Brussels, 28/02/2003 (Agence Europe) - It was essentially France's opposition that prevented Friday's Council from declaring that negotiations for cooperation and extradition agreements with the United States had been concluded. Portugal also expressed reserve but to a lesser extent. Discussions focused on the question of concurrent requests. To put it clearly, what would happen if the United States and a Member State both wanted to obtain the extradition of a person held in another Member State, with the request of the Member State being backed by a European arrest warrant? Greek Justice Minister Philippos Petsalnikos confirmed that the draft agreement does not fix a priority, as each Member State may judge what its priorities are on a case by case basis. The fact that there is no systematic priority for Europeans is a demand to which the United States does not wish to return, diplomats say.
After a restricted meeting, ministers decided to break off negotiations in order to give everyone time to examine the various aspects of the text so that a final decision might be taken at the next formal JHA Council, in May. This decision was included in a statement by the Council which takes up the main points of the draft agreement (see EUROPE of 27 February, p.12). Formally, the Council did not foresee re-opening negotiations. The Presidency, however, backed by most Member States, considers there is "no reason" to reopen the talks, Greek Justice Minister Philippos Petsalnikos told the press.
The President-in-Office of the Council recognised that concurrent demands were "one of the issues on the table today" but, in response to French concern, he gave his assurance that "this agreement could under no circumstances hamper the future evolution of the European judiciary system". French Ambassador Pierre Sellal confirmed to Agence Europe that France "would have preferred silence" over the matter of concurrent requests, and noted that, in its present state, the agreement "explicitly states there is equivalence", which will be an additional difficulty in the future for giving priority to Europeans in future development of the European arrest warrant. The expedited and facilitated extradition system of the European arrest warrant does not for now contain clauses on reviewing concurrent third country requests. The ambassador deplores the fact that, if the Council decides to strengthen this warrant by giving it systematic priority over the requests made by third countries "it would then be necessary to obtain agreement from the United States". The Presidency, followed by most Member States, proposed that the text of the extradition agreement should be accompanied by a declaration which points out that it in no way prejudges the future developments of European judicial cooperation (which would mean that the Fifteen reserve themselves the right, in the future, to give systematic priority to a European arrest warrant over a request from the United States). France considers this is not sufficient and would not prevent having to call on the Americans for their agreement for this change. The Commission unofficially shares French concern. Several Member States had also requested at working party level for the article on concurrent requests to be abolished. Spain supported France initially but now considers that the compromise proposed by the Presidency is a good compromise, Rafael Català, Spanish Secretary of State for Justice, said. Like others, he considers that it should be possible to resolve Portugal's constitutional problem by a declaration.
France also considers there are not sufficient guarantees concerning special courts. France, as well as some other countries, also wants to be able to consult its parliament before any agreement.