CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 112 October 2008 Monedero Angora v. Spain (dec.) - 41138/05 Decision 7.10.2008 [Section III] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Applicability of Article 6 to European arrest warrant procedure: inadmissible Facts – The applicant was arrested in Spain and taken into custody under a European arrest warrant issued by the French judicial authorities following his conviction in absentia in 1993 for a drug-trafficking offence for which he was given a five-year prison sentence. Noting that the arrest had been made in accordance with the procedure laid down by Law no. 3/2003, which implemented Spain’s obligations under the Framework Decision adopted on 13 June 2002 by the Council of the European Union on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, the Audiencia Nacional made an order authorising the applicant’s surrender to the French authorities. The applicant lodged an application for interpretation of that decision in which he argued in particular that his case should have been dealt with under the requested State’s law on extradition rather than under the Framework Decision. The Audiencia Nacional dismissed that application and the applicant’s amparo appeal was dismissed by the Constitutional Court. Law – Article 6 § 1: The right not to be extradited, as such, was not among the rights and freedoms recognised by the Convention and its Protocols. Nor did extradition proceedings concern a dispute ( contestation ) over civil rights and obligations or the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention. The explanatory note to Law no. 3/2003 stated that the European arrest warrant procedure had replaced the traditional extradition procedure between member States of the European Union and pursued the same aim of ensuring that suspected offenders or persons fleeing from justice after being finally sentenced were surrendered to the authorities of the requesting State. Indeed, the execution of the warrant was virtually automatic as the judicial authority did not re-examine it to verify its conformity with the legislation of the requesting State and could only refuse to execute it on the statutory grounds. That procedure did not, therefore, concern the determination of a criminal charge. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes