The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the proposal for a recommendation to the Council by Adeline Hazan on behalf of the PSE Group on evaluation of the European arrest warrant (B6-0455/2005),

–   having regard to the Treaty of Amsterdam, which enshrined, for the first time, the objective of establishing a European judicial area,

–   having regard to the Presidency conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, which established the principle of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation,

–   having regard to its position of 6 February 2002 on the draft Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States(1),

–   having regard to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States(2),

–   having regard to the Commission's report of 23 February 2005 based on Article 34 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (COM(2005)0063),

–   having regard to the Commission's report of 24 January 2006 based on Article 34 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (COM(2006)0008),

–   having regard to the judgments of the constitutional courts of Poland (27 April 2005), Germany (18 July 2005) and Cyprus (7 November 2005) and the various procedures under way, notably that before the Belgian Court of Arbitration,

–   having regard to the parliamentary meeting held on 17 and 18 October 2005 on improving parliamentary scrutiny of judicial and police cooperation in Europe, with the participation of 100 national parliamentarians and members of its Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs,

–   having regard to Rule 114(3) of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A6-0049/2006),

A.   having regard to the innovative and exemplary role of the European arrest warrant in the development of judicial cooperation and the strengthening of mutual trust, as well as its direct impact on civil liberties,

B.   whereas the European arrest warrant remains one of the EU's key instruments for judicial cooperation and the fight against terrorism and large-scale crime,

C.   whereas the Commission's initial evaluation shows that the European arrest warrant has demonstrated its effectiveness by comparison with the slow, cumbersome and out-of-date extradition procedure, while also making it possible to reduce the risks of a defendant or sentenced person eluding justice for reasons of 'legal sovereignty', as well as to fight organised crime and terrorism more effectively,

D.   whereas one of the advances introduced by the European arrest warrant is the removal of interference by the political authorities in the procedure, by contrast with the extradition procedure,

E.   having regard to the wishes expressed by several Member States concerning retention of certain elements of the traditional extradition system (controls to avoid double jeopardy, intervention of the political authorities in the judicial procedure) or the introduction of additional grounds for refusal which would be contrary to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, such as political reasons, national security or human rights arguments,

F.   having regard to the practical obstacles that have been encountered in the operation of the European arrest warrant, including problems of translation, transmission or use of differing forms incompatible with its criteria,

G.   having regard to the difficulties of transposition encountered by several Member States (especially Germany) and to the need to bring national constitutions into line with Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA in order to permit the surrender of nationals (in particular in Poland and Cyprus),

H.   concerned that these problems may undermine mutual trust and lead to a chain reaction which could threaten the implementation of the European arrest warrant by other Member States, as is demonstrated by the fact that, following the decision by the German Constitutional Court to annul the legislation transposing the Framework Decision, a number of Member States have indicated that they will have to return to applying, on a transitional basis, the extradition instruments that existed before the European arrest warrant, pending adoption of a new transposing law that is compatible with the German Basic Law,

I.   whereas the lack of mutual trust between courts is associated with the shortage of common minimum standards in criminal procedures, which hampers effective judicial cooperation,

J.   whereas the creation of the European area of freedom, security and justice based on mutual trust cannot be conceived without a minimum degree of harmonisation of national laws, as Parliament stressed in its recommendation of 22 February 2005(3),

K.   whereas the Commission's first evaluation (COM(2005)0063) concerned only 24 Member States and was completed for Italy, the last Member State to transpose Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, only recently (COM(2006)0008),

L.   whereas the transposition problems encountered by Member States are essentially of a similar nature, as is evident from the debates which took place at the parliamentary meeting of 17 and 18 October 2005; whereas in future fuller exchanges of information and closer cooperation between the national parliaments and the European Parliament will be necessary with a view to ensuring the transposition in correct conditions of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and of other texts still under consideration,

M.   whereas the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe includes a number of improvements in police and judicial cooperation in Europe; whereas, among those improvements, the abolition of the "pillars" and the communitarisation of procedures are such as to enhance the EU's capacity for action as well as the democratic and transparent nature of the decisions taken; whereas this part of the Treaty was not a subject for debate or opposition during the recent ratification campaigns,

N.   regretting the fact that the role of Parliament in the adoption of the European arrest warrant and in its evaluation, and the Court of Justice's scrutiny of its enforcement, are limited by its status as a third-pillar instrument based on Articles 31 and 34 of the EU Treaty (Title VI),

O.   having regard to the need to apply the Treaties currently in force in full, and, accordingly, to give effect to Article 42 of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Member States may decide to bring the European arrest warrant under the first pillar, in order to ensure democratic scrutiny by the European Parliament and judicial scrutiny by the European Court of Justice,

P.   whereas the Convention establishing a Nordic arrest warrant was signed on 15 December 2005 by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway; whereas, although it is based on the principles and structure of the European arrest warrant, the Nordic arrest warrant integrates a number of advances on it, with a more effective set of rules on surrender, thanks, notably, to the reduction in the number of optional grounds for non-execution and to procedural deadlines that are shorter than those for the European arrest warrant; whereas the EU could usefully take inspiration from the Nordic arrest warrant to improve the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant,

1.  Addresses the following recommendations to the Council:

o
o   o

2.  Instructs its President to forward this recommendation to the Council and, for information, to the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) OJ C 284 E, 21.11.2002, p. 193. (2) OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1. (3) OJ C 304 E, 1.12.2005, p. 109. (4) OJ C 33 E, 9.2.2006, p. 159.