Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34441
Type of publication: Magistro darbas / Master thesis
Field of Science: Teisė / Law
Author(s): Kuršienė, Laura
Title: Ar kitoje ES valstybėje narėje esančio ES piliečio ekstradicija į trečiąsias šalis nepažeidžia nediskriminacijos ir laisvo žmonių judėjimo principų?
Other Title: Whether extradition of the European Union citizen who is a national of another member state to Non-EU states violates principles of non-discrimination and freedom of movement?
Extent: 32 p.
Date: 2-Jun-2017
Event: Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas. Teisės fakultetas
Keywords: Ekstradicija;ES pilietybė;Diskriminacija;Laisvas žmonių judėjimas;Extradition;EU citizenship;Discrimination;Freedom of movement
Abstract: ES piliečių ekstradiciją tarp valstybių narių reguliuoja Europos arešto orderis, o konkrečių ES teisės normų, kurios reguliuotų ES piliečių ekstradiciją į trečiąsias šalis, nėra. Dvišalės valstybių sutartys paprastai reguliuoja tik pasirašiusiųjų valstybių piliečių ekstradicijos procesą, tad ES piliečių ekstradicija į trečiąsias šalis šiuo metu yra „pilkojoje zonoje“. Jei apsauga nuo ekstradicijos taikoma tik šalies piliečiams, atsiranda skirtingas požiūris, palyginti su kitų ES valstybių narių piliečiais, o tai galimai pažeidžia SESV 18 str. įtvirtintą nediskriminacijos principą, kuris draudžia bet kokią diskriminaciją dėl pilietybės, bei SESV 21 str. principą dėl laisvo žmonių judėjimo, kuriuo remiantis kiekvienas ES pilietis turi teisę laisvai judėti ir apsigyventi valstybių narių teritorijoje. Siekiant išsiaiškinti, ar ES valstybių narių ekstradicijos praktika atitinka ES teisės principus, darbe išanalizuota Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo praktika ir išsiaiškinta, jog ES piliečių teisių apribojimas gali būti pateisinamas objektyviomis priežastimis, tik jeigu jos yra būtinos interesų, kuriuos jomis siekiama užtikrinti, apsaugai ir tik tiek, kiek šių tikslų negalima pasiekti mažiau ribojančiomis priemonėmis. ES valstybėms narėms siūloma tokioje situacijoje teikti pirmenybę keitimuisi informacija su ES valstybe nare, kurios pilietis yra asmuo dėl kurio pateiktas trečiosios šalies ekstradicijos prašymas, ir suteikti gimtosios ES valstybės narės valdžios institucijoms galimybę išduoti Europos arešto orderį, jeigu pagal nacionalinę teisę jos gali vykdyti šio asmens baudžiamąjį persekiojimą už nusikaltimus, padarytus už šios valstybės teritorijos ribų. Tokiu atveju, kai teikiama pirmenybė galimam kaltinamojo asmens gimtosios ES valstybės narės Europos arešto orderiui, palyginti su trečiosios šalies ekstradicijos prašymu, priimančioji ES valstybė narė veiktų mažiau ribodama naudojimąsi teise laisvai judėti ir kartu kiek įmanydama pašalintų riziką, kad asmuo liks nenubaustas už nusikaltimą, už kurį yra persekiojamas. Tačiau pažymėtina, kad kreipimasis į ES piliečio kilmės valstybę narę ir siūlymas pasinaudoti Europos arešto orderiu tėra ES valstybėms narėms pasiūlyta „galimybė“, o ne pareiga. Todėl darytina išvada, jog ES piliečių ekstradicija į trečiąsias šalis nepažeidžia nediskriminacijos ir laisvo žmonių judėjimo principų.
Extradition between EU members is governed by European Arrest Warrant, while rules on extradition, in a situation in which EU has not concluded an agreement on extradition with a third State, falls within the competence of the Member States. In most cases Member States have a nationality exception in their extradition agreements with third States and protect their citizens against foreign punitive systems. But these protective provisions do not include EU citizens of other Member States, therefore it creates situation in which principles of non-discrimination and freedom of movement might be violated. This work analyzes EU citizens extradition regulation and Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) practice in relevant cases in order to find out whether Article 18 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of extradition of a citizen of any Member State of the European Union to a non-Member State under an extradition agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, the same level of protection must be guaranteed as is guaranteed to a citizen of the Member States in question? Three cases have reached CJEU for preliminary rulings and two of them are analyzed in this work in detail, in particular CJEU judgment on 6 September 2016 in Petruhhin case. The questions discussed in Petruhhin case concern the balance between the objectives of extradition agreements (the need to combat impunity), on the one hand, and the need to protect the rights of the person to be extradited (the EU citizen) under the Treaties. In that case Advocate General Bot delivered an opinion that nationality exception certainly constitutes a difference in treatment prohibited under Art. 18 TFEU. However, it also stated that the risk of impunity is a legitimate objective in EU law, which has to be attained by Member States according to the principle of necessity and proportionality, and thus by “less restrictive measures”. Principle aut dedere aut judicare provides a guidance to identify less restrictive measures, in so far as it allows to extend the protection against extradition to other EU citizens provided that at least one Member State has the jurisdiction to prosecute the offender. Finally, CJEU ruled that when a Member State to which a Union citizen, a national of another Member State, has moved receives an extradition request from a third State with which the first Member State has concluded an extradition agreement, it must inform the Member State of which the citizen in question is a national and, should that Member State so request, surrender that citizen to it, in accordance with the provisions of European Arrest Warrant, provided that that Member State has jurisdiction, pursuant to its national law, to prosecute that person for offences committed outside its national territory. However, it is uncertain how such an approach will function in practice, as further questions arise. For example, whether the State of nationality will actually perform the criminal proceedings in a satisfactory way? Difficulties may arise due to a possible lack of evidence, especially if there is no cooperation with the third State in question on that matter. Furthermore, it is not possible to bind the State of nationality to any specific conclusion of the criminal proceedings in a particular case, and the case may be closed for various reasons before it comes before the court of that State. Even though CJEU has refrained from expressly qualifying the relationship between the principle of non-discrimination and the nationality exception of the extradition agreement as a conflicting one, it confirmed that EU law may still apply to issues falling within the competence of the Member State, such as a bilateral extradition agreement between a Member State and a third State. Furthermore, the CJEU accepts that the host Member State may not need to extend its national provisions protecting its own citizens from extradition to another Member State, if this is necessary to promote the legitimate objective of prevention of impunity. However, host Member State should seek less restrictive ways to achieve this objective and highlights how impunity in such cases may be combated by making use of cooperation mechanisms available in EU, such as the European Arrest Warrant, which enables extradition to the home Member State and thereby avoids unduly compromising citizens’ right to free movement within the EU. Since CJEU did not state that the Member State of nationality is obliged to issue a European Arrest Warrant when it has jurisdiction to prosecute, but merely that it must be given the „opportunity“ to do so, the conclusion of this work is that Member States who extradite EU citizens to third states do not violate principles of non-discrimination and freedom of movement.
Internet: https://eltalpykla.vdu.lt/1/34441
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/34441
Appears in Collections:2017 m. (TF mag.)

Files in This Item:
laura_kursiene_md.pdf740.56 kBAdobe PDF   Restricted AccessView/Open   Request a copy

Show full item record

Page view(s)

104
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Download(s)

8
checked on Oct 13, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.