generic92034 3 hours ago

Sorry, but you should really read the links:

"On 5 April 2018, the Oberlandesgericht (Higher State Court) in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein ruled that Puigdemont would not be extradited on charges of rebellion, and released him on bail while deliberating about the extradition on charges of misuse of public funds."

So, exactly as I wrote: The rebellion charge did not make sense to the court, so no extradition due to that. On the other hand they found that they could do something with the charges of misusing public funds (and thus needed longer to decide about it). If Spain had not dropped the EAW, Puigdemont's legal team would have had an opportunity to challenge any decisions of the court.

In general it is no fun if another EU country issues an EAW against you, but anything making no sense will be thrown out by the local EU country's courts and you have every chance to go against the decisions of the court.

▲

pschastain 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>Sorry, but you should really read the links:

That's rather rude of you, I did in fact read the entire text of the link.

I hate citing wikipedia, but if you'll skip forward a few lines, you'll find this nugget:

"On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds"

Puigdemont would have almost certainly ended up extradited, but he would enjoy the EAW protections which would presumably not be desirable for the Spanish government.

▲

generic92034 2 hours ago | parent [-]

It was not rude but a reasonable assumption. Let's revisit what we discussed:

>>Usually LE in European countries will not respect warrants from another country if it does not make sense in the local jurisdiction as well.

>This is incorrect and goes explicitly against the intent of the relevant frameworks.

But in the link you could clearly see that the court dismissed the EAW on charges of rebellion. If Spain had only issued the EAW based on this charge, or if Spain had issued two separate EAW for the separate charges, this is clearly showing what I was claiming.

What you have cited only confirms what I was writing earlier - if it makes sense to the court they might follow-up with the EAW. I am not sure at all, though, how you come to the conclusion that Puigdemont "almost certainly" would have ended up extradited. It is not given that the court would have found the charges valid and there are all legal means available to challenge the court's decision.

But even if he had been extradited due to the charges of misusing public funds, whatever is wrong with that? There are extradition treaties between many countries and that would be an absolutely valid case for extradition, if the charges make sense in the local jurisdiction. Should every criminal be safe as soon as they are crossing a border?

The important thing is that a court is checking the charges and that there is legal recourse, before any extradition.

So, in summary I feel not threatened at all by the existence of those instruments in the EU and you failed to make me understand why I should. The chance of an abuse of power or unjust persecution in any single country (EU or not) is so much larger than a scenario where this happens in two countries at the same time.

However, this is a bit exhausting, so I am done with this discussion.

	▲	pschastain an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>It was not rude but a reasonable assumption. Let's revisit what we discussed: Yeah, variations of "did you even read the link" are rude. Yours was perhaps particularly aggressive. >But in the link you could clearly see that the court dismissed the EAW on charges of rebellion. If Spain had only issued the EAW based on this charge, or if Spain had issued two separate EAW for the separate charges, this is clearly showing what I was claiming. "Another important advantage of the EAW compared to extradition proceedings is that for 32 categories of offences, there is no verification on whether the act constitutes a criminal offence in both countries. The only requirement is that the offence needs to be punishable by a maximum period of at least 3 years of imprisonment in the issuing Member State." The dual criminality check does not apply to most crimes. It did apply in the basically unique case of "rebellion", but the EAW largely did away with dual criminality checks. >It is not given that the court would have found the charges valid and there are all legal means available to challenge the court's decision. There are no meaningful legal means to challenge the validity of the charges in the EAW process, the entire point of the process is to skip that. You get to challenge the validity of the charges after you've been extradited and brought in front of the courts of the requesting country. >But even if he had been extradited due to the charges of misusing public funds, whatever is wrong with that? Specifically in Puigdemonts case I do not wish him extradited as I doubt he would be treated respectfully in Spain. But his case is obviously one-of-a-kind. >There are extradition treaties between many countries and that would be an absolutely valid case for extradition, if the charges make sense in the local jurisdiction. Should every criminal be safe as soon as they are crossing a border? EAW is completely different from regular extradition treaties. >The important thing is that a court is checking the charges and that there is legal recourse, before any extradition. The whole purpose of EAW has been to get rid of as much legal recourse as possible, and over time various CJEU decisions have been further eroding practices some national courts had established. >you failed to make me understand why I should You'll probably receive better replies in the future if you avoid the unnecessary personal attacks.