The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

Besides these listed offences, mutual recognition also operates in relation to any other
crimes but in those cases States only have to recognise decisions which refer to acts
which are also deemed as criminal by their own law. Ultimately then mutual recognition
can involve any type of criminality and becomes a tool of extraterritorial enforcement in
relation not only to crimes with a European, transnational or cross border element, but
even in relation to crimes that are purely national. 701
2. European Arrest Warrant
The 2002 Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, 702 adopted in 2002,
aimed at making extradition between Member States an easier and swift process 703 by
adopting a simplified and fast procedure and weakening or abolishing some of its
traditional principles and operational extradition mechanisms. 704
701 This broad application has a caveat in relation to the Framework Decision on the EAW which
sets a general threshold of applicability as it will be seen below (see note 643 below). See also
chapter 3.
702 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, supra note 383.
703 According to some authors and views this was felt to be necessary in order to compensate for
a freedom of movement of fugitive criminals across borders, task which had arguably been taken
away from States which, with the removal of internal borders, no longer had the tools or capacity
to be guarantors of internal security. Accordingly, a common market could also be seen at the
same time as a ‘common criminal space’. See for example, W. Wagner, “Building an Internal
Security Community: The Democratic peace and the Politics of Extradition in Western Europe”
(2000) 40 Journal of Peace Research 695, 705; and N. Vennemann, “The European Arrest
Warrant and its Human Rights Implications” (2003) 63 Zeitschrift fur auslandisches offentlishes
Retch und Volkerrecht (ZaoRV) 103. See also chapters 1-3 of this thesis.
704 We will use the terms surrender and extradition interchangeably in this dissertation.
Nonetheless, it is fundamental to note that differences between extradition and surrender were
debated by several authors whose opinion differed on whether the two were similar or distinct
concepts. The controversia related to the fact that the Framework Decision replaces former
European instruments on extradition whilst using the word ‘surrender’ instead of ‘extradition’.
The debate was thus (and remains to some extent) whether amongst EU countries extradition in
the classic sense had been replaced by ‘surrender’ of if the two concepts were synonyms. For a
detailed account of distinction between the two from a substantive and procedural point of view
see, for example, O. Lagodny, “’Extradition’ without granting procedure: The Concept of
‘Surrender’”, in Judge R. Blekxtoon and W. van Ballegooij (eds) Handbook on the European
Arrest Warrant (The Hague, The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005) 39. Lagodny argues
that the EAW creates a “new system in relation to procedural aspects whilst giving a more
modest qualitative leap”. A more distinctive account was given by Advocate General Ruiz-
Jarabo Colomer, for instance, in its conclusions in the case Advocaten voor de Wereld, where he
held that, besides the common rationale of serving the same purpose of surrendering individuals,
the two had nothing in common. This position was justified mainly with the factors that
extradition can be operated between two sovereign States only, is decided on a case-by-case
basis, goes beyond the legal sphere into the political realm and enters the scope of international
relations, and, finally, justifies the applicability of the principles of reciprocity and dual
criminality. Advocate General Ruiz Jarabo Colomer, Case C-303/05, ECR I 3633 [2007] 41.
190