Framework decision 2002/584 - 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

Contents

  1. Current status
  2. Key information
  3. Key dates
  4. Legislative text
  5. 32002F0584
  6. Original proposal
  7. Sources and disclaimer
  8. Full version
  9. EU Monitor

1.

Current status

This framework decision has been published on July 18, 2002, entered into force on August  7, 2002 and should have been implemented in national regulation on December 31, 2003 at the latest.

2.

Key information

official title

2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision
 
Legal instrument Framework decision
Number legal act Framework decision 2002/584
Original proposal COM(2001)522 EN
CELEX number103 32002F0584

3.

Key dates

Document 13-06-2002
Publication in Official Journal 18-07-2002; Special edition in Slovenian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 19 Volume 003,Special edition in Czech: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Maltese: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Estonian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Lithuanian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,OJ L 190, 18.7.2002,Special edition in Latvian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Polish: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Slovak: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Hungarian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 19 Volume 006,Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 19 Volume 006
Effect 07-08-2002; Entry into force Date pub. + 20 See Art 35
End of validity 31-12-9999
Transposition 31-12-2003; At the latest See Art 34.1

4.

Legislative text

Avis juridique important

|

5.

32002F0584

2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States - Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision

Official Journal L 190 , 18/07/2002 P. 0001 - 0020

Council Framework Decision

of 13 June 2002

on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

(2002/584/JHA)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(a) and (b) and Article 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament(2),

Whereas:

  • (1) 
    According to the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 35 thereof, the formal extradition procedure should be abolished among the Member States in respect of persons who are fleeing from justice after having been finally sentenced and extradition procedures should be speeded up in respect of persons suspected of having committed an offence.
  • (2) 
    The programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of criminal decisions envisaged in point 37 of the Tampere European Council Conclusions and adopted by the Council on 30 November 2000(3), addresses the matter of mutual enforcement of arrest warrants.
  • (3) 
    All or some Member States are parties to a number of conventions in the field of extradition, including the European Convention on extradition of 13 December 1957 and the European Convention on the suppression of terrorism of 27 January 1977. The Nordic States have extradition laws with identical wording.
  • (4) 
    In addition, the following three Conventions dealing in whole or in part with extradition have been agreed upon among Member States and form part of the Union acquis: the Convention of 19 June 1990 implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders(4) (regarding relations between the Member States which are parties to that Convention), the Convention of 10 March 1995 on simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union(5) and the Convention of 27 September 1996 relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union(6).
  • (5) 
    The objective set for the Union to become an area of freedom, security and justice leads to abolishing extradition between Member States and replacing it by a system of surrender between judicial authorities. Further, the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons for the purposes of execution or prosecution of criminal sentences makes it possible to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the present extradition procedures. Traditional cooperation relations which have prevailed up till now between Member States should be replaced by a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters, covering both pre-sentence and final decisions, within an area of freedom, security and justice.
  • (6) 
    The European arrest warrant provided for in this Framework Decision is the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition which the European Council referred to as the "cornerstone" of judicial cooperation.
  • (7) 
    Since the aim of replacing the system of multilateral extradition built upon the European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty...

More

This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.

6.

Original proposal

 

7.

Sources and disclaimer

For further information you may want to consult the following sources that have been used to compile this dossier:

This dossier is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned sources through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the sources we draw our information from nor the resulting dossier are without fault.

 

8.

Full version

This page is also available in a full version containing the summary of legislation, the legal context, de Europese rechtsgrond, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand and finally the related cases of the European Court of Justice.

The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.

9.

EU Monitor

The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.

  • 1. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 2. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 3. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 4. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 5. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 6. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 7. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 8. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 9. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 10. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 11. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 12. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 13. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 14. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 15. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 16. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 17. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 18. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 19. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 20. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 21. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 22. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 23. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 24. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 25. 
    Articles 59-66, 94(4) and 95 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, OJ L239 22.9.2000.

     
  • 26. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 27. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 28. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 29. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 30. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 31. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 32. 
    OJ C78 30.3.1995, p. 1.

     
  • 33. 
    OJ C313 23.10.1996, p. 11.

     
  • 34. 
    Articles 59-66, 94(4) and 95 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, OJ L239 22.9.2000.

     
  • 35. 
    OJ L176 of 10.07.1999 p. 31.

     
  • 36. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 37. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 38. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 39. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 40. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 41. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 42. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 43. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 44. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 45. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 46. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 47. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 48. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 49. 
    OJ L176 of 10.7.1999 p. 36.

     
  • 50. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 51. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 52. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 53. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 54. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 55. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 56. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 57. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 58. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 59. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 60. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 61. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 62. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 63. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 64. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 65. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 66. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 67. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 68. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 69. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 70. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 71. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 72. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 73. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 74. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 75. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 76. 
    Articles 59-66, 94(4) and 95 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, OJ L239 22.9.2000.

     
  • 77. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 78. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 79. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 80. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 81. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 82. 
    OJ L239 22.9.2000, p. 19.

     
  • 83. 
    OJ C78 30.3.1995, p. 1.

     
  • 84. 
    OJ C313 23.10.1996, p. 11.

     
  • 85. 
    Articles 59-66, 94(4) and 95 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985, OJ L239 22.9.2000.

     
  • 86. 
    OJ L176 of 10.07.1999 p. 31.

     
  • 87. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 88. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 89. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 90. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 91. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 92. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 93. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 94. 
    But the mechanism of the 1995 Convention enabled States to declare that the person's consent was revocable. This limitation was not kept here.

     
  • 95. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 96. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 97. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 98. 
    For example, Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JAI of 28.5.1 (OJ L149, 2.6.1).

     
  • 99. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 100. 
    OJ L176 of 10.7.1999 p. 36.

     
  • 101. 
    OJ ...

     
  • 102. 
    The two conditions (penalty remaining to be executed and maximum penalty incurred) were cumulative in the extradition system. They are independent here (see infra, Article 2).

     
  • 103. 
    Deze databank van de Europese Unie biedt de mogelijkheid de actuele werkzaamheden (workflow) van de Europese instellingen (Europees Parlement, Raad, ESC, Comité van de Regio's, Europese Centrale Bank, Hof van Justitie enz.) te volgen. EURlex volgt alle voorstellen (zoals wetgevende en begrotingsdossiers) en mededelingen van de Commissie, vanaf het moment dat ze aan de Raad of het Europees Parlement worden voorgelegd.
     
  • 104. 
    EUR-lex provides an overview of the proposal, amendments, citations and legality.