Brussels, 06/12/2001 (Agence Europe) - Negotiations over the creation of a European arrest warrant were blocked on Thursday at the Justice Council because of Italy, which refused an overall compromise accepted by the other fourteen countries following difficult talks. The adoption of the warrant will thus be on the agenda of the European Summit of Laeken. Italy still refused, insisting on the list of infringements to which the European arrest warrant would apply being reduced. The Berlusconi Government is said to have asked at the last minute that other than the most serious crimes (terrorism, organised crime, trafficking in human beings…), a European warrant not being able to be issued by a country for one of its nationals, proposal its partners found unacceptable. Before confirmation of the deadlock, the day was lively, with a succession of talks, requests for modifications and compromise proposals by the Presidency on all sensitive issues. Talks, which at times seemed like "merchant bargaining", are moving towards a compromise that aims at reducing the scope of the text, several observers criticise. Nevertheless, among fourteen member States they managed to find an overall compromise. The Council was still in session as we were going to press, but thee chances of a last minute breakthrough seemed slim.
The latest Presidency proposal, a priori accepted by fourteen countries is as follows, knowing that the agreement of most depends on nothing changing, notably the list:
A list of thirty-two infringements to which the warrant would apply with verification of dual incrimination over a certain threshold.
The threshold would be set at three years - if the crime in question carries a penalty of at least three years imprisonment, the state receiving the request can refuse to implement the European arrest warrant if it is not a crime under its own legislation. At the beginning, the Commission and Presidency had suggested that there be no checking of double incrimination on the list.
For crimes the European arrest warrant would apply for, but which are not on the list (sentences of less than four months' imprisonment or crime carrying sentence of under 12 months), a state can always check up on double incrimination.
It would come into force on 1 January 2004 (the Commission had proposed 1 January 2002). Each Member State can decide for itself whether it will be applying the warrant to all crimes and whether it will be setting time limits. This will meet Italy's request to not have to apply the European arrest warrant to crimes committed before 1 January 2004. Ten countries are reported to have signalled that they do not intend to impose any time limit. France and Germany, for example, want to restrict the warrant to crimes committed after the Maastricht Treaty came into force (this had been put forward by the Presidency earlier on as a potential compromise option) while Denmark is reported to have talked about the date when the Amsterdam Treaty came into force.
The procedure for the arrest warrant and for handing over persons will also apply to nationals of the country to which the warrant is addressed but, in order to obtain Austria's agreement, its partners granted it a derogation: Vienna would have five years to reform its Constitution before transferring its nationals.
The text would contain a clause that allows a country to refuse to carry out a warrant addressed to it if the acts committed were done so at least partly on its territory, or if the acts were committed outside the territory of the State which addresses the warrant to it, and that its law does not allow it to sanction this kind of infringement outside its territory. The Presidency had presented a compromise proposal, approving the proposal, but adding the obligation for the State in question to carry out its own prosecution or to carry out its penalty, if pronounced. The Presidency proposal was not taken on board.
At Ireland's request, a clause specifies the meaning of several offences: fraud, racism and xenophobia, sabotage, racketeering and extortion of funds.
The framework decision would be accompanied by a declaration in which the countries undertake to seek to approximate their legislation for the offences included in the list.