Czech Republic: Court to implement European Arrest Warrant
01 March 2006
The Constitutional Court has dismissed the appeal against the parts of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure related to the European Arrest Warrant. The Warrant simplifies the extradition of Czechs to EU Member States. MP's from the Civil Democratic Party (ODS) considered it unconstitutional, referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which stipulates that Czech citizens must not be forced to leave the country without giving their consent.
At the beginning of May Ales Gerloch, professor of law and one of the leading lawyers in the Czech Republic, repeated the main criticisms made by the Civil Democratic Party (ODS) at the conclusion of the Constitutional Court's hearing into changes in the law to accommodate the introduction of the European Arrest Warrent. Gerloch said:
Even if the Constitutional Court decides that it's not necessary to alter the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with regard to the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, it's necessary to bear in mind that the Warrant introduces principles which collide with the very foundations of a legally consistent state.
"It's unrealistic to assume that the citizen of the Czech Republic will be familiar with the laws of all 24 member states, alongside the Czech ones" Gerloch added in relation to the implementation. In the case of certain criminal acts, the principle of so-called "mutual (double) criminality" no longer applies. This means that a Czech citizen can be extradited to another Member State for committing an act that is regarded as criminal in foreign law, but which is not in his home country.
The move was defended by the Parliamentary vice-chair, Mrs Jitka Kupcova (Social Democrat, CSSD). "The House considered carefully and repeatedly the constitutional implications and reached a majority decision that it is possible to implement the European Arrest Warrant into the Czech legal system the way it did" she said. "It is not necessary to alter the Charter of Rights and Freedoms", she added. Judge Stanislav Balik asked her about the extend that members of Parliament had considered the practical impacts of the Warrant. "Do you have an idea how many qualified interpreters from Estonian to Czech with the specialization on new technologies there are in the Czech Republic?" was one of the questions that Balik asked Kupcova. She answered most of his questions evasively - "I don't know the number, but the parliamentary committee had all the available information at it's disposal", reassured Kupcova.
The crimes which will become the basis for the extradition warrent are merely listed in the Czech rules of law, without any description of their legal definition. Terrorism, drug trafficking, computer crime and corruption are among the categories listed. Currently these crimes are judged differently by different Member States. Gerloch argued that Member States should agree a narrower list of generally accepted serious crimes for the purpose of the European Arrest Warrant, and subsequently implement their detailed legal definition into each member's state Penal Codes. The Constitutional Court's ruling has been awaited in the Czech Republic and closely followed abroad. The European Arrest warrant has already come before constitutional courts in Germany and Poland. It raised serious concerns in Belgium, which has filed a preliminary inquiry to the European Court of Justice.
It remains unclear what would have happened if the court had granted the appeal by MPs and senators in full. The rules for the extradition of the Czech citizens will remain the same as before the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, where the conditions required for surrender are mutually recognised crimes, the adjudication and the decision of an executive power. The surrender of foreigners would still be possible on the basis of European arrest warrant. The reaction of the EU, which expects all the Member States to adopt the warrant, remains in q