Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
December 11, 2012 at 5:54 am (This post was last modified: December 11, 2012 at 6:00 am by Something completely different.)
(December 11, 2012 at 3:58 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I wonder if reading the surrounding context no less than a few posts away would have given you that idea...
Ever heard of the term:"Abstraktionsgrad der juristischen Sprache"
Grade of abstraktation within legal language. This term discribes the lingual complexity of words within law and the grade of complexety which makes them hard to understand.
English is not the language in which I debate legal subjects, and I hardly debate legal subjects in german to.
So an acronym of an english legal term is anything but "obvious" to me!
Funny how you think that it is funny that I need a clarification of what these terms mean.
Let me post some acronyms of german legal terms and see how you manage to put the correct definition to them.
Quote:
Article 1, 1 Wrote:1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
Quote:HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Article 1
Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it
1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.
2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.
Article 2
Scope of the European arrest warrant
1. A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.
2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:
- participation in a criminal organisation,
- terrorism,
- trafficking in human beings,
- sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
- illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
- illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
- corruption,
- fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests,
- laundering of the proceeds of crime,
- counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
- computer-related crime,
- environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
- facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
- murder, grievous bodily injury,
- illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
- kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
- racism and xenophobia,
- organised or armed robbery,
- illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
- swindling,
- racketeering and extortion,
- counterfeiting and piracy of products,
- forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
- forgery of means of payment,
- illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
- illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
- trafficking in stolen vehicles,
- rape,
- arson,
- crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
- unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
- sabotage.
3. The Council may decide at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), to add other categories of offence to the list contained in paragraph 2. The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 34(3), whether the list should be extended or amended.
4. For offences other than those covered by paragraph 2, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.
Article 3
Grounds for mandatory non-execution of the European arrest warrant
The judicial authority of the Member State of execution (hereinafter "executing judicial authority") shall refuse to execute the European arrest warrant in the following cases:
1. if the offence on which the arrest warrant is based is covered by amnesty in the executing Member State, where that State had jurisdiction to prosecute the offence under its own criminal law;
2. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a Member State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing Member State;
3. if the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant may not, owing to his age, be held criminally responsible for the acts on which the arrest warrant is based under the law of the executing State.
Article 4
Grounds for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant
The executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant:
1. if, in one of the cases referred to in Article 2(4), the act on which the European arrest warrant is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State; however, in relation to taxes or duties, customs and exchange, execution of the European arrest warrant shall not be refused on the ground that the law of the executing Member State does not impose the same kind of tax or duty or does not contain the same type of rules as regards taxes, duties and customs and exchange regulations as the law of the issuing Member State;
2. where the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant is being prosecuted in the executing Member State for the same act as that on which the European arrest warrant is based;
3. where the judicial authorities of the executing Member State have decided either not to prosecute for the offence on which the European arrest warrant is based or to halt proceedings, or where a final judgment has been passed upon the requested person in a Member State, in respect of the same acts, which prevents further proceedings;
4. where the criminal prosecution or punishment of the requested person is statute-barred according to the law of the executing Member State and the acts fall within the jurisdiction of that Member State under its own criminal law;
5. if the executing judicial authority is informed that the requested person has been finally judged by a third State in respect of the same acts provided that, where there has been sentence, the sentence has been served or is currently being served or may no longer be executed under the law of the sentencing country;
6. if the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its domestic law;
7. where the European arrest warrant relates to offences which:
(a) are regarded by the law of the executing Member State as having been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State or in a place treated as such; or
(b) have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside its territory.
Quote:On 18 November 2010 the Stockholm District Court upheld an arrest warrant against Assange.
It therefor is irrelevant if he has not been charged and is simply wanted for questioning.
There is an arrest warrant, issued by the swedish prosecution. Arrest warrants can be issued while the investigation is ongoing and charges have not jet been set.
Assange is not simply wanted for questioning - he is wanted for arrest.
(December 10, 2012 at 1:19 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: However, Swedish authorities claim:
Furthermore, "Swedish law allows interviews to be conducted abroad under Mutual Legal Assistance provisions", however:
Like mentioned before, sweden does not simply want him for "questioning"
There is an arrest warrant issued against him.
Therefor this does not simply require an interview - it requires an arrest.
When Ecuador offers the interview to be conducted within the embessys ground - it is ignoring the arrest warrant and simply using the phrases within the swedish code of law it sees as fitting.
Ecuador does not define swedish law, neighter does it have the right to execute swedish law or to act on it`s behalf - without the concent of the swedish goverment or by simply ignoring the rulings of the swedish court
Quote:Interesting use of "long time". It allows you the slippery-ness of claiming that a set of rights violations are such a small number while at the same time conveying the false concept of longevity for the so-called European high-court, which is remarkably young.
The european high court is an institution which existsts since 1952.
The cases of CIA abductions which took place in the wake of 9\11 of which the high court was sometimes not aware of, and which sometimes were ignored - are unfortunate.
But do not make it a inlegitemate institution.
Quote:I outlined the discontinuity between the actual legislation allowing for European Arrest Warrants and the intricacies of Swedish Law. It's fairly obvious the protocol here -- formally charge the man for the purposes of conducting a criminal trial. It has been stated that questioning can take place under mutual legal assistance (MLA) laws.
That would perfectly fit the terms of an EAW.
It's questionable that the basic tenants of the legislation being utilized is not being filled out to the letter in one of the world's most high profile cases.
Quote:The third paragraph shall not apply to offences committed in the state requesting extradition or against
that state or against an assembly or a public institution in that state, nor to an offence referred to in
Chapter 2, Section 3, item 6 or 7 of the Penal Code, unless proceedings for the purpose of conducting
a criminal prosecution have taken place at the request of the state which requested extradition or after
the person for whom extradition has been requested has been extradited from that state for the purpose
of criminal prosecution. (SFS 2003:1158)
It states: "for the purpose of criminal persecution".
Which does not mean that charges already have to be set for the persecution to demand an arrest warrant or\and extradition.
Quote:I find it interesting that you wish to ignore that/
I didn`t ignore anything, I wasn`t well informed and had to look into the details and was at first to lazy to do so.
