Execution of the European Arrest Warrant by the Romanian Judicial Authorities

Author:Ion Rusu
Position:IJP, Vrancea
Pages:332-342
SUMMARY

The unprecedented development of criminality at the social and economical levels, the tendency to globalize some categories of crimes, of maximum gravity, as terrorism, armament traffic, drug traffic or human traffic, have determined the world states to undertake specific measures to prevent, combat and finally reduce it. The first and most important measure taken by the Europe’s Council,... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
Execution of the European Arrest
Warrant by the Romanian Judicial Authorities1
Ion Rusu
IJP, Vrancea
Abstract: The unprecedented development of criminality at th e social and economical levels, the tendency to
globalize some categories of crimes, o f maximum gravity, as terrorism, armament traffic, drug traffic or
human traffic, have determined the world states to undertake specific measures to prevent, combat and finally
reduce it. The first and most important measure taken by the Europe’s Council, regarding the intensification
of judicial cooperation in criminal matters was the adoption of the Eu ropean Convention on extradition, in
Paris on 13 December 1957, completed by the two Additional Protocols in Strasbourg, on 15 October 1975
and 17 March 1978. In this con text, the release of the Council’s Framework Decision on 13 June 2002 on the
European arrest warrant and the pro cedures of delivery among the member states (2002/584/JAI) represented
a natural decision, with the purpose of contributing at ensuring a free, secure and just European space. The
European arrest warrant is a jud icial decision through which a competent judicial authority of a European
Union member state solicits the arrest and delivery by another member state, in order to proceed to the
prosecution, trial or execution of a penalty or safety measure that is privative of freedom.
Keywords: Judicial cooperation, State, European Union
1. Introductive Considerations. The Necessity of the Institution and the Importance of the
European Arrest Warrant
In its historical evolution, the institution of extradition represented a permanent negotiation between the
world states, the final purpose being the finding the most efficient ways to deliver the lawbreakers refugee
on the territory of another state. The bilateral agreements became a fact throughout treaties, conventions or
other similar instruments that had a determined role in prevention and combating crime with a greater
efficiency.
One of the fundamental problems that caused numerous discussions at a political and judicial level
between the world states was of course the one of the extradition of their own citizens.2
For a long time, all the world states (except the United States and Great Britain, but only at a bilateral
level and in certain conditions) did not accept the extradition of their own citizens, moreover, they did not
commit in trailing them according to the internal law on the states where they committed the crimes.3
As the time passed, the criminality developed, manifested in the most divers and violent forms,
threatening the individual security of the citizens and even the internal security of some countries.
Creating the real possibilities for the citizens to circulate in Europe (starting with the second half of the
last century) determined the development of new mutations in the structure of trans-boundary crime,
mutations that were caused by the possibility to circulate of the criminal elements, providing for a
competitive logistic and organization. Aware of the growing danger represented by the globalization
1
The institution of the European arrest warrant is examined ta king into account the last modifications introduced by Law
no.222/2008 on the amendment and completion of Law no.302/2004 on the i nternational judicial cooperation in criminal matters,
published in the Official Monitor of Romania, no.758 of 10 November 2008
2
Al. Boroi, I. Rusu, International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Ed. C.H.Beck, Bucharest, 2008; p. 299
3
Ibidem, op. cit. p. 299
332

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL