Brussels, 15/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - Since our first presentation of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on Friday in Brussels (EUROPE of 10 November), the Presidency has specified its proposals of compromise, without any of the positions first expressed having changed.
European arrest warrant: The Presidency made several changes to the list of infringements for which the European warrant would replace extradition without the State to which the warrant is addressed being able to refuse implementation if the act in question does not constitute infringement according to its national legislation. The list now comprises 28 infringements: terrorism, participation in organised crime, drugs trafficking, kidnapping, fraud, racism, trafficking of stolen vehicles, rape, and so on. For the remainder, the principles of the proposal remain unchanged. Discussions will also cover the application of this arrest warrant to nationals of the country to which the warrant is addressed. Austria and Greece have difficulties regarding constitutional order, and Italy has expressed scrutiny reservation.
Incrimination of terrorism: The Presidency specified its definition of terrorism, in response to criticism stressing that it could encompass the activities of anti-globalisation groups. Positions differ also about the definition of the powers that any State has to judge terrorist activities.
A policy debate on possible revision of the method for harmonising sanctions: A majority of States agree with the method followed to date - providing a penalty for all infringements that could give rise to extradition, and for more serious infringements providing for the maximum penalty not to be less than a given level (minimum maximum penalty). Several countries, however, essentially Germany, Austria and Denmark, continue to express opposition to this system. The last two countries have proposed that it would be preferable for harmonisation to be carried out through the choice of a category between three levels of penalties (penalty giving rise to extradition, long sentences, very long sentences), with each Member State being free to state what they see as a long or very long sentence. The first system has the advantage of allowing good harmonisation and the disadvantage of posing problems of consistency within national penalty levels. The second would facilitate decision-making but would not allow very wide-spread harmonisation. For a first debate on the method of harmonisation, the Presidency proposes a combination: making the debate cover the categories, as Austria proposes, but these categories would fix a maximum/minimum scale (at least 1-4 years, then 4-8 years … for the maximum penalty). It remains to be seen whether the introduction of a little flexibility in the current system would convince countries opposed to the idea of minimum maximum.