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

By 2011, numbers on the EAW were significantly higher:
“Available statistics compiled for the years between 2005 and 2009 […] recorded 54
689 EAWs issued and 11 630 EAWs executed. During that period between 51% and
62% of requested persons consented to the surrender, on average within 14 to 17 days.
The average surrender time for those who did not consent was 48 days.” 752
The average of executed EAWs was 2 326 during these years – more than
double than 2004 number.
A closer look at these data however puts the whole rationale of the EAW into
perspective and brings further to the fore its punitive nature. The EU jewel in the crown
of counter terrorism and of the EU fight against serious criminality 753 is often being used
by Member States to pursue the prosecution of much more trivial offences. Examples
are many. Already in 2007, it was reported that Member States were issuing EAWs for
non serious - if not petty – criminality. Examples varied from the possession of very
small quantities of drugs (0,45 grams of cannabis; 1,5 grams of marijuana; 0,15 grams of
heroin; 3 ecstasy tablets); to petty theft (theft of a piglet; theft of two car tyres); or for
the driving of a car under the influence of alcohol where the limit was not significantly
exceeded (0,81mg/l). 754 In 2008, The Guardian reported similar cases of issuing of
EAWs for theft of a dessert, for removal of a wardrobe door (EAWs issued by Poland)
or ‘piglet rustling’ (EAW issued by Lithuania). 755 And by 2011 this trend was
maintained. This led the Commission to particularly address the issue of proportionality
in its latest report in rather alarming terms:
752 European Commission Report COM(2011)175 final, supra note 736, 3.
753 Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA sets a threshold of punishability of
offences below which EAWs may not be issued: “A European arrest warrant may be issued for
acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention
order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a
detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.”, supra note 383.
754 Council, Note from the Presidency to the Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters
on the Proposed subject for discussion at the experts’ meeting on the application of the
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant on 17 July 2007 – the proportionality
issue, Document 10975/07, Brussels, 9 July 2007, 3; See also Council of the European Union,
Information Note 11371/07 on Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the
practical cooperation of the European Arrest Warrant – Year 2006, Doc. 11371/2/07, REV2,
Brussels, 27 July 2007.
755 David Cronin, “No justice in EU extradition system”, The Guardian, 5 August 2009.
202