European Arrest Warrant

12.5.2011

Question for oral answer O-000120/2011
to the Commission
Rule 115
Baroness Sarah Ludford, Renate Weber, Sonia Alfano, Louis Michel, Nathalie Griesbeck, Gianni Vattimo, Sophia in 't Veld, Jens Rohde
on behalf of the ALDE Group

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has proven to be an effective instrument in fighting cross-border crime and terrorism. However, its reputation is tarnished by reports of it being used for questioning instead of prosecution and execution of sentences and minor offences without proper consideration of whether surrender is proportionate, notwithstanding the human and financial costs involved (estimated at EUR 25 000 per surrender procedure).

Furthermore, a Member State’s decision not to execute the European Arrest Warrant for valid reasons allowed by the EU legislation is not always respected by the issuing Member State in terms of reviewing or withdrawing the EAW and the corresponding alert from the SIS.

In addition, there is no facility for adequate legal representation for persons sought under a European Arrest Warrant both in the issuing and executing Member States. Finally, sadly, prison conditions in many EU Member States are so poor that they seriously undermine the trust in adequate treatment of prisoners upon which the European Arrest Warrant and the soon-to-be implemented framework decision on the transfer of sentenced persons are based.

–  How is the Commission going to guarantee that disproportionate use of the European Arrest Warrant is put to an immediate end both in law and practice?

–  How is Commission going to ensure that persons wanted under a European Arrest Warrant are going to have an effective right to challenge a European Arrest Warrant both in the issuing and executing Member States, and that a valid decision not to execute a European Arrest Warrant leads to the removal of the Schengen alert?

–  How is the Commission going to ensure that criminal justice standards and prison conditions in the European Union are raised before the courts step in and block further transfers due to the possible violation of the person’s fundamental rights?

Tabled: 12.5.2011

Forwarded: 16.5.2011

Deadline for reply: 23.5.2011