09.02.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

was committed by a national abroad and the same acts do not constitute an <strong>of</strong>fence<br />

under Polish <strong>law</strong>. 795<br />

Denmark introduced further grounds for refusal based on human rights related issues,<br />

such as possible threat <strong>of</strong> torture, degrading treatment, violation <strong>of</strong> due process or<br />

unreasonable humanitarian grounds. Likewise, Lithuania also can refuse extradition<br />

when the “surrender <strong>of</strong> the person would be in breach <strong>of</strong> fundamental rights and (or )<br />

liberty”. 796<br />

As for the implementation <strong>of</strong> Article 4, relating to optional grounds for non-execution <strong>of</strong><br />

an EAW, the situation is very confusing. <strong>The</strong> Commission’s conclusions are telling:<br />

“[...] many States have made these grounds for refusal mandatory. At the same time,<br />

since this Article is optional some Member States have not transposed it at all. [...]<br />

Hence the implementation <strong>of</strong> this article amounts to a patchwork which is contrary to<br />

the Framework Decision.” 797<br />

Furthermore, although several Member States introduced alterations to comply with the<br />

Commission recommendations <strong>of</strong>fered in its implementing reports in the light <strong>of</strong> these<br />

incorrect implementations these did not cover in most cases the change in the grounds<br />

for refusal as mentioned above. Protectionist national legislation hence continues in<br />

force. 798<br />

3. Mutual recognition after the EAW: a continuously expanding and punitive dynamic<br />

with a more moderate approach<br />

Regardless <strong>of</strong> the difficulties experienced, mutual recognition in the EU continued to be<br />

expanded. Its aim continued to clearly be one <strong>of</strong> facilitating <strong>criminal</strong> investigation,<br />

prosecution or securing and managing punishment. In some aspects, new measures<br />

795 Ibid., 10. ‘Un<strong>of</strong>ficial translation <strong>of</strong> the Polish provisions implementing Framework decision<br />

2002/584/ JHA <strong>of</strong> 13 June 2002 on <strong>European</strong> Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures<br />

between Member States <strong>of</strong> the <strong>European</strong> <strong>Union</strong>.’ available at<br />

http://www.asser.nl/default.aspxsite_id=8&level1=10789&level2=10837&level3=11089&textid<br />

=30333<br />

796 Ibid., 9. See the Criminal Code <strong>of</strong> the Republic <strong>of</strong> Lithuania (Zin., 2000, No. 89-2741).<br />

797 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Commission Staff Working, supra note 731.<br />

798 <strong>European</strong> Commission Report COM(2011)175 final, supra note 736, 6-8.<br />

215

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!