Mandat European De Arestare

European arrest warrant. The composition of the judgment panel. Divergence panel. The arrest of the required person

Criminal procedure code, article 308 para (5)

Law no. 302/2004, article 881, article 89

1. For the execution of a European arrest warrant, the judgment panel is composed of 2 judges, according to article 881 para (1) of Law no. 302/2004. If, during the preliminary proceedings ruled by article 881 of Law no. 302/2004, the unanimity can not be reached with respect to the request of supplementary information from the judicial authority that issued the European arrest warrant, this matter is to be solved in a divergence panel, according to article 308 para (5) Criminal procedure code, composed of 3 judges. In this case, after the divergence solving during the preliminary proceedings, the dossier on the European arrest warrant will be solved on the merit by a panel composed of 2 judges and not by a divergence panel.

2. The Romanian court orders the arrest of the required person by grounded decision, on the basis of article 89 para (3) of Law no. 302/2004, without issuing an arrest warrant, as the arrest is part of the procedure of execution of a European arrest warrant issued by the judicial authority from the requesting state.

High Court of Cassation and Justice, penal section, decision no. 1451 from the 14th of March 2007

By decision no. 22 from the 2nd of March 2007, the court of appeal Craiova, penal section, ordered the execution of the European arrest warrants issued by the court of appeal Lyon – High tribunal Lyon for the requested persons I.S. and P.A. and the surrender of the mentioned persons to the requesting state according to article 87 para (2) of Law no. 302/2004, maintaining the arrest with a view to surrender.

The appeals formulated by the requested persons stating that the decision is null and void because the divergence panel composed of 3 judges that solved the preliminary proceedings should also judge on the merit and the judge who issued the arrest warrant is incompatible to judge the case on the merit are groundless.

By decision 22 February 2007, court of appeal Craiova, penal section, in charge with solving the request of execution of the European arrest warrants for I.S. and P.A., reopened the case to be judge in divergence panel as supplementary information were not submitted by High Tribunal Lyon, according to article 308 para (5) Criminal Procedure Code. The case being reopened, in the same day, the divergence panel postponed the judgment for 26 February 2007 for the detailed examination of the file.

On 26 February 2007, following the consultations, made by the divergence panel, it was decided to request supplementary information form the French authorities regarding the circumstances of the commission of the offences, by indicating the time, place, the role and the degree of participation of each of the defendants. On 27 February 2007, the High Tribunal Lyon transmitted the requested information. Consequently, the case was discussed again on 2nd March 2007, when the judgment panel composed of 2 judges passed the decision.

The decision is not null and void as the defendants are invoking in the appeal, as the judgment panel was composed of 3 judges only due to divergence. Once the divergence was solved, the case was solved on the merit by 2 judges.

With regard to the allegation that he judge who issued the arrest warrant is incompatible, this statement is also groundless as the European arrest warrants were issued by the authorities in Lyon, and not by a Romanian judge.

The Romanian court is only in charge with the execution of the European arrest warrants issued for the requested persons. The court verified the content of the European arrest warrants issued for the appellants and found that they are compliant to the requirements set out by article 79 para (1) of Law 302/2004.

Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.