prohibition of arbitrary detention/arrest: Let us recall, you and I disagreed about the legitimacy of arrest by law enforcement agents absent bill charge(s) in Sweden--the pretext of an "investigation" of indeterminate duration which permits detention/arrest. This prescription for "democracy" is as heinous as any human rights violation fabricated by inscrutable Chines communists or alt-right Americans--a star chamber.

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.

As evinced in Sweden v. Assange and other cases plausibly directed by "non-judiciable" issues. UK and SE have since modified review of FDEAW application; codified in UK, temporarily remedied in SE (reverse of Stockholm district ct, 2010, by Uppsala district ct, June 2019, notwithstanding foreclosed review by SE appellate or supreme courts. wtf.)

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.