You are on page 1of 2

C 137 E/80 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.

2003

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

At this stage, there are no Union legal instruments in place that contain rules regarding extradition
arrangements between current Member States and the United States. These arrangements are based on
bilateral treaties concluded between Member States and the United States.

The Commission is not aware whether any of the current Member States make a distinction as to which
United States state or federal authority will judge a person whose extradition the United States has
requested, and whether that state or authority has the power to impose the death penalty.

However, the Commission understands that most Member States’ bilateral extradition treaties with the
United States contain clauses that allow the refusal of extradition unless sufficient assurances against the
use of the death penalty are given, independently of whether the person concerned is a national of the
Member State in question or not.

As regards the question of extradition of own nationals, it is the Commission’s understanding that under
current arrangements, only four Member States will extradite their own nationals to the United States,
independently of whatever punishment they might face there.

The Commission would like to underline that it is not best placed to provide information on legal
arrangements that Member States have  legitimately  made independently of Union processes.
The Member States themselves would certainly be in a better position to give detailed information on this
question.

(2003/C 137 E/089) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2384/02


by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Conditions attached to the application of the European Arrest Warrant

Under the proposals for the European Arrest Warrant currently before the Council of Ministers, will the
requesting Member State be required to restrict prosecution of an extradited person to those offences that
are specified in the warrant? Would it be a violation of the arrest warrant for the requesting Member State
to initiate a prosecution for an offence alleged to have been committed before the application for
extradition was made and which was not specified on the warrant without first offering the extradited
person the opportunity to leave the jurisdiction of the requesting Member State?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

The Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States adopted at the most recent Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13 June 2002 is a major step
forward in establishing a European law-enforcement area. The Framework Decision was published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities on 18 July 2002 and entered into force twenty days later
(Article 35). Member States have to take the necessary measures to comply with its provisions by
31 December 2003 (Article 34).

The European arrest warrant is to replace the extradition instruments currently in force between the
Member States. It encompasses all the situations previously covered by the 1957 European Convention on
Extradition. The principle of double criminality is waived for a list of 32 offences if they are punishable by
a sentence of more than three years in the executing Member State. The arrangement provided for is
strictly judicial. In practical terms the extradition of nationals can no longer be refused if the judicial
authority of a Member State has issued a European arrest warrant.
12.6.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/81

Under Article 27 of the Framework Decision a Member State may waive the speciality principle on
condition that in its decision on surrender in the specific case the judicial authority does not provide
otherwise. If it does provide otherwise, the speciality principle continues to apply and prior authorisation
by the executing State is required for additional prosecution proceedings for offences not specified on the
initial European arrest warrant, unless one of the exceptions listed in Article 27(3) applies.

(2003/C 137 E/090) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2387/02


by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council
(2 August 2002)

Subject: Desecration of Jewish graves at the Rome Verano cemetery

On 18 July 2002, a date corresponding to the Fast of Ab 9, a day of mourning in the Jewish calendar,
more than 40 Jewish graves were desecrated at the Verano cemetery in Rome. The entire city was appalled
at this despicable act, the first anti-Semitic attack of such alarming seriousness to have occurred in Rome
in many years.

What action will the Council take in the wake of the barbaric desecration of the Verano cemetery?

How will it prevent and respond to the long series of anti-Semitic outrages of the kind perpetrated, before
the Rome incident, in Strasbourg, Marseilles, and Brussels?

How will it combat the crazed subculture which, by fomenting hatred of the Jews while demonising the
state of Israel, leads to shameful episodes of the sort that occurred in Rome?

Is in a position to ascertain whether anti-Semitic organisations are pursuing a calculated strategy and
perhaps cooperating on an international basis?

Reply
(6 February 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any form of racism or xenophobia. At its meeting on 25/26 April 2002,
the Council adopted conclusions in which it indicated its wish to step up preventive action against racist
violence and antisemitism, and advocated closer cooperation between the police forces of the Member
States. In addition, a Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia is currently being drawn
up at the Council. The purpose of this Framework Decision is to establish minimum common standards as
regards criminalising conduct motivated by racism or xenophobia and to improve cooperation between
the authorities of the Member States in combating this type of crime. However, the Council would remind
the Honourable Member that Article 33 of the Treaty on European Union states that the exercise of
responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security
lies with the Member States.

(2003/C 137 E/091) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2400/02


by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Council
(5 August 2002)

Subject: False and damaging information on the Rome coastline posted on a German tourist site on the
Internet

Is the Council aware of the fact that, on its Internet site (www.marcopolo.de/index), Germany’s leading
tourist guide, Marco Polo, makes the totally unjustified accusation that the Rome coastline  with
particular reference to the beach at Ostia  is infested with rubbish and terrible diseases, going so far as to
make defamatory statements about the presence of typhus fever and cholera among other things?