Introduction to the Ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart of 25 February 2010 – The Proportionality of a European Arrest Warrant
| Published date | 01 June 2010 |
| Author | Judge Joachim Vogel |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441000100204 |
| Date | 01 June 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Analysis & Opinions |
New Journal of Eur opean Crimina l Law, Vol. 1, Issue 2, 2010 145
INTRODUCTION TO THE RULING OF THE
HIGHER REGIONAL COURT OF STUTTGART
OF 25 FEBRUARY 2010
THE PROPORTIONALITY OF A
EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT
Judge J V
Introduction by Karen Weis*
Notwithstand ing the large range of exist ing framework deci sions implementing the
principle of mutual recognition in the various stages of crim inal proceedings, there is
only one i nstrument that is frequently used by European judicial authorities: t he
European arrest warrant.1 e European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by
a Member State with a view to the ar rest and surrender by another Member State of a
requested person. Judges in Member States will recognize t he warrant, without any
further formality being required, and will forthwit h take the necessar y measures for
its execution. A requested State may not, in conformity with t he principle of mutual
recognit ion2, assess the legality of the actions of the requesting State by reference to its
own concepts of legality and it does not have the right to assess the importance of a
particula r case in terms of its own approach to specic forms of crime. e pr inciple
of proportionalit y may thus not be touched upon by the executing authorities.3 is
* Researcher, Vrije Universiteit Br ussel.
1 e other instruments have be en used sporadic i n practic e (see G. Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen, L.
Surano & A. Weyembergh, e future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European
Union, Bru xelles, Ed. de l’ Université de Bruxelles , 2009, 608 p.
2 Mutual recogn ition means t hat once a jud icial decision has been ta ken in one Member State, t hat
measure – in so f ar as it has extra national implications – i s automatically accepted in all other
Member States and has the same or at least similar eects there. If this princ iple were applied in it s
entirety, the EU would thus become a single ‘area’ where judgements in the criminal sphere circulate
fre ely.
3 A European arrest wa rrant may be issued for acts pu nishable by a custodia l 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 month s. is thresho ld can already be seen as a
way of m aking sure the proportional ity pr inciple is r espected, but in practice it is clearly not
enough.
To continue reading
Request your trial