Scope Of The European Convention On Extradition

Original Language Title: Geltungsbereich des Europäischen Auslieferungsübereinkommens

Read the untranslated law here: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2013_III_121/BGBLA_2013_III_121.html

121. public announcement of the Federal Chancellor concerning the scope of the European Convention on extradition

After notification of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the Republic of Korea has its instrument of accession to the European Convention on extradition on September 29, 2011 (Federal Law Gazette No. 320/1969, last proclamation of the scope BGBl. III No. 105/2009) deposited and declared on the occasion of the following reservations and declarations:

In relation to article 2 of the Convention, the Republic of Korea reserves the right to refuse the extradition of a person who is sought for the execution of a detention order that is restricting the freedom of the backup and recovery, if the measure system of the requesting State with purpose, requirements, duration, effect, etc. the detention order that is restricting the freedom of the backup and recovery is incompatible under the law of the Republic of Korea.

In relation to article 12 of the Convention the Republic of Korea reserves - when up that request for extradition relating to a person, who was found still not guilty - the right, requesting documents, which may provide ample reason to believe that the person has committed the Act to which extradition is requested. If there is no sufficient reason to believe that the person committed the extraditable offence, extradition may be refused.

In relation to article 2 § 1 of the Convention, the Republic of Korea explains that the term "sentence spoken to" is a measure of punishment to verbüßenden. It is not the scale of the fine originally imposed.

The Republic of Korea stated that, if she gives assurances pursuant to article 11 of the Convention, the death penalty also then will not take place, if it was imposed by a Court of the Republic of Korea.

In relation to article 16, paragraph 3 of the Convention explains the Republic of Korea that it will send a request for provisional arrest on the diplomatic way or directly through the ministries of Justice of the Contracting Parties and not through the international criminal police organisation.

In relation to article 21, paragraph 5 of the Convention reserves the Republic of Korea the right to grant the transit under the conditions relevant for the delivery.

 

After further releases of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe according to following States have amended their reservations withdrawn or their statements:

Germany1:

In addition to the explanation under article 28 § 3 of the European Convention on extradition of 17 August 2004, the Federal Government explains that the law on the implementation of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States of the European Union (European arrest warrant Act - EuHbG) following a decision of the Constitutional Court of 18 July 2005 law of July 20, 2006 has been recast. The new law entered into force on 2 August 2006.

Change the Declaration of August 17, 2004, the Federal Government declared that the provisions relating to the European arrest warrant as of August 23, 2004 replace the relevant provisions of the European Convention on extradition of 13 December 1957 and the two additional protocols of 15 October 1975 and 17 March 1978, in the mutual relations between Germany and the other Member States of the European Union. You are only applicable in relation to another Member State of the European Union, the framework decision is not applicable. The same applies to bilateral agreements concluded with Member States of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Luxemburg2:

Luxembourg has withdrawn on February 15, 2012 its declaration to article 28 paragraph 3.

Netherlands3:

The reservations and declarations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands were made on February 14, 1969 and contact on October 15, 1987 in the currently valid version on Aruba and as below on the Netherlands Antilles, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba) in their relations with the States with which agreements on the extension of the Convention have been concluded :

Sweden, on 8 July 1993 and 29 July 1993

Liechtenstein, on June 30, 1993 and September 29, 1993

Switzerland, on 20 October 1993 and 28 October 1993

Luxembourg, on 20 September 1993 and 22 November 1993

France, on July 30, 1993 and 22 November 1993

Italy, on June 8, 1993 and December 21, 1993

Turkey, on 19 January 1994 and February 3, 1994

Denmark, on 20 January 1994 and February 4, 1994

Norway, on January 26, 1994 and February 18, 1994

Cyprus, on 3 August 1993 and March 3, 1994

Czech Republic, on July 20, 1993 and February 21, 1994

Greece, on 21 September 1993 and 16 June 1994

Slovakia, on 20 July 1993 and 30 June 1994

Iceland, on January 26, 1994 and July 22, 1994

Austria, on 22 July 1994 and 28 July 1994

Spain, on 11 November 1993 and November 24, 1994

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, on November 8, 1994 and 4 November 1994

Israel, on 28 February 1994 and 31 July 1995

Portugal, on July 6, 1995 and August 29, 1995

Croatia, on 16 October 1995 and 12 February 1996

Hungary, on 28 March 1996 and April 2, 1996

Finland, on 5 February 1996 and July 4, 1996

Bulgaria, on 29 March 1996 and 17 July 1996

Taking into account the existing relations in public law between the European part of the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Caribbean part of the Netherlands (the islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba), has the term "Motherland", used in article 27 paragraph 1 of the present Convention, not its original meaning in relation to the Kingdom of the Netherlands and should therefore, as far as the Kingdom of , refer to the "European part".

Serbien4:

Serbia has its explanations to article 6 par. 1 lit on February 4, 2011. a and article 21 paragraph 2 is withdrawn.

 

It also has the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe on February 10, 2010 the following joint letter of the Minister of Justice of Belgien5 and the netherlands3 notified the Contracting Parties of the Convention:

On February 1, 2010, an agreement between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium entered into force in which a prison located on Dutch territory (Tilburg) for the execution of criminal judgements imposed in Belgium under Belgian law provides the Netherlands Belgium. The Convention applies in principle until December 31, 2012, but the validity period can be shortened up to December 31, 2011 or extended until December 31, 2013.

The agreement contains a special provision for criminal cooperation with third countries. Article 18 of the Convention refers to criminal acts at the request of third countries regarding Belgian prisoners who are detained in the downtown prison on Dutch territory. In accordance with paragraph 1 of this provision, the Netherlands are not consider extradition requests or the requests for assistance from third States, but transmit to Belgium. This agreement is a response to other provisions of the Convention, according to which the judicial and other authorities of the Netherlands generally does not deal with prisoners of the prison of Tilburg.

 

In this context Belgium and the Netherlands announce the following:

Requests for extradition and provisional arrest

We recommend that the Contracting Parties of the European Convention on extradition send requests for extradition and provisional detention of persons imprisoned in the prison of Tilburg concluded Convention on the provision of a prison in the Netherlands for the enforcement of prison sentences imposed under Belgian law exclusively to the Belgian authorities after October 31, 2009 in Tilburg between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium. When the Dutch authorities continue to receive requests for extradition or provisional arrest of these people, they will not treat them, but send them to the Belgian authorities for further action.

Alerts via Interpol to delivery and request for provisional detention of persons who are in prison in Tilburg, do not run in the Netherlands.

Letters rogatory

We recommend that the Central and judicial authorities of the Contracting States of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal matters regarding send the requests for assistance only to the competent Belgian authorities in the prison of Tilburg under the Convention concluded on October 31, 2009 in Tilburg between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Belgium concerning the provision of a prison in the Netherlands for the enforcement of prison sentences imposed under Belgian law. If nevertheless sent letters rogatory regarding this people in the Netherlands, they are transmitted to the competent authorities of the Kingdom of Belgium.

Faymann