The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
On this matter, I still think that Germany thwarted due processes by blocking the extradition.
Could you expand as to why?
I have little experience with extradition processes so I would find it interesting to see your argument spelled out. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 20 says "everyone is equal before the law." Now this does not seem to be the case for certain privileged states, such as Germany, within the EU. A citizen of a privileged state can commit crimes in one state and then escape to their the safe haven. Personally, I do not understand how a justice system can work in the EU if extraditions are blocked. I think either EU member states trust the justice systems in their fellow EU states, or they don't. If some states protect their citizens from prosecution by other states, when other states do not, how is this equality?
Now this does not seem to be the case for certain privileged states, such as Germany, within the EU. A citizen of a privileged state can commit crimes in one state and then escape to their the safe haven.
Personally, I do not understand how a justice system can work in the EU if extraditions are blocked. I think either EU member states trust the justice systems in their fellow EU states, or they don't.
If some states protect their citizens from prosecution by other states, when other states do not, how is this equality?
And here:
The Germans found no grounds in which they could prosecute, Darkazanli. Spain thought otherwise, but Germany decided that Spain would not allow their citizen to extradited to another EU state. The determination not to extradite was made by bureaucrats outside of the courtroom.
And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws", I think it is a loophole that can be exploited. As an interested outsider, I would rather see the EU explicitly state what and what are not extraditable crimes, ruling out such "dead laws" as blasphemy, than leaving such a loophole in place.
Again this is a matter of perspective. My argument is based on what I see as working in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state. There is 'trust' that justice will be done between the states of the American union. Without the trust between EU states that another state will mete justice fairly and accordingly, then I do not see how the EU legal system can work well. But then, maybe that is the point.
America's prisons are full.
Thinking about it, I think I prefer it to be handled in both states - one issuing the warrant, the other trying it - as both state apparatuses are involved in the infringement of liberty. Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
in the United States where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state
Please see, however, my exchange with gringo above.
Interstate extradition in the US only lost its major "loophole" a little over twenty years ago. And the EU is made up of sovereign states, so harmonizing law on such matters is even more difficult than under the federal constitution of the US.
When you quote these earlier positions, does that mean that your views haven't changed even after the "tireless efforts of DoDo and Migeru to help explain what is going on"?
And while this is done to defend a state's citizens against "dead laws"
No dead laws clause was involved in the Darkazanli case... that was an explanation I gave to a clause you quoted. What was involved apparently was the mandatory non-execution of the EAW clause, with the double jeopardy sub-clause being my obvious guess.
where one state will normally extradite a wanted person to another state.
As I quoted Wikipedia upthread, in the USA, too, double jeopardy may apply even if a case is closed against someone before it even gets to trial in one state. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 1 6 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 3 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 6 3 comments
by gmoke - Aug 25 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 21 1 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Aug 22 56 comments
by Oui - Aug 18 8 comments
by Oui - Sep 9
by Oui - Sep 8
by Oui - Sep 81 comment
by Oui - Sep 7
by Oui - Sep 63 comments
by Oui - Sep 54 comments
by gmoke - Sep 5
by Oui - Sep 41 comment
by Oui - Sep 47 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 319 comments
by Oui - Sep 211 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 16 comments
by Oui - Sep 114 comments
by Oui - Sep 186 comments
by Oui - Sep 11 comment
by gmoke - Aug 29
by Oui - Aug 2818 comments
by Oui - Aug 271 comment
by Oui - Aug 262 comments