| Author (Person) | Cronin, David |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.11, No.28, 20.7.05 |
| Publication Date | 20/07/2005 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By David Cronin Date: 20/07/05 There was a slightly surreal ambience in the European Commission earlier this week as the implications of a German legal challenge to the European arrest warrant (EAW) were assessed. Although on Monday (18 July) the constitutional court in Karlsruhe struck down a national law placing the arrest warrant on the federal statute books, Brussels officials were sending out a mixed message about what it would mean for the fight against terrorism. On the one hand, they expressed regret that the extradition of German citizens to other EU countries cannot proceed for the time being. On the other hand, they expressed relief that the court's ruling will not have farther-reaching repercussions for the entire EU-wide system. "The arrest warrant has not been questioned," says one official. "That's why on the legal side we count ourselves as winners." Internal documents show that the EU institutions had serious reservations about Germany's handling of the EAW for months before this ruling. Disquiet was expressed, in particular, about how Brigitte Zypries, the justice minister, had been designated the "executing and issuing judicial authority" for the EAW in her country. In May, Luxembourg's then EU presidency, noted that only bona fide judicial authorities were supposed to be involved in the direct implementation of the system. "Good faith and transparency in the demonstrable absence of any perceived government filter are essential prerequisites to the proper functioning of a process conceived as being entirely judicial," the presidency said. A Commission representative found that while Zypries' designation did not breach the letter of the EU decision setting up the EAW, it was "not within its spirit". This is the second time this year that a court in an EU state has viewed the principle of handing over a country's own citizens to another legal jurisdiction as problematic. In April, the Polish constitutional court also ruled that the extradition of nationals under the EAW was unconstitutional. However, the court held out the possibility that the constitution could be amended to make Polish law comply with that of the Union. The challenge to the EAW in Germany was mounted by lawyers for Mamoun Darkanzanli, who holds both German and Syrian citizenship, and was identified by the US authorities as an important fundraiser for al-Qaeda some time before 11 September 2001. His extradition to Spain had been sought because of his alleged involvement in an Islamic extremist network on Spanish soil. The EAW was catapulted to the top of EU judicial cooperation priorities in the wake of the atrocities in New York and Washington. But - covering a total of 32 offences - its scope is far wider than terrorism. "There have been several arrests in the past year under the European arrest warrant and only a small fraction of them have been related to terrorism," notes Mirjam Dittrich from the European Policy Centre. "But the German ruling definitely has a negative effect for the fight against terrorism. It means that an al-Qaeda suspect can go free." Human rights advocates feel that it was premature for the EAW to be introduced before an EU directive on minimum safeguards comes into effect. The latter law has not yet been approved by the Council of Ministers. Stephen Jakobi from Fair Trials Abroad cites concerns that some EU countries have a record of not according foreigners the same rights as their own citizens during criminal proceedings. "There will be tears before bedtime with the EAW if it is not applied fairly," he adds. Following the 7 July bombings in London, EU governments have pledged to intensify their work on implementing the plan of action against terrorism that they had agreed more than a year previously. Claude Moniquet from the European Strategic Intelligence Services notes that the EAW is one of the few tangible results of EU anti-terrorism policy so far. "I can understand the point of view of the judges in Karlsruhe - they have to say what is constitutional and unconstitutional," he says. "But the judges have sent bad signals, not just to terrorists but also to other judges in Europe. For two years now, we have seen that sometimes the justice system of countries is the weak point in the counter-terrorism struggle." In its judgment of 18 July 2005, the German Federal Constitutional Court declared the German act implementing the European Arrest Warrant (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz) void. Article features comments from across the EU on the ruling that questioned the German law but not the European Arrest Warrant as such. The legal challenge to the EAW in Germany had been mounted by lawyers for Mamoun Darkanzanli, who holds both German and Syrian citizenship, and was identified by the US authorities as an important fundraiser for al-Qaeda some time before 11 September 2001. His extradition to Spain had been sought because of his alleged involvement in an Islamic extremist network on Spanish soil. Following the judgement by the Constitutional Court he was released. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Justice and Home Affairs, Security and Defence |
| Countries / Regions | Germany |
