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.
Readers of this blog are amongst the very few people who have had the chance to learn the information that the original European Arrest Warrant for Julian Assange from Sweden was not issued by any court but by a prosecutor; that this was upheld in the UK Supreme Court despite the Court's open acknowledgement that this was not what the UK Parliament had intended by the phrase that the warrant must come from a "judicial authority"; and that the law had been changed immediately thereafter so it could not be done again.The European Arrest Warrant must be issued from one country to another by a judicial authority. The original Swedish request for Assange's extradition was not issued by any court, but simply by the prosecutor. This was particularly strange, as the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm had initially closed the case after deciding there was no case to answer, and then another, highly politically motivated, prosecutor had reopened the case and issued a European Arrest Warrant, without going to any judge for confirmation. Assange's initial appeal up to the UK Supreme Court was in large part based on the fact that the warrant did not come from a judge but from a prosecutor, and that was not a judicial authority. I have no doubt that, if any other person in the UK had been the accused, the British courts would not have accepted the warrant from a prosecutor. The incredible and open bias of the courts against Assange has been evident since day 1. My contention is borne out by the fact that, immediately after Assange lost his case against the warrant in the Supreme Court, the British government changed the law to specify that future warrants must be from a judge and not a prosecutor. That is just one of the incredible facts about the Assange case that the mainstream media has hidden from the general public. The judgement against Assange in the UK Supreme Court on the point of whether the Swedish Prosecutor constituted a "judicial authority" hinged on a completely unprecedented and frankly incredible piece of reasoning....Consequently in seeking a new European Arrest Warrant against Assange, Swedish prosecutors had finally, eight years on, to ask a court for the warrant. And the court looked at the case and declined, saying that the move would be disproportionate. It therefore remains the case that there is no Swedish extradition warrant for Assange. This is a desperate disappointment to the false left in the UK, the Blairites and their ilk, who desperately want Assange to be a rapist in order to avoid the moral decision about prosecuting him for publishing truths about the neo-con illegal wars which they support.
The European Arrest Warrant must be issued from one country to another by a judicial authority. The original Swedish request for Assange's extradition was not issued by any court, but simply by the prosecutor. This was particularly strange, as the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm had initially closed the case after deciding there was no case to answer, and then another, highly politically motivated, prosecutor had reopened the case and issued a European Arrest Warrant, without going to any judge for confirmation. Assange's initial appeal up to the UK Supreme Court was in large part based on the fact that the warrant did not come from a judge but from a prosecutor, and that was not a judicial authority. I have no doubt that, if any other person in the UK had been the accused, the British courts would not have accepted the warrant from a prosecutor. The incredible and open bias of the courts against Assange has been evident since day 1. My contention is borne out by the fact that, immediately after Assange lost his case against the warrant in the Supreme Court, the British government changed the law to specify that future warrants must be from a judge and not a prosecutor. That is just one of the incredible facts about the Assange case that the mainstream media has hidden from the general public. The judgement against Assange in the UK Supreme Court on the point of whether the Swedish Prosecutor constituted a "judicial authority" hinged on a completely unprecedented and frankly incredible piece of reasoning....
Assange's initial appeal up to the UK Supreme Court was in large part based on the fact that the warrant did not come from a judge but from a prosecutor, and that was not a judicial authority. I have no doubt that, if any other person in the UK had been the accused, the British courts would not have accepted the warrant from a prosecutor. The incredible and open bias of the courts against Assange has been evident since day 1. My contention is borne out by the fact that, immediately after Assange lost his case against the warrant in the Supreme Court, the British government changed the law to specify that future warrants must be from a judge and not a prosecutor. That is just one of the incredible facts about the Assange case that the mainstream media has hidden from the general public.
The judgement against Assange in the UK Supreme Court on the point of whether the Swedish Prosecutor constituted a "judicial authority" hinged on a completely unprecedented and frankly incredible piece of reasoning....
archived calumny 2012 Clinton/Nuland 2020 "That case has nothing to do with us" Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
In 2019 the prosecutor asked the Uppsala district court to remand Assange in absentia. It did not agree, finding it would be unpropotional as Assange is serving a jail sentence.
Nothing changed in the procedure on the Swedish side.
Now, it is possible that something has changed on the UK side, but I doubt it.
What has changed since 2010? Authority of the ECJ(CJEU) with respect to 1. national laws; 2. "due process" criteria for warrant; and 3. proscription of EAW exercised by national "judicial authorities". (See FDEA/EAW discussion above.) EU directives and judicial opinion seeks administrative uniformity among member-states.
It is presumed that the criminal law authorities of other Member States comply with the right to a fair trial and other (related) fundamental rights. In practice, however, this presumption does not necessarily hold true.3 [...] In other words, the political institutions did not make full respect for all fundamental rights a precondition for the lawful application of the EAW-system.5 [...] Hence, it is important to establish what actually constitutes a judicial authority. The FDEAW requires Member States to establish which judicial authority shall be competent to issue and/or execute EAWs,24 but it does not define the term `judicial authority' itself. In practice, this has led to divergences among the Member States, with some of them having designated authorities that would appear to be political rather than judicial authorities.25 [...] The CJEU's conclusions are logical.31 Common sense simply dictates that police services and ministries cannot be regarded as judicial authorities. It would be odd and indeed undesirable if the courts in the executing Member State were obliged 'to act on the orders of foreign policemen'32 or politicians.
What has not changed since 2010? Enumerated civil rights of the person with respect to state authorities: It appears to me that protection of individuals, domestic or foreign, against police actions are limited or conditional. (Chapter 2: Fundamental rights and freedoms, Part 3: Rule of Law, Art. 9-11; Part 9: European Convention; Part 10: Conditions for limiting rights and freedoms, Art. 25) Concepts of civil rights and "rule of law" are not well developed in SE. One might argue specious, given the ambiguity of their applications. However, unilateral Prosecutorial Authority in SE government to exercise and conflict of interests in exercising EAW is closing with BREXIT. I bet, Ny knows this. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
As far as I understand your position, it is that the world should just use identical processes as the UK and its former colonies. I have found this position among many supporters of Assange, and I find it rather focused on form over content. If you never had a Star Chamber, you won't find an act of parliament abolishing it, ie the Habeas Corpus Act. It could very well be that I have misunderstood your position, as I often find you hard to understand.
As far as your quote in the middle, I am uncertain what you are quoting.
In any case the process in Sweden hasn't changed. Prosecutor asks the court for a remand in absentia decision. If court grants remand, prosecutor issues European Arrest Warrant. The Uppsala court is quite clear in its statement that it finds that Assange is still suspected, and is still a flight risk. They only find differently than the Stockholm court because Assange is presently jailed and he wasn't then. I don't see how that constitutes any change in the process.
As a side note, I think the inherent differences between common law and civil law systems (which were never identified and addressed when Maastricht was being hammered out) provided much of the grist for the "We have to take control back from the Brussels bureaucrats" elements of the Brexit campaign.
US submits formal Assange extradition request, 10 June
Is this another North Korea execution spoof? Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
The judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Friday set a full extradition hearing for Feb. 25, 2020. It is expected to last about five days. Interim hearings are expected in July and October. [...] Assange also complained that he has not yet received the full U.S. indictment against him because his lawyers aren't allowed to give him documents and can only send him papers through the mail. [Judge Emma] Arbuthnot said the paperwork only arrived Thursday [13 June] and that "no one" has had a chance to fully read it. ... Assange also complained that he has not yet received the full U.S. indictment against him because his lawyers aren't allowed to give him documents and can only send him papers through the mail.
[Judge Emma] Arbuthnot said the paperwork only arrived Thursday [13 June] and that "no one" has had a chance to fully read it. ... Assange also complained that he has not yet received the full U.S. indictment against him because his lawyers aren't allowed to give him documents and can only send him papers through the mail.
by gmoke - Mar 3
by rifek - Feb 24 4 comments
by Oui - Mar 1 4 comments
by Oui - Mar 1
by gmoke - Feb 25
by Oui - Mar 14 comments
by Oui - Feb 284 comments
by Oui - Feb 28
by Oui - Feb 2710 comments
by Oui - Feb 26
by Oui - Feb 262 comments
by Oui - Feb 25
by Oui - Feb 24
by rifek - Feb 244 comments
by Oui - Feb 23
by Oui - Feb 22
by Oui - Feb 222 comments
by Oui - Feb 21
by Oui - Feb 203 comments