Mycket text blir det. UK dokument om EAW:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/117673/extradition-review.pdf
Citat:
The principle of mutual recognition has now been given effect by the TFEU.
According to this principle, as soon as a decision is taken by a judicial authority in one Member State, it takes full and direct effect throughout the European Union, meaning that the competent authorities of all the other Member States are under an obligation to assist its execution as if it had originated from one of their own judicial authorities. The scope of the judicial decision is therefore no longer limited to the territory of the issuing Member State: it extends to the whole Union and has
equivalent value in any other Member State.
Citat:
The Stockholm Programme
4.42
The European Union prepares programmes which outline the priorities for the area of justice freedom and security and the Stockholm Programme deals with the period 2010 to 2014.
This focuses on rights in the criminal process for both those who are accused and victims and also a further development in the programme of mutual recognition of court decision in criminal cases with measures to strengthen mutual trust.
Från EU dokument som heter "The Stockholm programme"
Citat:
Rights of the individual in criminal proceedings The protection of the rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings is a fundamental value of the Union, which is essential in order to maintain mutual trust between the Member States and public confidence in the Union.
...
3.2.6.
Detention
The European Council considers that efforts should be undertaken to strengthen mutual trust and render more efficient the principle of mutual recognition in the area of detention.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:115:0001:0038:en:PDF
Det är beslut enligt Svensk lag som UK erkänner och respekterar i UK
Mutual trust. De litar på Svensk lag.
EUs handbok om EAW:
Citat:
Criteria to apply when issuing an EAW – principle of proportionality
It is clear that the Framework Decision on the EAW does not include any obligation for an issuing Member State to conduct a proportionality check . It will be the legislation and judicial practice of the Member States that will ultimately decide this question.
...
Considering the severe consequences of the execution of an EAW as regards restrictions on physical freedom and the free movement of the requested person, the competent authorities should, before deciding to issue a warrant, bear in mind, where possible, considerations of proportionality by weighing the usefulness of the EAW in the specific case against the measure to be applied and its consequences.
Therefore, the EAW should not be chosen where the coercive measure that seems
proportionate, adequate and applicable to the case in hand is not preventive detention.
The warrant should not be issued, for instance, where, although preventive detention is admissible, another noncustodial coercive measure may be chosen – such as providing a statement of identity and place of residence – or one which would imply the immediate release of the person after the first judicial hearing.
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST%208216%202008%20REV%202
Och om Propornationalitet i UK
Från första länken igen är stycket från 5.120 Proportionality på sid 163 mycket relevant.
UK ståndpunkt:
Citat:
we consider that any future amendment to the Framework Decision, or any future legislative instrument enacted to deal with surrender between Member States of the European Union should include a proportionality test, to be applied in the issuing Member State. Among the factors to be taken into account when assessing
the proportionality of a European arrest warrant (or any equivalent instrument) are:
(i)
the seriousness of the offence;
(ii)
whether there is a reasonable chance of conviction
(iii)
the harm caused to the victim or the community;
(iv)
the likely sentence (in an accusation case);
(v)
the previous convictions of the requested person;
(vi)
the age of the requested person;
(vii)
the views of the victim;
(viii)
any reasonably alternative options for the issuing Member States such as
proceeding by way of summons.
UK och EU menar att det är den utfärdande staten i detta fall Sverige som skall ha ansvaret för ett "proportionality test"
Och till slut om tidsaspekten:
Citat:
So far as the first matter is concerned, it is of course for the issuing judicial authority
to decide when to issue a European arrest warrant. That said, we agree that it is undesirable in any system of criminal justice for an accused person to be kept in custody awaiting trial for any unreasonable period of time. It seems to us that the problem of lengthy periods of pre-trial detention can be addressed in a number of ways:
...
Greater use should be made of the so-called European Supervision Order.
Och det är nytt.
http://www.ecba.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout= blog&id=100&Itemid=136
Citat:
A European Directive aimed at reducing the need for pre-trial detention
The European Supervision Order (ESO), establishes an important new tool to reduce the need for non-resident defendants in the EU to be held in pre-trial custody. The deadline for implementation of the ESO Framework Decision in to national law is 1 December 2012,
Citat:
What is the problem?
Non-resident defendants often find themselves in a position where either the courts order their detention because they presume them to be a flight risk or they will release them but require them to stay in the trial state because they do not have confidence that they can be adequately supervised at home. Both situations can have disastrous consequences for the individual (who, of course, at this stage has not been found guilty of any offence): they may lose their job, contact with family and friends may be restricted, if released they may find themselves having to fund living in an unfamiliar country with no family ties or ability to fund themselves, there may be a detrimental impact on their mental welfare. If detained, the trial state has to bear the financial cost of detaining the person. In some countries an individual can be held in pre-trial detention for months or even years.
Jag tänker på Svenska domstolars särskilda häktningsskäl, flyktfara, som nu i princip faller som giltigt skäl för alla personer inom EU. Det är det speciella häktningsskälet som är underlaget till att enligt Svensk lag få utfärda EAW.
Jag tolkar det som UK och EU pekar med hela handen på den utfärdande staten som ansvarig för proportionalitetsbedömningen vid utfärdandet av EAW.
Och Sverige/MN borde inte utfärda en EAW i detta fall.
