Euro-warrant and extradition: how the two systems for surrendering fugitives differ

When an alleged offender flees to another country, the State that wishes to try them has two distinct routes to obtain their surrender: classic extradition and the European arrest and surrender warrant, known as the Euro-warrant. Although both pursue the same objective, they operate on very different logics, and confusing them leads to frequent errors regarding time limits, guarantees and the real possibilities of avoiding surrender.

Traditional extradition is the oldest system and is still in force for relations with countries outside the European Union. It is governed by the bilateral or multilateral treaties signed between States and, failing that, by the principle of reciprocity. Its defining feature is the weight of the political component: the government of the requested country intervenes decisively and may refuse surrender on grounds of expediency, not only legal ones. It is a slow procedure, in which diplomatic formalities may drag on for years.

The Euro-warrant was created precisely to overcome those limitations within the European area. It was established by Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 and transposed into Spanish law by Law 23/2014 of 20 November on the mutual recognition of criminal judgments in the European Union. It replaced the old extradition system between Community countries on the basis of a new principle: mutual recognition, whereby the decision of a judge of one Member State must be enforced by the others without prior political filter.

The practical differences are significant. The Euro-warrant is a strictly judicial procedure: the decision is taken by the court of the executing State, not the government. It is much faster, because the time limits are fixed (sixty days from the arrest, extendable by a further thirty). Its grounds for refusal are limited and laid down by law, so that, outside them, surrender is mandatory. And for a list of thirty-two categories of serious offences it eliminates the requirement of double criminality, that is, it does not require the conduct to also be an offence in the country receiving the warrant.

The criterion for knowing which route applies is simple: between Member States of the European Union the Euro-warrant governs; with third countries, extradition governed by treaties or reciprocity remains. The Euro-warrant may be issued to try someone not yet convicted, when the prescribed penalty reaches at least twelve months, or to enforce a final sentence of four months or more of deprivation of liberty.

In Spain, when a Euro-warrant arrives from another Member State, the Central Investigating Court of the National High Court (Audiencia Nacional) handles the procedure, informs the person of their rights and holds the hearing. If the person consents to the surrender, that court decides by order within about ten days; if they object or the Public Prosecutor finds grounds for refusal, the proceedings are referred to the Criminal Division of the National High Court, which decides within up to sixty days. The requested person retains in any event the right to a lawyer in both countries, to an interpreter and to invoke the grounds for refusal, in addition to the protection of the rule of speciality. Against these decisions, where an infringement of fundamental rights is invoked, an appeal for protection (recurso de amparo) lies before the Constitutional Court.