Introduction of EU arrest warrant to cause problem for Ireland

The European Union's critics often complain about its lumbering bureaucracy and the tortuous process that can delay new measures…

The European Union's critics often complain about its lumbering bureaucracy and the tortuous process that can delay new measures for years while the institutions bicker. But the EU's response to last month's attacks in America has been breathtakingly swift, both diplomatically and in anti-terrorist measures.

On the diplomatic front, the EU has been unambiguous and emphatic in its support for Washington and a high-level mission to the Middle East last week sought to keep shaky partners such as Iran and Syria on board the coalition against terrorism. But it is in the area of new European anti-terrorist laws that the EU's response has been most remarkable, with the Commission presenting detailed proposals for tough new measures just eight days after the attacks.

Although the EU's response to the attacks has been multi-faceted, ranging from stricter air safety rules to a freeze on terrorist assets, the most important proposals relate to judicial co-operation between member-states.

EU leaders hope to agree by December 6th two key measures: a common definition of terrorist offences and the introduction of a European arrest warrant that would make extradition between states almost automatic.

READ MORE

The speed of the Commission's response is a little less impressive when one considers that the proposals form part of an initiative they have been working on since a Finnish summit two years ago, when EU leaders agreed to increase judicial co-operation. The leaders welcomed the Commission's proposals at an emergency summit in Brussels on September 21st and they have told their officials to spare no effort in completing negotiations quickly.

But civil liberties groups are concerned about the measures, particularly the common definition of terrorism, which they fear may be too broad.

In the draft legislation, terrorist offences defined as offences are those "intentionally committed by an individual or a group against one or more countries, their institutions or people with the aim of intimidating them and seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures of those countries".

It identifies a number of offences, ranging from murder and kidnapping to unlawful seizure of public property and sets a lower limit for the maximum penalty to be imposed for each offence. In an explanatory note accompanying the draft, the Commission says that the definition "could include, for instance, urban violence".

The Commission insists that there is no question of the new measures being used against legitimate, political protesters such as the anti-globalisation demonstrators who were at Gothenburg and Genoa this summer.

But civil liberties campaigners point out that the inclusion of unlawful seizure of public property could mean that the legislation could be applied to protests such as those that took place on Greenham Common in the 1980s or German anti-nuclear protests.

The use of the term "seriously altering or destroying the political, economic or social structures", could refer to any number of revolutionary socialist groups to which many of today's senior European politicians belonged in their radical youth.

The introduction of a European arrest warrant has been less controversial but it could present greater constitutional difficulties for some member-states, including Ireland and the Netherlands.

The warrant would replace the existing system of extradition and would make it compulsory for a person wanted for an offence punishable by at least a year in prison to be handed over to the authorities in the member-state that requests his surrender. Although the Commission claimed initially that the warrant would only cover terrorist offences, it is clear from the draft text that it could be used for any offence carrying the minimum sentence: "If a judicial authority of a member-state requests a person for the purposes of prosecution for an offence which is punishable by deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least 12 months or for the execution of a criminal judgment involving deprivation of liberty of at least four months, the authorities of other member-states should comply with that request."

Ireland and the Netherlands are at present unable to extradite anyone for an offence that is not a crime within their own jurisdiction and the universal application of the warrant is creating headaches in Dublin and The Hague. Irish officials are also concerned about the fact that the warrant can be used to arrest a suspect for questioning, even if no charges have been prepared.

The anxiety is that a suspect could be held without charge for months, a position some lawyers have compared to internment without trial.

Despite these reservations, the political pressure to approve the measures is so great that they are likely to be agreed with very few alterations in time for the December deadline.

Germany is the most vociferous advocate for the measures, which Berlin sees as an important step towards the fulfilment of its long-held aspiration of a harmonisation of the European criminal system.

Germany's interior minister, Mr Otto Schily, a former, radical lawyer who came to prominence defending Red Army Faction terrorists, has transformed over the years into a snarling caricature of a law-and-order enthusiast. He has proposed a series of tough new measures at home that include fingerprinting immigrants and he wants to set up an EU-wide riot unit.

Britain has abandoned its traditional opposition to EU legal harmonisation and is pressing for swift approval of the new measures. Even those member-states with doubts about the proposals are reluctant to block them, fearing that they will be seen as "weak sisters" in the fight against terrorism.

Justice ministry officials throughout Europe will be straining every nerve over the next two months to reach agreement on the proposals in time for a deadline that most regard as absurdly tight. As one official put it this week: "It's not realistic, it's not sensible but it's going to happen."