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

e partly explained by the fact that the Polish criminal justice system endorses the
principle of legality or compulsory prosecution, which obliges public prosecutors to
institute or carry out preliminary proceedings when there is a good reason to suspect an
offence has been committed. Nonetheless, the public prosecutor retains some
discretionary powers, 747 and, accordingly, the room for discretion in prosecution has
been increasingly, especially in cases of lesser importance as noted by a representative
of the Polish National Prosecution Officer. 748 This discretion also exists in relation to the
EAW – Article 607a of the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure states that a Circuit Court
may issue an EAW upon request of a public prosecutor. 749 This suggests that the issuing
of EAWs in Poland is subject to a degree of discretion which makes the Polish impetus
to issue such a high number of EAWs all the more significant.
The use of the EAW, in general, has been considered successful by the Commission who
stated in 2006 that the EAW was an ‘overall success’ and that the average time to
execute a warrant had fallen from more than 9 months to 43 days. In the period from
January to September 2004, 2603 warrants were issued, 653 persons arrested and 104
persons surrendered. 750 Furthermore, a year later a new report by the Commission tells
of renewed tales of success as the Commission reports,
“For the whole of 2005, nearly 6 900 warrants were issued by the 23 Member States
that sent in figures (excluding Belgium and Germany), twice as many as in 2004. In
over 1 770 cases, the person wanted was traced and arrested.” 751
aeroplane carrying Polish policemen touches down at an airport in southern England. Waiting
for them each time is a glum of handcuffed men who are to be flown back to face trial in Poland.
Extradited prisoners are normally to be transferred on ordinary commercial flights, but a surge
in the number being sent from Britain to Poland means that now fortnightly ‘ConAIr’ service is
being laid on by the Polish authorities. […].” The Economist, “Extraditions to Poland – Wanted,
for chicken rustling”, January 2nd 2010.
747 T. P. Marguery, “Unity and Diversity of the Public Prosecution Services in Europe, A study of
the Czech, Dutch, French and Polish systems”, PhD Dissertation, University of Groningen, 12
June 2008, 202-211.
748 J. Szymanski, “Discretionary Powers of public prosecution: opportunity and legality principle
– Advantages and disadvantages”, Conference of Prosecutors General of Europe, 5th Session,
Council of Europe, Celle, 23-25 May 2004, 3.
749 Translation available in “The European Arrest Warrant Database”, Council of the European
Union, last visited on 23 May 2012. Available at
http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/~kpk/eaw/legislation/Poland_National_legislation_EAW.pdf
750 European Commission, Report from the Commission based on Article 34 of the Council
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between
Member States (revised version), COM(2006)8 final, 24.1.2006.
751 European Commission, Report from the Commission since 2005 of the Council Framework
Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States,
COM(2007)407final, 11.7.2007.
201