Proposition 51K0279

Projet de loi relatif au mandat d'arrêt européen.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 14, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European Union international criminal law criminal procedure criminal law extradition

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA

Abstained from voting

Ecolo FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 4, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, colleagues, the present bill aims to transpose the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union concerning the European arrest warrant into Belgian law.

It is the first concrete application of a decision taken by the European Council at the Tampere Summit in October 1999. It aims to implement a new concept of

Le projet de loi à l'examen vise à transposer et droit belge la décision-cadre du Conseil de l'Union européenne relative au mandat d'arrêt européen. It is a first application of a decision taken at the Tampere summit. The objective is the better criminal justice, better aligned with European integration. It aims to replace the traditional system of extradition between the Member States of the European Union by a mechanism of extradition between the relevant judicial authorities, on the basis of an arrest warrant valid throughout the entire territory of the European Union.

The main element is no longer the request for extradition, but the arrest warrant itself, issued by the competent judicial authority. This is linked to two consequences. First, it is no longer the states, but only the judiciary involved in the new arrangement. In other words, it is the judiciary and no longer the executive power that has jurisdiction over extradition. In doing so, the judicial authority, which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant, directs it directly to the competent judicial authority of another State, with the request to execute it.

The second consequence is the reduction of the entire procedure. There is only one phase in which the arrest warrant is sufficient, both for the arrest and for the surrender of the person. In addition to simplifying the procedure, it also seeks to accelerate it by incorporating the necessary safeguards to ensure that sought-after persons are no longer detained for extradition and trial within a reasonable period.

Therefore, the procedure is bound by very strict deadlines.

In the transposition into Belgian law, three principles were taken into account. First, the content of the Framework Decision is translated as faithfully as possible. Second, the effectiveness of the functioning of the Court of Justice must be reconciled with respect for the fundamental rights of the person against whom a European arrest warrant is issued. In case of choice, the solution that best protects the rights of the person concerned is opted for. Thirdly, the provisional detention procedures currently in force in Belgian law should be incorporated as far as possible in the draft law.

During the general discussion in the committee, Members expressed their concerns with regard to the application of Article 5 of the Act which in the first paragraph takes over the principle of double punishment, though with the exception of 32 cases included in Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Act. The bill addresses this concern and reinforces the obligation of double punishment in Article 5, which transposes Article 2 of the Framework Decision. The execution of the arrest warrant shall be refused if the fact to which the arrest warrant relates is not punishable under Belgian law. Their

For the 32 crimes listed in paragraph 2, the double punishment shall not be further investigated. The submitted amendments were not approved by the committee.

As regards the present text, I also refer to Article 44 where I ask your attention for a passage in the Dutch translation. The words from "On 1 January 2004" to "converted" should be removed because the translation from French is not complete. I clarify: "not transposed on 1 January 2004" should be deleted from the Dutch text. Adaptation of criminal proceedings to European integration.

From now on, the arrest warrant is the determining element and no longer the request for extradition. There are two consequences: States are no longer competent for extradition and the judicial authority of one country now addresses directly to the judicial authority of the other country to request the execution of the mandate. In addition, the procedure has been shortened. It consists of only one phase. The arrest warrant is sufficient for the arrest and extradition.

The process will also have to be faster now. The persons shall no longer be detained for unnecessarily long periods in view of their extradition and they shall be tried within a reasonable period.

The contents of the Framework Decision have been transposed as faithfully as possible into the draft law transposing it into Belgian law. The procedures currently in force in Belgian law with regard to preventive detention have also been ⁇ ined to the fullest extent possible.

Furthermore, attempts have been made to reconcile effective justice with respect for the fundamental rights of the person against whom an arrest warrant has been issued. This is why it has been chosen as often as possible for the solution that best protects the rights of the data subject.

During the general discussion of this draft in committee, some expressed their concerns about the application of Article 5 of the law, which takes the principle of double incrimination and provides for 32 exceptions.

The draft law consists of the obligation of double incrimination. Ainsi, lorsque le fait se rapportant au mandat d'arrêt n'est only Mr. President, Mrs. Vice-Premier and Mrs. Vice-Premier and Minister of Justice, colleagues, in so far as my report as a Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will immediately express the position of my group on this subject.

The draft law was already adopted in the previous legislature, on 28 March for the first time by the Council of Ministers. It was no longer able to convert it into law before the elections of 18 May. A few years ago, the achievement of this theme was yet another point where our country was heavily hammered, given the fact that we were chairman of the European Union in the second half of 2001.

It is a large and first step towards a common European justice system. In recent years, more and more attention has been paid to this. There has been a lot to do around this project and design. The principle of extradition, on the one hand, and respect for human rights, on the other, have at some point stood on a tense foot. A simplified and uniform arrangement is indeed necessary and useful, ⁇ within a united Europe. It can be considered a step forward in the pursuit of a common area of law. It will benefit us all.

The guarantees that are eventually developed form a certain balance, so that the whole cannot be abused. That is why we will also approve the draft. punissable and pursuant to Belgian law, the execution of the mandate shall be rejected. There will be no control of the double incrimination for the 32 exceptions enumerated. The Committee rejected the amendments deposited in the matter.

I am referring to the written report. In the Dutch translation of Article 44, § 3, the words "op 1 januari 2004 niet hebben omgezet' shall be deleted.

The amended bill was adopted by 9 votes and 3 abstentions.

Now I would like to clarify the position of the VLD group. The present bill was already approved in Council of Ministers by the previous government in the course of March 2003 but, at that time, it could no longer be transposed into law. When our country held the presidency of the European Union in 2001, the arrest warrant was highlighted. This is an important first step towards a common European justice.

For some time, there was interference between two principles — extradition, on the one hand, and respect for human rights, on the other. Therefore, a simple and uniform regulation was necessary and it will benefit all. The guarantees obtained are balanced. That is why we want to adopt this project.

This is a double event. It was the maiden speech of Claude Marinower. (The applause)

Today is also his birthday.

Congratulations to M. Marinower, not only for his anniversary but also for his "maidenspeech" and for the same occasion, for his premier report. (Applaudissements) Mrs Van der Auwera, do you agree that I give Mr Wathelet the floor first? It is a matter of languages to alter. After you, I will let Mrs. Deom speak, followed by Mr. Bourgeois and Mrs. Nagy.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. She showed the interest that every member of parliament had in this issue. This will enable the issuance and execution of arrest warrants.

The discussion in the committee was very interesting. From now on, the issuance and execution of an arrest will be much more rapid, and only at the level of jurisdictionnel and not plus at the level of the executive.

On a principled level, we believe that the use of the European arrest warrant is truly an advance and a victory for the European Union. This principle is also based on the principle of mutual trust between the different States. We have repeated this many times, like the Minister, it is a mutual trust that must exist between our judicial orders. Each jurisdictional order must trust the other and it is only in this way that we can work and move forward concretely.

However, Mrs. Minister, you have always accepted the dialogue in committee regarding our principled objections to this European arrest warrant. I will highlight two of a different order, which have already been discussed, but we thought it was important to emphasize them again tonight.

First, it is the language in which this European arrest warrant must be issued. In fact, you wanted, in your preliminary bill, to insert English. This seemed to us very interesting given that English could serve as a pivotal language between different states. And this can be interesting for both the issuing State and the executing State.

When Belgium issues a European arrest warrant, it will issue it in one of its national languages. But we thought it was as interesting as she could broadcast it in English. This would have enabled the State which believed that the person mentioned in the European arrest warrant had in its territory to be able to directly seize that European arrest warrant, drawn up in English, to translate it into its national language and to execute it immediately. by

What will be done if this European arrest warrant is not written in English? We will have to issue it in one of our national languages, wait until the potential executing State manifests itself, translate this mandate so that the executing State can have it in its own language. This poses a significant efficiency problem. by

The drafting of the mandate in English was also interesting at the level of the executing State, which could have itself translated the European arrest warrant addressed to it into its own language. In this regard, in the framework of the negotiations that took place within the Council, many States had shown an interest in being able to translate the European arrest warrant themselves into their national language; the Dutch in particular had pointed out that the translation into Dutch by other States posed problems because it was not correct. by

Mr. Minister, apart from the Socialist Group, I was the only one to follow you in this version that aimed to impose English, which prompts me to say, ⁇ in a somewhat polemical way, that the consistency of the majority ends where the linguistic question begins. by

The second point that I would like to insist on concerns this famous article 5.4 of which we talked abundantly during the discussion of this bill; it is about the return to the double incrimination concerning abortion and euthanasia. by

As you have this previously, we think that this system of the European mandate of arrest must be based on a principle of confidence order expire much faster. From a principled point of view, this means a breakthrough based on mutual trust between States.

However, I would like to emphasize two points. The first concerns the language in which the arrest warrant is issued. Mrs. Minister, your proposal was that the local language and English should be used as basic languages. This positive proposal will ⁇ benefit efficiency and speed. In the implementation, the States themselves would provide for the translation. I am the only one following you. Secondly, I will talk about Article 5.4 which deals with the reintroduction of the double punishment in the case of euthanasia and abortion. Generally speaking, the principle of single punishment seemed sufficient, but at European level, except for 32 crimes, the principle of double punishment is generally valid. Without being imposed by Europe, Belgium adds double punishment as a condition for abortion and euthanasia. In some countries, abortion is criminalized as a crime and euthanasia is considered to be intentional killing. For euthanasia, Belgium adds an additional condition and thus replaces the punishment in one country by the double punishment.

However, it is not just about a different viewpoint. There is also a problem with the transposition of the Framework Decision. In European law, the transposition of a framework decision implies the same obligations as the transposition of a directive. However, Belgium has a different opinion. Positively, this example demonstrates the need to seek harmonisation in criminal law as well. and mutual. This principle implies that when a State of the European Union - who respects the same fundamental rights as us, and often much better, because when we see the number of times where Belgium is condemned by Strasbourg we do not have to give lessons to other European countries - we send a mandate of European arrest, the control of Belgium must be marginal.

We therefore thought that the simple incrimination, that a fact is punishable in the country that issued the European arrest warrant, was sufficient. So we thought it was necessary to go as widely as possible towards the use of a simple incrimination that was that of the issuing country. This is the position that Belgium defended at the Council of Ghent, under the Belgian presidency.

Unfortunately, at the European level, we have come to a different system that was the principle of double incrimination, except for a list of 32 facts that appear in this Framework Decision and which were taken up in the draft law on the European arrest warrant in Belgium.

However, Belgium, alone, without any obligations at the European level, adds the principle of double incrimination for two very precise facts that are that of abortion and that of euthanasia. On abortion, we have heard the minister’s objection and we fully understand it. Indeed, abortion is often, almost everyday, in countries where it is still repressed, incriminated as an offence as such. When a country sends a European arrest warrant incriminating abortion, it will not cover the list of 32 countries that only request a simple incrimination. Since abortion is no longer incriminated in Belgium, Belgium may refuse to execute this European arrest warrant.

On the other hand, euthanasia is not envisaged in any of the other European countries, except in the Netherlands, which has a very different system than ours. From then on, we will receive European arrest warrants incriminating voluntary homicide, and voluntary homicide is on this list of 32. Just an incrimination is enough. Belgium should no longer look on its own if the act of voluntary murder is incriminated under Belgian law, except for a marginal control that is listed in Article 4, in particular respect for fundamental rights.

Moreover, when Belgium evaluates whether or not there has been euthanasia in the light of Belgian law, which we believe should not be done, it is of course that this act will not be an euthanasia in the sense of Belgian law. Indeed, the person who, in Ireland, will be prosecuted for voluntary homicide will obviously not have complied with the entire procedure in force in Belgium in the area of euthanasia. It will not have the form that must be filled in our country. It will also not have the prior consent that must be fulfilled. She will not have respected the Belgian procedure on euthanasia as this law is not applicable in her country. Therefore, it seems to me that Belgium adds an additional criterion, a double incrimination while it is a system of simple incrimination.

Beyond the conceptions that we may have, there may be a problem in transposing the framework decisions. I mentioned this point during the discussion. In EU law, the transposition of framework decisions implies the same obligations as those relating to directives. Therefore, it seems to me that by reinstating double incrimination, Belgium goes against the lines imposed on it in that Framework Decision. Finally, since we have been asked to be constructive during this legislature, we must conclude with a positive note. The example I have just explained shows, however, that we must move towards a harmonisation of the criminal law at European level, both in terms of procedures and incriminations.

The European arrest warrant will only be effective when this harmonisation has been achieved. It seems to me that on this point we are all on the same wavelength.

A small correction to the report. In my report I spoke about the Dutch-speaking texts and I said that the passage from "on 1 January 2004" to "not converted" should be removed. I was mistaken in that. It is only "on January 1, 2004". The three words "not converted" remain in the Dutch-language text. I would rather put it right.

I would like to make a small correction regarding my oral report. In the Dutch text, the words "op 1 januari 2004" should be deleted. The words “Not Haven Omgezet” are retained.

Is this stated in the printed report or in your presentation?

In the translation there is one passage too much, but I have in my report by mistake mentioned the passage "on 1 January 2004 not converted" and it is only "on 1 January 2004" that is too much in the Dutch-language text.

It is already included in my comments, which I will submit later in the article-by-article discussion. Mr. rapporteur, I thank you for your attention. I did not circulate a new version because I knew there were a few words too many in the Dutch text.

The draft law is intended to transpose into Belgian law the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the procedures for surrender between Member States.

The purpose of the Framework Decision is to replace extradition in the relations between the Member States of the European Union by a mechanism of generalized, simple surrender of suspects and convicted persons based on the mutual recognition by the Member States of each other’s detention mandates.

The arrest warrant can be considered as the first application of the principle of mutual recognition of criminal judgments by the Member States and the harmonisation of their criminal law. It was mainly after September 11, 2001 that this aspiration came into a current acceleration.

For the European Union, the European arrest warrant was therefore an essential element in the fight against terrorism and an essential element in the realization of the space of freedom, security and justice.

Of course, CD&V can in principle agree with the mechanism of the European arrest warrant. It will enable a more efficient approach to cross-border and international crime. I also immediately think of the fight against local border crime in Flanders.

The European arrest warrant should ⁇ be used as an additional tool in the fight against gangs that systematically cross the border.

This bill transposes into Belgian law the Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002. Extradition is replaced by a generalized and simplified procedure for the surrender of the person, which corresponds to mutual recognition of the arrest warrant.

After September 11, 2001, things accelerated with regard to the European arrest warrant. It is therefore of crucial importance in the context of fighting terrorism and the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice. The CD&V endorses the mechanism of the arrest warrant, also because it is an instrument in the fight against local cross-border crime in Flanders.

Like several legal practitioners, including Professor Vermeulen, the CD&V, however, raises a number of questions on certain issues. oversteken om snel en misdrijf te plegen en terug de grens over te vluchten vooraleer of Belgian police doeltreffend kan optreden.

Nevertheless, the CD&V group, together with a number of legal practitioners, including Professor Gert Vermeulen, still raises some questions on a number of difficulties, which were not sufficiently clarified during the debate in the Justice Committee.

First, for thirty-two crimes, the traditional guarantee of double incrimination expires. For thirty-two offences, the double punishment should no longer be examined and the persons concerned may be freely handed over between Member States. There is only a limited legal control. This article was seen during the negotiations at European level as a compromise between the supporters of upholding the principle of double punishment and those who supported its abolition. Nevertheless, the omission of this traditional principle of law has already caused much criticism, and not so long ago also in the sp.aspirit faction, if I am not mistaken.

However, during the debate in the Committee on Justice, it appeared that the position of this group has apparently completely changed. What CD&V finds especially difficult is the fact that with the fall of the double incrimination a number of fundamental freedoms are put on the slope. With the European arrest warrant as it is now conceived, the European Union will therefore ⁇ the exact opposite effect of the objective that the mandate sought to ⁇ , namely less freedom and justice for the European citizen rather than a space of freedom, security and justice.

Furthermore, it remains strange that the Union has not limited itself to the crimes it was already harmonising and for which, therefore, the traditional conditions of extradition of double incrimination are automatically met. Or as Professor Vermeulen himself stated: "In the meantime, the Justice and Home Affairs Council has caught itself on an inconsistency and has then only decided that for all thirty-two arrest warrants crimes must follow a harmonisation procedure, the question of the horse behind the wheel."

In addition, I would like to point out that the list made available to the Commissioners on the status of harmonisation shows that there is still much work to be done in this area. 16 of the 32 crimes have not yet been harmonised at European level. These include a number of serious crimes such as deliberate killing, serious beating and injury, abduction and organized or armed theft. This means that for at least 16 of the 32 crimes the criminal qualifications and sanctions have not been brought closer together in all EU Member States. However, double incrimination or punishment should no longer be examined. The Minister’s list shows that the internal European penal provisions are similar for only a dozen crimes. Ainsi, 32 infractions ne font plus l'objet d'une double incrimination. Ce compromis européen a suscité une levée des boucliers, également dans les rangs du groupe sp.aspirit jusqu'il y a peu. It remains more than a judicial control limited the sort that within the Union, the freedoms of citizens risk being limited rather than reinforced. On ne se limit pas aux infractions pour lesquelles l'harmonisation était en cours. Sur les trente-deux infractions, seize ne font encore l'objet d'aucune harmonisation. Or, il ne s'agit pas des délits les moins graves: homicide volunteer, coups et blessures graves, enlèvement et vol à main armée et font partie. Only one tenth of these offences are the subject of equivalent directives.

The [...]

That is true, but this shows the gaps in the design as it is now drawn up. Furthermore, for these harmonised crimes, it is often the case that the relevant national criminal qualification goes far beyond the standard.

In addition, the draft creates a form of impunity by forcing Belgium to refuse that a mandate geharmoniseerde Europese minimumnorm.

The political extradition exception and the non-discrimination exception have suffered the same fate. Even these yet traditional exceptional grounds must believe in the design.

Another issue that has already been raised in the committee relates to the problem of the prescription. By stipulating in the draft that Belgium is obliged to refuse the arrest warrant when the criminal action or sentence has expired under Belgian law, a very dangerous situation is created and a certain form of impunity is actually installed in the law.

In fact, it may well be that the facts are not yet obsolete in the state in which the arrest warrant was issued. This finding is further underlined by the fact that the law obliges the Belgian authority to refuse the execution of the order, although the Framework Decision imposed this refusal grounds only optional. In the committee, the Minister stressed that this mandatory refusal applies only if there is a link with Belgium. Very often, however, the conscious link with Belgium will concern the victim. Think of a crime committed by a foreigner abroad against a Belgian.

Imagine the following situation: it is a crime for which the limitation period in Belgium is quite limited. After the expiry of the limitation period under Belgian law, the perpetrator fled to Belgium, the country of his victim, and is thus safe. Although the perpetrator may still be prosecuted under foreign law and a foreign judge also explicitly asks for his extradition, the Belgian government prohibits, and I emphasize, the Belgian judicial authorities from responding to the request, because the facts are outdated under Belgian law. Is it possible that in Belgium foreign criminals are treated better than Belgian victims? This statement is currently, of course, purely hypothetical, but in my opinion such scenarios will surely occur in practice. In any case, in accordance with the Framework Decision, this reason for refusal must be re-facultatively determined.

Furthermore, the instrument of the Framework Decision as such must be considered. A framework decision is negotiated and approved at European government level. The European Parliament intervenes in this legislative process only in a so-called non-binding consultation procedure which effectively puts the European Parliament out of play.

The Framework Decision must therefore be further adopted by the national parliaments in order to be assured that this way of making decisions leads to a democratic deficit. Their

I conclude my speech with the following considerations. We have explicitly warned the Minister during the discussion of this draft in the committee about the problems that the Government is now facing. These are problems related to the transitional arrangement. The transitional arrangement, as it now predicts, poses a threat to legal certainty. In fact, transitional article 44 provides that this law will apply to European arrest warrants issued from 1 January 2004. This date was presumed because the Framework Decision was supposed to replace the extradition agreements for the Member States of the European Union. d'arrêt soit décerné si les faits sont prescrits du point de vue du droit belge, même s'ils ne sont pas prescrits dans le pays où le mandat d'arrêt a été émis. The Minister stressed that this is not the case when there is a point of connection with Belgian law. However, this point of rattachement will often be the victim. Is it admissible that foreign criminals are treated better in Belgium than the Belgian victims? I think that refusal should be optional.

We must also consider this instrument, which is the Framework Decision. The European Parliament only plays a role in this regard in a non-binding consultation procedure. It is the national parliaments that are called to exercise control. This creates a democratic deficit. by

We had well warned the Minister against the transitional regulation that risked to hypochondrise legal certainty. According to Article 44, this regulation will apply to European arrest warrants issued from 1 January 2004.

However, this system will only work if all Member States transpose the Framework Decision before that date. It is not clear exactly what is planned in the event that this transposition would not have taken place. In a committee, the minister dismissed this objection from a reverse of the hand by exclaiming: it is all simple!

But it would have been more efficient to settle this issue on the bottom in mid-November instead of summoning a Justice Commission today, while a plenary session is underway, to take this issue hand-in-hand. This demonstrates that any political will to carry out in-depth parliamentary work is lacking in the majority. These transitional provisions can, however, only in practice work as also all member states have adopted the framework decision for 2004. Precies hier knelt het schoentje, want what as a member state het kaderbesluit niet omzet voor deze datum? Bij gebrek aan een uitdrukkelijke bepaling in de Belgische overgangsregeling is het niet clar welke wettelijke regeling van uitleveringprocedure tussen twee lidstaten zal regelen. by

Like all the good and constructive comments of the opposition, Mrs. Minister, this extremely important issue was undoubtedly pushed aside in the committee. As you always say, “C’est tout simple.” You just put it next to you. We now see, as you said at the European Summit last week, that a number of Member States will not be in order to transpose the transposition into their own law before 1 January 2004. Their

Mrs. Minister, you have merely noted that the purpose of the draft law was not to provide a solution in the event that some Member States did not carry out the transposition by that date. You also added that all Member States must have adopted the transposition laws by the end of this year.

This ended the discussion in the committee. We know better today. Do you not also think, Mrs. Minister, that it would have been more efficient to resolve this issue in the committee in the middle of November, rather than calling together the Committee on Justice to resolve this problem at all times during this plenary session? Their

We can only conclude that the majority lacks political will to carry out thorough parliamentary work.

Mr. Speaker, without wanting to answer in the place of Mrs. Minister, I think it was better to gather a committee, to deposit the amendment in the plenary session, being understood that at the beginning we were just based on this principle of mutual trust, hoping that, given the importance of the transposition of this framework decision, all States would have done their best to transpose it. by

However, the legislative procedures are what they are and we also know them at home, hence some delay. It would therefore be better to ensure that there is no legal uncertainty and to return with an amendment in the plenary session rather than to leave an incomplete text.

With regard to the project that is submitted to us, I would like first, as others have done, now and during the debate on terrorist crimes, to recall the binding political context at the origin of this project. Indeed, the fact of proceeding through a framework decision excludes, as already stated, the European Parliament from the decision-making process, which raises questions regarding the democratic functioning. by

However, the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, adopted on 13 June 2002, is the first instrument to concrete the principle of recognition of judgments in criminal matters. This principle of mutual recognition constitutes the cornerstone of the development of judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union, as it was decided at the European Council meeting in Tampere in October 1999.

Given the importance of transposing that Framework Decision, it could be expected that all States would have done everything possible to ratify it. Since the legislative procedure has been somewhat delayed, for the sake of legal certainty, it was improved to submit the text, after which, if necessary, the committee could be convened or the amendment could be submitted to the plenary session.

This Framework Decision is the first instrument to concrete the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. It promotes the introduction of a new concept of criminal justice, better adapted to the reality of European integration. The European situation requires, on the part of international cooperation, a faster treatment.

De traditionele uitleverings- In this context, the European mandate is part of the establishment of a new conception of the criminal procedure, better adapted to the realities of European integration, a matter of how important and current.

Although the arrest warrant constitutes a first step, the situation in Europe requires that the process be accelerated, in terms of international cooperation, and primarily of the harmonisation of legislation. I will not go into detail on the technical nature of the project. Nevertheless, I will allow myself to insist on two points that constitute for us a not negligible advance.

On the one hand, as has already been recalled, the traditional extradition procedure which involves in Belgian law a decision of the executive power will be replaced by a completely judicial procedure, we can obviously only welcome this.

On the other hand, it should be emphasized, and others have done, this project aims to simplify and speed up the procedure. This is accompanied by an objective of efficiency, but it above all ensures that persons sought will be detained and tried within a reasonable period of time. In this context, it should also be emphasized that fundamental rights, as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, are respected when executing the arrest warrant.

As regards Article 5 of the draft, namely the principle of double incrimination, the proposed text is generally satisfactory, given the European context, recalled at the beginning of my speech, in which it was adopted. This provision expresses a compromise solution that, undoubtedly, does not fully satisfy both the supporters of the maintenance of the double incrimination and the supporters of its pure and simple abolition. However, it should be emphasized that the bill reaffirms, in its article 5 paragraph 1, the very principle of double incrimination. However, it is true that paragraph 2 exempts from this principle for a list of 32 infringements, otherwise recognised as those of the Framework Decision.

In this regard, I would like to highlight two considerations. On the one hand, the project establishes a mechanism for marginal control of the magistrates as to the motivation of the request made in the arrest warrant. In any case, the judge will have to verify whether the description of behavior contained in the arrest warrant and justifying the arrest warrant corresponds or not to a fact indicated in the list. Furthermore, these facts are not considered in their precise criminal qualification but as generic terms. In this context, this control appears to us as an effective guard against deviations and possible abuses of the exceptions of double incrimination. by

On the other hand, in order to safeguard a significant legislative advance in the field of ethics and in particular the right of everyone to dispose of themselves, the draft specifies, to avoid any misunderstanding, that the facts of abortion and euthanasia are not covered by the notion of voluntary homicide rightly included in the list of these 32 offences. by

In conclusion, and given the margin of manoeuvre left to Belgium in these transpositions, the PS group will vote on the text submitted by the government while hoping that the other Member States will demonstrate the same speed so that the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions becomes fully effective. procedure which imply a decision of the executive power, is being replaced by a fully rechterlijke rechtspleging in we find that a good thing.

This draft aims to simplify and speed up judicial proceedings and guarantees the persons sought a decision and a judgment within reasonable timeframes. Their

As regards the principle of double punishment, the text, given the European context, gives in globo satisfaction.

It should be noted that the draft reaffirms the very principle of double punishment. It is true that there are exceptions to this principle.

I would like to highlight two considerations.

On the one hand, a marginal review mechanism is introduced with regard to the justification contained in the arrest warrant. The judge will have to verify whether the description of the conduct as shown in the arrest warrant corresponds to the facts included in the list. These facts are not balanced on the basis of their exact criminal value, but in general terms. This review provides effective protection against abuse.

On the other hand, abortion and euthanasia are not included in this text. The aim is to ensure ethical progress, in particular with regard to the right of self-determination. They are included in the list of the thirty-two exceptions.

The PS will approve this text and hopes that the other European Member States will do so as soon as possible so that the principle of mutual recognition of legal decisions can come into effect.

My colleagues, I have been scattered. Mrs Van der Auwera asked her question and replicated after the answer. He also took the floor on this important bill. It was her maiden speech twice. Congratulations to Mrs.

I forgot twice to address my compliments to Mrs. Van der Auwera for her maiden speech. Congratulations to Mrs. (The applause)

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Premier, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, congratulations to all those who subsequently held their maiden speech, and also congratulations to the rapporteur for his accurate and excellent report, but also for his attention to the supplemented transitional provision which, as presented, was also not correct, though not in the Dutch version.

As the rapporteur has said, we are indeed standing in front of a very revolutionary reform of the extradition law. This is a very profound reform. In fact, a mechanism is established based on the principle of mutual recognition of criminal judgments within the EU. Therefore, the main element is no longer the request for extradition, as it was previously with the intervention of the executive power, but a European arrest warrant issued by the competent judicial authority of the requesting country and then also examined by the judicial authority of the receiving or requested country, whether it is in the stage of the question for prosecution or in the stage of execution of the sentence. This is a fundamental change. At first glance, one is inclined to find this indeed logical and a good thing within an EU with free movement of persons and mutual trust in the Member States and their institutions.

Apparently I am not the only one who has serious concerns about something. I refer to previous statements on this point, but would like to briefly formulate three important concerns. First, in fact, the opposite path is taken in the unification of this type of criminal proceedings. In fact, the Union should begin with the unification, the harmonisation of the law itself, so that in the different Member States, when an incrimination or a crime is spoken about exactly the same thing. This is not the case now. We are moving to quasi-automatic extradition, but we are facing different legal systems and different legal guarantees. We are even with one country in the Union, in particular Spain, about which Amnesty International regularly releases reports accusing Spain of serious human rights violations. This is a very important concern.

Secondly, this legislation is introduced on the basis of a framework decision where there is an extremely large democratic deficit. The European Parliament, with a boutade, stands by and looks at it. It can only be consulted, it has no decision-making right in these. Mrs. Minister, you will agree with me that the treatment of your draft here also proves the importance of a democratically elected parliament playing a role in criminal law, conducting discussions and asking questions, which leads to refinements, amendments and improvements. When the framework decision is drawn up, we miss this and therefore you actually have a Council of Ministers that makes the decisions. This does not happen with the same democratic legitimacy as that of a parliament and it does not happen with the same transparency, as far as I am concerned.

I have a third serious observation on the fact that the double

The European Framework Decision implements a spectacular reform of the right of extradition. It establishes a mechanism based on the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions made within the European Union. This fundamental change seems positive a priori but, in my view, it still raises important questions.

It would have been better to harmonize the criminal law itself. However, the opposite has been done: a quasi-automatic extradition mechanism is established while the different legal systems and the guarantees associated with them persist and while some countries – I think in this case mainly about Spain – continue to violate human rights, according to Amnesty International.

The European arrest warrant is introduced through a framework decision, which poses a significant problem of democratic deficit. This means that the European Parliament does not have a co-decision right. The Council of Ministers, which does not enjoy the same democratic legitimacy, makes decisions opacely.

Finally, the double incrimination is abandoned in thirty-two cases. It is a matter of generic definitions of punishable facts, not of specifically defined offences. This point suscits a levée de boucliers dans les milieux universitaires et les organisations de défense des droits de l'homme. After September 11, the fight against terrorism intensified. Dans ce contexte, on est and droit de se demander si des garanties eliminates punishment or double incrimination in 32 cases. Those 32 cases do not actually rely on specific criminal legal descriptions, but on generic descriptions of the criminal offences. Therefore, it is not literally about 32 well-defined crimes, but about a generic description of the facts. This comes again up there.

There is serious criticism from the academic world and there is also justified criticism from human rights organizations. The N-VA is also very concerned on this point, colleagues. 11 September 2001 – Belgium had at the time the Presidency of the Union – has led to the fight against terrorism and the European arrest warrant in a real acceleration, but one can ask whether it always provides sufficient safeguards for the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned, what should be the goal in a rule of law, and what should be the goal if we are talking about a space of freedom, security and justice.

I will give the example, colleagues, that has recently drawn our attention internationally. Britain has refused the extradition of a Chechen minister or deputy prime minister to Russia, who accused him of terrorist crimes. The person concerned has not been extradited by the United Kingdom on the grounds that the allegations and prosecutions were of a political nature.

Imagine that Russia in this case was part of the Union, of the countries that have concluded this framework agreement. Well, the political exception can no longer be invoked in this context, which until recently played a role in extradition. I recall the colleagues who are sitting in the Chamber for a little longer on the case of Moreno-Garcia, Basque, about which I have interpelled very hard. The then Minister of Justice ultimately wanted to extradite them, but the Council of State put a stick for it with the reason that it was a political persecution and not criminals or terrorists. We are deeply concerned that some of the crimes described in those exceptions will be misused — for example in Spain — to deal with people who love the idea of independence on the grounds of terrorism. They will request the extradition of these people. It is well known that Spain considers almost everyone in the Basque Land as a potential terrorist, that there almost anyone can be suspected of complicity or providing assistance to terrorists, and that there are regularly – with respect to the Basques – very serious human rights violations in Spain. There are very severe torture. Amnesty International reports with shocking photo reports. This cannot be challenged on any serious grounds.

In all this, we are very reluctant. Political exceptions disappear. It is no coincidence that a country such as Spain, along with Italy and France, is even of the opinion that the country requested for extradition should no longer carry out any controls. There should be an automation. In any case, it should be extradited on the basis of the mere fact that there is an indictment or conviction. I ask myself very serious questions about the democratic, rule of law principles of all this.

What has surprised me in this matter, colleagues, is the earsome silence here on my left side.

Ik heb het gevoel dat said in de vorige regeerperiode anders zou geweest zijn in dat of PS, Ecolo en zelfs sp.a —spirit die trouwens in een andere context waarschuwde tegen deze regelingen, in sufficient committees from the point of view of human rights have well been provided. In particular, there is no longer the possibility of making political exceptions. It can also be feared that Spain, for example, abuses this mechanism in its struggle against the Basque nationalists. It is not a coincidence that countries such as Spain and Italy have just insisted on the automatic character of extradition. The silence observed by Ecolo and sp.a-spirit in this case surprised me very much. by

A titre d'avertissement, la N-VA votera contre ce projet de loi, même si nous souscrivons à son principe. The judicial control will be too marginal to our taste. There are fundamental and principled comments. I have an abdication from the left. Their

In the event of such profound reforms which have not been exposed to danger in respect of the fundamental protection of rights and freedoms, it seems to me appropriate to warn and to say no. The N-VA will do that. As far as the N-VA-ers are European, we find that all too much is affected by a democratic deficit and a lack of legal guarantees. It means an excessive breach with the principles that have always been the basis of the right of extradition, in particular a legal guarantee, a protection against abusive and political persecution, against persecution that has been unknown from any ground and has no other purpose than to eliminate political opponents. The judicial control in this will be too marginal to convince us that this is a good text.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the text on the European arrest warrant is indeed the translation of a framework decision intervened at European level, which is of some importance, since it is a first step towards the establishment of a genuine European criminal justice space. This important challenge for the European Union cannot be undertaken lightly without surrounding itself with indispensable safeguards. The previous speaker drew attention to the fact that the European Parliament, in this case, has only been consulted. It seems to us that when these sensitive and important areas are targeted, a vote, a co-decision with the European Parliament should be indispensable. This element, of course absent with regard to the arrest warrant, will justify a number of criticisms on our part.

The first important element of the construction of this European judicial space based on an equally fundamental principle is that of mutual recognition, as it is the first concrete implementation in criminal matters of this principle, which the European Council also calls a cornerstone of judicial cooperation.

Secondly, this principle of harmonisation in criminal law at the level of the different countries of the Union is not very advanced and the enlargement will only increase the differences. If this principle is more than valid, then it will have to wait for its actual realization on the ground.

The third element of the arrest warrant is the considerable simplification of procedures. It is actually planned that the arrest decision will be made under judicial control and more under executive control. This is an important part of the fight against crime and against a number of offences. Progress in police cooperation should logically be accompanied by a simplification of judicial procedures.

In the field of defence and protection of fundamental rights, the bill you submit to our vote introduces an additional reason for refusal to execute the arrest warrant compared to the European Framework Decision. It should be emphasized the possibility of refusal when there are serious grounds to believe that the execution of the issued arrest warrant would have the effect of prejudicing...

The European arrest warrant is the transposition of the European Framework Decision. This measure is an important first step towards a European area of criminal justice. However, the necessary safeguards must be provided. The previous speaker already pointed out that the European Parliament was only consulted: there was no vote and therefore the Parliament could not co-decide on this important issue.

The arrest warrant is, as mentioned, a first concrete measure, on a criminal level, within the framework of a European jurisdiction. However, the harmonisation in this matter is still in its infancy and the expansion will only push the differences to the peak. Therefore, the principle is good, but it needs to be further developed.

The simplification of judicial procedures is a leap forward for police cooperation in the fight against crime.

As regards fundamental rights, we would like to point out that the text included an additional grounds for refusing to execute the European arrest warrant.

I would like to emphasize the importance of the remarks made by Ms Nagy. This is, of course, the answer to the comment made by Mr. and bourgeois.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I would like to comment on this. I know the text. I know indeed that it states that the fundamental rights of the persons concerned should not be compromised, but that is not the same as the political exception.

I know the text, but this is not comparable to the political exception.

Mr. Speaker, in this area, I would like to agree with the interpretation given to the clause providing for the refusal of enforcement where there are grounds to believe that an arrest warrant would have the effect of infringing the fundamental rights of the person concerned.

Mr. Bourgeois, if you are working within the framework of a European political construction based on principles of defence of human rights, with very wide capacity for political participation, it is certain that the deadlines that could be called policies become extremely difficult to recognize. You quote the case of the Basques in Spain; I will tell you my opinion, already expressed at other times: it is difficult, regardless of the objectives defended today by autonomous movements, however legitimate they may be, to accept that the armed way, the way of terrorism, is the chosen way. I find it difficult to accept this principle at the European level.

On the other hand, the principle of the defence of rights and of not being prosecuted unjustly, without respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, seems to me to be an essential element. In this sense, the Belgian bill improves the text of the European arrest warrant.

We agree with the interpretation of this clause.

However, the recognition of political crimes could create difficulties.

Mr. Bourgeois spoke about the Basque question, but we consider the principle of armed struggle unacceptable at European level. In our view, the Belgian draft law is an improvement of the text of the European arrest warrant.

I do not want to make any misunderstandings about this. I and my party strongly condemn any terrorism. We also do this as the outcome of independence movements. I do not want to have any misunderstandings about this. However, Amnesty International reports show that in the Basque Land, almost every Basque is considered by the Spanish government as a potential ETA terrorist. Even cultural associations are being placed on the list of terrorist organizations.

The N-VA condemns all forms of terrorism, including acts committed by independentist movements. However, Spanish police consider virtually all Basques as potential terrorists and Basque cultural associations are also on the list of terrorist organizations. Amnesty International has confirmed this.

I will not talk about the situation in the Basque country. Amnesty International is doing its job well, especially with regard to the situation in prisons. The Spanish state has also adopted a series of measures. by

For the rest, within the framework of the very principle of the construction of the European Union, the crime qualified as a political offence seems to me somewhat difficult to integrate into the arrest warrant. It is positive, I think.

I do not want to extend on the Basque issue.

Political crimes can, in my opinion, be challenging in the text relating to the European arrest warrant d'améliorer encore l'expression de la défense des droits fondamentaux comme proposé dans le projet de loi.

Some elements of the European arrest warrant have been criticized at the level of the Framework Decision. I am speaking in particular of the foundation that is based on the principle of mutual trust, as I have pointed out, while in different countries there are differences in terms of procedure, criminal law, effective respect for fundamental rights, the rights of the person arrested. This issue needs to be discussed at European level. But as long as this is not done, it is a bit difficult to defend the arrest warrant as presented.

In the general context of the European arrest warrant, i.e. the fight against terrorism which becomes an element entering into competition with the procedural guarantees in favour of persons, we are moving towards a much more repressive system in general. The mandate of arrest, as planned, is therefore likely to accentuate this European drift.

Some members have already spoken about the abandonment of double incrimination for certain offences. This is a fundamental principle in criminal law. It is positive that the government has responded, in particular to the criticism of the State Council on the question of the incrimination of voluntary homicide to explain that neither abortion nor euthanasia could be the subject of an application of the European arrest warrant. This element is important in a country where these legislations have been obtained by long struggle and for which Belgium appears as a precursor compared to other countries.

However, the general principle of abandonment of double incrimination – this was stressed by the Greens during the consultation in the European Parliament – does not agree with us. I recall that the position of the Greens is to say that, in parallel with a legally binding instrument for the arrest warrant, a legally binding instrument would be needed for the minimum procedural guarantees.

A draft Framework Decision has indeed been proposed to the Commission but it is of very modest scope. Furthermore, it does not counterbalance the measures already in force through the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant.

For all these reasons, we will not vote on this project and we will abstain. But it is true that this is a European matter and that it is at this level that the minimum procedural guarantees must continue to be defended. and opgenomen.

Other elements create problems. First, the European arrest warrant is based on the principle of mutual trust and the text does not sufficiently take into account the differences between Member States.

Currently, the general context of the fight against terrorism is somewhat opposed to the procedural guarantees concerning individual rights. Therefore, the present text presents a danger of abuse. Their

The third point relates to the fact that the double punishment is avoided. This is an essential part of criminal law. We have insisted and ensured that the European arrest warrant is not used in relation to abortion or euthanasia.

According to the Greens, a mandatory legal instrument that monitors compliance with procedural safeguards is necessary. There is a design on this subject, but in our eyes it does not go far enough.

For all these reasons, we will not vote for the present draft. We will remember.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the members of the Committee on Justice for the quality of their work. We worked well together. Many amendments were accepted and approved.

I would like to thank the rapporteur and the members of the commission for their excellent collaboration. We have provided quality work. This demonstrates a real willingness to work together to improve the proposed bill, and this until the end, still today in the Justice Committee, since the amendment we had to propose was voted unanimously. Thank you very much to each and every one of you!

In addition to the importance of the project for the arrest warrant as such, for the simplification of the system, for a greater effectiveness of the mandate De tekst werd bijgeschaafd dankzij de gezamenlijke en doorgedreven inspanning van alle commissieleden. The amendment was overigens eenparig aangenomen.

This proposal is not only of interest because it is a proof that we can move forward in the harmonisation of our judicial orders, that we can work in mutual trust and in this desire for better judicial cooperation.

This is the second project after terrorist crimes, which is voted in this year 2003, in application of what we achieved during the EU Presidency. I would like to thank Parliament once again for the effectiveness it has shown. We are among the first to study and vote today on this arrest warrant. the efficiënter makes in vereenvoudigt, but het toont ook aan dat of different rechtsordes beter op elkaar kunnen worden afgestemd in dat een nauwere samenwerking in het verschiet ligt.

Finally, I would like to thank the Parliament for the efficiency with which it has worked: thanks to that commitment, our country is one of the first to approve this draft.