Premises of extradition birth
Premises of extradition birth
Extradition is considered the first form of cooperation in the criminal field between two states. The early extradition records are found in the XIII century in the city-states and Italian principalities. This kind of cooperation in the criminal field enabled the monarchs to punish their enemies when they left another state’s territory. Currently, depending on the extradition’s motives, the decision to accept or reject the extradition of the wanted person was made by the state’s monarch where the wanted person was housed from the other state, and the rights of the wanted person were not taken into account.
In the Middle Ages, extradition has an everyday use, thanks to states’ extreme isolation, making it part of states’ sovereignty. In this period, extradition was carried out only through agreements based on the interests of the monarchs. With society’s development, the first concepts of the “state” began to emerge, creating its distancing from the numerous monarchies and the transformation of the individual legally from object to subject of some rights denied by the lack of civilization of society. During this challenging but critical stage of modifications in some European countries, the tradition of changes based on bilateral extradition agreements began to be established, which extended these states’ jurisdiction and judicial authorities to one state’s jurisdiction.
The obligation to punish the crime also created the principle “aut dedere aut judicare,” which means “either extradition or punishment.” The genesis of the concept of extradition has appeared since the XIII century in the city-states and Italian principalities. Thus the statuses of Pistoia of 1296 forbade the stay of Florentine foreigners in these territories. The Podesta de la Crema, in 1290, provided that all foreigners in the city of Cremona should leave the city in which they were staying on the same day, as otherwise, they would surrender to the city of Cremona. According to many authors, the Extradition Treaty between Spain and Italy represents the predecessor of the legal instrument adopted in Laeken, the European Prohibition Order.
To solve the extradition of Italian citizens from Spain, most of them were accused of crimes committed by Italy’s mafia. The then Italian Prime Minister and his Spanish counterpart signed the treaty above to simplify the classic extradition procedure. Under this treaty, the extradition procedure is replaced by a surrender procedure, which would apply to a severe and limited number of crimes. This treaty served as a reference point to bring to life the European idea of a more straightforward and more efficient procedure in the fight against cross-border crime, criminal organizations, and terrorism.
At its meeting in Tampere (Finland) in October 1999, the European Council, through the Heads of State and Government, introduced the principle of mutual recognition of decisions as a fundamental principle that should guide European cooperation in the judicial (criminal) field. Following this meeting, the Council decided to replace the formal extradition procedures with a more efficient and faster delivery system to the requested person. The legal basis for this was the Treaty of Amsterdam, which envisages creating an area of freedom, security, and justice as the primary objective of the EU. The realization of this aspiration requires as a necessary premise a common judicial space, in which European citizens turn to the judicial authorities of a member state, the same as their state. Only in this way is the possibility that offenders will not benefit from the divergences between the legal systems in European countries and be brought to justice.
Thus during this meeting, it was deemed necessary and urgent a mutual recognition of criminal court decisions, which should therefore be executed not only in the Member State in which they were given but also in the territory of another Member State, making it unnecessary implementation of the classic rules of extradition, which require a long time and solemn control.
But it took two years for the European political class to take this seriously and determine the conditions under which the UEN would be executed, which would be applied uniformly throughout the EU, no doubt voices against this project that delayed it but did not fade. On December 14-15, 2001, under the influence of the terrorist attacks in the United States of September 11, 2001, the UN’s Framework Decision was created, representing the final result of a series of changes that the Extradition mechanism had undergone in time and space.
This is not the only attempt that is sufficient to mention the Convention on the simplification of extradition procedures within the EU framework of 1995 and the European Convention on Extradition of 1996. During the extraordinary meeting held by the Council on September 12, 2014, it was stated that terrorism is a genuine concern for Europe, for all humanity, so the fight against it had to become a priority of the EU, so in Europe, significant changes were expected in this regard not only in the domestic legislation of member states but also in the acquits communicative.
In this historical, legal, and social context, the Council decided to simplify the extradition procedure and consequently to facilitate the extradition of a person who, having committed a criminal offense in the territory of a Member State or has been convicted, seeks to avoid prosecution or punishment by was hiding in the region of another member state. To this end, in June 2001, the classic surrender procedure was replaced between the EU member states, with the surrender procedure following the execution of the UEN. Regarding UEN, we will talk in the third chapter of this paper.
