BRODERSEN, H. / GLERUM, V. / KLIP, A.
Part I. The Research Project Report
1. Introduction
2. Generalities of the EAW-System
3. General Observations on Article 4a(1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
4. Meaning of the Expression Trial In Absentia
5. Trial Resulting in the Decision
6. Summons; Mandated LegalCounsellor; Right to a Retrial: Decision Already Served
7. Right to a Retrial: Decision Served after Surrender
8. Margin of Discretion
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
Table of European Cases
Part II. Proposal to Amend the EAW-Form
1. Amendment of Section (d) of the EAW-Form (proposed changes in bold)
2. Amendment of Section (c) (Proposed Changes in Bold) 229
Part III. Case-Law Guide
1. Introduction
2. Scope of Application of the ECHR to Proceedings Concerning the Execution of EAWs General Remarks
3. Scope of Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to Proceedings Concerning Execution of EAWs
4. Fair In Absentia Criminal Proceedings under the ECHR and under EU Law
5. A Judgment Rendered In Absentia as an Optional Ground for Refusal to Execute EAWs Admissibility of Surrender of a Person Despite That Conditions Indicated in Article 4a(1) of FD 2002/584/JHA Are Not Met
6. Conclusions: Strasbourg and Luxembourg Difference in Standards
Table of European Cases
Part IV. Manual for Filling in and Assessing Section (d) of the EAW
1. Introduction
2. Roadmap to Section (d)
The absence of the accused in criminal proceedings leading to a conviction causes many legal and practical questions when an European Arrest Warrant is issued to execute such an in absentia judgment. Whereas some Member States see no problem in allowing trials without the accused, other Member States have serious objections to it. These different standards create many problems in practice and necessitate the executing judicial authority to request supplementary information from the issuing judicial authority, leading to delays and extra costs. It may result in sometimes unjustified refusals to execute the EAW. This study identifies the problems concerning the application of Article 4a(1) Framework Decision 2002/584 on in absentia judgments and proposes both practical and legislative solutions. It intends to contribute to a reduction of the number of in absentia cases, speeding up the surrender proceedings and raising the safeguards for the individual.
