breach  has 
occurred and all domestic legal avenues have been exhausted. This has not proved to 
be  an  effective  means  of  ensuring  that  signatories  comply  with  the  Convention’s 
standards.  This  situation  has  informed  the  Commission’s  ongoing  work  on  the 
implementation of the roadmap16 for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected 
or  accused  persons  in  criminal  proceedings.  This  roadmap,  adopted  by  the  Council 
on 30 November 2009, recognises in Recital 10 that ‘a lot of progress has been made 
in the area of judicial and police cooperation on measures that facilitate prosecution. 
It is now time to take action to improve the balance between these measures and the 
protection  of  procedural  rights  of  the  individual’.  While  retaining  the  possibility  of 
adding other rights, the roadmap indentifies the following six priority measures: 

•  the right to interpretation and translation; 

•  the right to information about rights (Letter of Rights); 

•  pre-trial legal advice and at-trial legal aid; 

•  a  detained  person's  right  to  communicate  with  family  members,  employers  and 

consular authorities; 

•  protection for vulnerable suspects; 

•  a green paper on pre-trial detention. 

The first measure, a Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal 
proceedings,  was  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  in  October 
201017.  The  second  measure18  is  now  under  discussion  in  the  European  Parliament 
and  Council  and  preparatory  work  is  underway  by  the  Commission  regarding  the 
remaining measures. Research on the right to legal advice will examine the issue of 
representation  for  requested  persons  in  both  executing  and  issuing  states  in  the 

16 
17 
18 

Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009. OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, p.1. 
Directive 2010/64/EU — OJ L 280 26/10/2010. 
COM(2010) 392 final 20.7.2010. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
course  of  surrender  proceedings.  The  Directives  already  proposed  contain  articles 
expressly  applying  the  rights  therein  to  EAW  cases.  The  Directive  on  the  right  to 
information  in  criminal  proceedings  also  proposes  a  model  letter  of  rights 
specifically for EAW cases. 

A  number  of  judgments  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  have  highlighted 
deficiencies in some prisons within the EU.19 The court has ruled that unacceptable 
detention conditions (which must reach a minimum level of severity) can constitute a 
violation  of  Article  3  of  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights,  even  where 
there is no evidence that there was a positive intention of humiliating or debasing the 
detainee.  It  is  clear  that  the  Council  Framework  Decision  on  the  EAW  (which 
provides  in  Article  1(3)  that  Member  States  must  respect  fundamental  rights  and 
fundamental  legal  principles,  including  Article  3  of  the  European  Convention  on 
Human Rights) does not mandate surrender where an executing judicial authority is 
satisfied,  taking  into  account  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  that  such  surrender 
would  result  in  a  breach  of  a  requested  person’s  fundamental  rights  arising  from 
unacceptable detention conditions. 

A further issue related to EAW cases is that EU citizens who are not residents in the 
Member State where they are suspected of having committed a criminal offence are 
quite often kept in pre-trial detention, mainly because of the lack of community ties 
and the risk of flight. On 23 October 2009 the Council adopted ‘Council Framework 
Decision  2009/829/JHA20  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.’21  This  Council  Framework 
Decision  introduces  the  possibility  of  transferring  a  non-custodial  supervision 
measure  from  the  Member  State  where  the  non-resident  is  suspected  of  having 
committed 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 pending trial in the foreign Member State. 

5. 

THE ISSUE OF PROPORTIONALITY 

Confidence  in  the  application  of  the  EAW  has  been  undermined  by  the  systematic 
issue  of  EAWs  for  the  surrender  of  persons  sought  in  respect  of  often  very  minor 
offences. In this context, discussions in Council arising from the conclusions of the 
Member  State  evaluations22  show  that  there  is  general  agreement  among  Member 
States that a proportionality check is necessary to prevent EAWs from being issued 
for  offences  which,  although  they  fall  within  the  scope  of  Article  2(1)23  of  the 
Council  Framework  Decision  on  the  EAW,  are  not  serious  enough  to  justify  the 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 

See,  i.a.,  the  judgments  in  the  cases  Peers  v.  Greece  (19  April  2001),  Salejmanovic  v  Italy  (16  July 
2009), Orchowski v Poland (22 January 2010). 
OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20. 
Implementation date 1 December 2012. 
Council  8302/4/09  COPEN  68;  7361/10  COPEN  59;  8465/2/10  COPEN  95;  10630/1/10  Presses  161 
p.33. 
Article  2(1)  A  European  arrest  warrant  may  be  issued  for  acts  punishable  by  the  law  of  the  issuing 
Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months 
or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four 
months. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
measures and cooperation which the execution of an EAW requires. Several aspects 
should  be  considered  before  issuing  the  EAW  including  the  seriousness  of  the 
offence,  the  length  of  the  sentence,  the  existence  of  an  alternative  approach  that 
would be less onerous for both the person sought and the executing authority and a 
cost/benefit analysis of the execution of the EAW. There is a disproportionate effect 
on the liberty and freedom of requested persons when EAWs are issued concerning 
cases  for  which  (pre-trial)  detention  would  otherwise  be  felt  inappropriate.  In 
addition,  an  overload  of  such  requests  may  be  costly  for  the  executing  Member 
States. It might also lead to a situation in which the executing judicial authorities (as 
opposed to the issuing authorities) feel inclined to apply a proportionality test, thus 
introducing  a  ground  for  refusal  that  is  not  in  conformity  with  the  Council 
Framework  Decision  or  with  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  on  which  the 
measure is based. 

In  the  follow  up  to  the  recommendations  in  the  final  report  on  the  fourth  round  of 
mutual  evaluations,  the  Council  included  an  amendment  to  the  handbook  on  the 
EAW  in  respect  of  proportionality24.  This  report  was  adopted  by  Council  in  June 
201025. The amended handbook now sets out the factors to be assessed when issuing 
an EAW and possible alternatives to be considered before issuing an EAW.26 If the 
amended  handbook is  followed  by Member States, it will provide a basis for  some 
consistency  in  the  manner  in  which  a  proportionality  check  is  applied.  The 
Commission endorses this approach and urges Member States to take positive steps 
to  ensure  that  practitioners  use  the  amended  handbook  (in  conjunction  with  their 
respective  statutory  provisions,  if  any)  as  the  guideline  for  the  manner  in  which  a 
proportionality test should be applied. 

The Commission is of the view that against the background of general agreement in 
Council on the merits of a proportionality test and the undermining of confidence in 
the  EAW  system  where  a  proportionality  test  is  not  applied,  it  is  essential  that  all 
Member  States  apply  a  proportionality  test,  including  those  jurisdictions  where 
prosecution  is  mandatory.  The  Council  Framework  Decision  is  a  tool  for  Member 
States  to  use  when  they  consider  it  necessary  to  have  a  person  present  on  their 
territory in order to prosecute that person or to enforce a custodial sanction upon that 
person.  The  agreed  handbook  provides  guidance  on  the  uniform  implementation  of 
this tool. Article 2(1) of the Council Framework Decision provides that ‘A European 
arrest warrant may be issued for acts…’ It is within this discretionary area that issues 
addressed  in  the  handbook  (including  the  operation  of  a  proportionality  test)  are 
discussed  and  agreed  upon.  To  ensure  the  mutual  trust  that  is  essential  to  the 
continued  operation  of  the  EAW,  judicial  authorities  in  all  Member  States  must 
respect the agreements reached in this discretionary area.  

6. 

THE WORK AHEAD 

This  report  is  an  opportunity  to  take  stock  of  the  state  of  implementation  and 
functioning  of  the  EAW,  which  does  provide  the  efficient  and  effective  surrender 
system which is necessary in a Europe of open borders. The information collected for 

24 
25 
26 

Council 8436/2/10 COPEN p.3. 
Council 10630/1/10 PRESSE 161. 
Council 8302/4/09 COPEN 68 p.15; 7361/10 COPEN 59 p.4; 8436/2/10 COPEN p.3. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
the report shows that, while the EAW is a very useful tool for Member States in the 
fight  against  crime,  there  is  room  for  improvement  in  the  transposition  and 
application of the Council Framework Decision. Protection of fundamental rights in 
particular must be central to the operation of the EAW system. Action is required in 
the following areas: 

•  Transposition: Member States should take legislative action, where required, to 
address the areas (set out in detail in the tables in Part VIII of the accompanying 
Staff  Working  Document)  where  their  implementing  legislation  fails  to  comply 
with the Council Framework Decision on the EAW. 

•  Fundamental  Rights:  There  must  be  adoption  and  implementation  of  the 
measures arising from the roadmap on procedural rights for suspects and accused 
persons  to  ensure  that  fundamental  rights  and  freedoms  are  protected  and  to 
improve  the  mutual  trust  that  is  essential  to  the  continued  operation  of  mutual 
recognition instruments such as the Council Framework Decision on the EAW. 

•  Proportionality:  Judicial  authorities  should  use  the  EAW  system  only  when  a 
surrender request is proportionate in all the circumstances of the case and should 
apply  a  proportionality  test  in  a  uniform  way  across  Member  States.  Member 
States  must  take  positive  steps  to  ensure  that  practitioners  use  the  amended 
handbook (in conjunction with their respective statutory provisions, if any) as the 
guideline for the manner in which a proportionality test should be applied. 

•  Training:  The  Commission  communication  planned  for  September  2011  on 
European judicial training is intended to address the need for specific training for 
both judicial authorities and legal practitioners on the implementation of the EAW 
and  on  the  new  measures  for  strengthening  procedural  rights  for  suspects  and 
accused persons. Training for judicial authorities is essential to ensure consistency 
in  issues  such  as  the  application  of  a  proportionality  test  across  Member  States. 
The  Commission  notes  that  the  European  Judicial  Network  will  launch  a  new 
website in 2011, which will provide a useful tool to ensure that judicial authorities 
have access to appropriate information on the EAW. 

•  Implementation  of  complementary  instruments:  A  considerable  amount  of 
work has been done since 2004 on identifying problems and improving the EAW 
system. There have been four Council Framework Decisions (set out in detail in 
Part  III  of  the  Staff  Working  Document)  that  affect  the  operation  of  the  EAW. 
These measures address the issues of transfer of sentences, in absentia judgments, 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction  and  recognition  of  supervision  orders.  Their  expeditious 
implementation  by  Member  States  in  the  near  future  may  further  improve  the 
practical operation of the EAW. 

•  Statistics:  We  now  have  several  years  of  statistical  data  based  on  replies  to  the 
questionnaire devised by the Council Working Party on Cooperation on Criminal 
Matters  in  April  200527.  To  date  replies  to  the  questionnaire  have  been  collated 
and published for years 2005 to 2009 inclusive28 (see Annex 1 to this report and 

27 
28 

Council 8111/05 COPEN 75. 
Council 9005/5/06 COPEN 52; 11371/5/07 COPEN 106; 10330/2/08 COPEN 116; 9743/4/09 COPEN 
87; 7551/7/10 COPEN 64. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Part  IX  of  the  Staff  Working  Document).  However,  there  are  considerable 
shortcomings in the statistical data available for analysis. There are a number of 
reasons  for  this.  Not  all  Member  States  have  provided  data  systematically  and 
Member  States  do  not  share  a  common  statistical  tool.  Moreover,  different 
interpretations  are  to  be  found  in  the  answers  to  the  Council’s  yearly 
questionnaire. There is also evidence of underreporting to Eurojust of breaches of 
the  time  limits  in  the  Council  Framework  Decision,  despite  the  obligation  to 
report in Article 17 (see Part V of the Staff Working Document). The Commission 
urges Member States to meet their obligation to report. Comprehensive statistics 
are essential for a proper evaluation of both the successes and shortcomings of the 
EAW. It is imperative that Member States provide full statistical data, especially 
those which have not done so to date. The Commission will make every effort to 
address the shortcomings in the questionnaire on EAW statistics and will look at 
ways of improving the collection of statistics. 

While recognising both the success of the EAW and its remaining imperfections, the 
Commission welcomes the amount of work currently in hand to improve the system. 
It is an innovative and dynamic instrument. Since it came into force in 2004 it has 
given  judicial  authorities  an  accessible  and  efficient  mechanism  to  ensure  that 
offenders do not evade justice wherever they may hide within the European Union. 
However,  its  operation  requires  ongoing  close  scrutiny.  The  Commission  will 
continue  to  monitor  the  operation  of  the  instrument  with  respect  to  the  issues 
discussed in this report and will consider all possible options, including legislation, 
in the light of further experience, while taking into account the new context brought 
about by the Treaty of Lisbon. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

ANNEX 1 — STATISTICAL DATA RELATING TO THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT 

(based on data from COPEN 52 REV 5 9005/5/06, COPEN 106 REV 5 11371/5/07, COPEN 
116 REV 2 10330/2/08, COPEN 87 REV 4 9734/4/09 and COPEN 64 REV 4 7551/7/10) 

Average time of surrender procedures 

In cases where the person consented to the surrender (time between the arrest and the decision 
on the surrender of the person sought) the average time of surrender was: 

2005: 14.7 days. 2006: 14.2 days. 2007: 17.1 days. 2008: 16.5 days. 2009: 16 days. 

In cases where  the person  did not  consent to the surrender (time between the arrest and the 
decision on the surrender of the person sought) the average time of surrender was: 

2005: 47.2 days. 2006: 51 days. 2007: 42.8 days. 2008: 51.7 days. 2009: 48.6 days. 

The percentage of persons surrendered who consented to their surrender was: 

Percentage of "consent" surrenders 

2005: 51 %. 2006: 53 %. 2007: 55 %. 2008: 62 %. 2009: 54 %. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

European Arrest Warrants in Member States — Number of issued European Arrest Warrants (‘issued’) and number of European Arrest Warrants resulting in the effective surrender of the person sought 
(‘executed’) from year 2005 to year 2009 

BE 

BG  CZ 

DK  DE 

EE  EL 

ES 

FR 

IE 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU  HU 

MT  NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK  TOTAL 

2005 
issued 

2005 
executed 

2006 
issued 

2006 
executed 

2007 
issued 

2007 
executed 

2008 
issued 

2008 
executed 

2009 
issued 

2009 
Executed 

4 

0 

64 

19 

38 

38 

519 

1914 

29 

121 

44 

44 

500 

42 

42 

10 

12 

54 

162 

6 

57 

3 

10 

69 

24 

23 

1 

0 

373 

975 

1448 

200 

81 

56 

86 

144 

131 

6894 

30 

73 

112 

38 

10 

14 

37 

10 

63 

836 

168 

52 

42 

53 

450 

1552 

43 

20 

65 

538 

35 

115 

4 

325 

391 

2421 

102 

67 

111 

69 

137 

129 

6889 

125 

19 

15 

4 

62 

237 

20 

2 

14 

57 

22 

55 

3 

47 

67 

235 

52 

14 

23 

37 

27 

86 

1223 

435 

1785 

31 

83 

588 

1028 

35 

20 

97 

316 

44 

373 

3 

403 

495 

3473 

117 

856 

54 

208 

84 

170 

185 

10883 

66 

506 

14 

16 

59 

345 

14 

4 

16 

60 

15 

84 

1 

17 

47 

434 

45 

235 

8 

71 

43 

22 

99 

2221 

494 

52 

2149 

46 

119 

623 

1184 

40 

16 

140 

348 

40 

975 

2 

461 

4829 

2000 

39 

342 

107 

190 

14196 

141 

26 

624 

22 

10 

93 

400 

13 

3 

22 

68 

22 

205 

1 

28 

617 

448 

11 

81 

44 

40 

2919 

508 

439 

96 

2433 

46 

116 

489 

1240 

33 

17 

171 

354 

46 

1038 

7 

530 

292 

4844 

104 

1900 

27 

485 

129 

263 

220 

15827 

73 

67 

51 

777 

21 

19 

99 

420 

16 

3 

40 

84 

26 

149 

2 

0 

37 

1367 

63 

877 

6 

79 

47 

28 

80 

4431 

EN 

12 

EN