The European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
Imagine a criminal committing a robbery in Madrid and, taking advantage of open borders, escaping to Portugal within hours. In the past, pursuing that person legally could take years of paperwork and political negotiations between governments. Today, thanks to a legal instrument known as the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), that process is reduced to weeks.
In practice, the European Arrest Warrant enables a coordinated international arrest in service of criminal justice. This system has fundamentally changed how justice operates in a borderless Europe.
In Spain, the procedure is regulated by Law 23/2014 on the European Arrest Warrant, which incorporates the mechanism into the Spanish criminal justice system and sets out the applicable guarantees, procedures, and time limits for judicial authorities.
The European Arrest Warrant Is Not Traditional Extradition
The key to this transformation is that the European Arrest Warrant is not a traditional extradition. Extradition is a slow, political process decided between governments. The EAW, by contrast, is based on judicial surrender, a much faster form of criminal cooperation within the EU.
Decisions are no longer made by politicians, but directly by judges, who rely on each other to ensure swift justice. A judicial order issued by a judge in one EU country is executed by a judge in another as a judicial act, not a diplomatic request.
In essence, it is a judge communicating directly with another judge, which removes political discretion and significantly accelerates the process. Surrender between EU Member States is no longer a political favor but a judicial obligation.
The Core Principle Behind the EAW: Mutual Trust
The effectiveness of the European Arrest Warrant rests on the principle of mutual recognition, also known as mutual trust. EU Member States legally recognize that their judicial systems provide equivalent levels of protection for fundamental rights.
As a result, a judge in Germany trusts that an arrest warrant issued by a judge in Spain is lawful and justified, and vice versa. When an EAW is received, the executing judge does not re-examine the case or reassess the evidence. The judge’s role is limited to verifying that the warrant complies with formal legal requirements and that none of the specific grounds for refusal apply.
This is a legality check, not a second trial. This principle ensures that there are no safe havens for individuals attempting to evade justice within the EU.
How the European Arrest Warrant Works Step by Step
The EAW operates through a combination of technology and judicial cooperation. Once issued by a judge in an EU Member State (the issuing state), the warrant is entered into the Schengen Information System (SIS).
The SIS functions as a secure digital alert system accessible to law enforcement authorities across the EU. Once activated, the alert is visible throughout Europe.
The execution of a European Arrest Warrant typically follows five key steps:
- Issuance of the warrant by a judge in the issuing state.
- EU-wide alert through the Schengen Information System.
- Arrest of the individual by police authorities in the executing state.
- Judicial review, where a judge verifies formal compliance and respect for fundamental rights.
- Surrender, if approved, within strictly defined time limits.
The “Fast Track”: 32 Criminal Offences Without Double Criminality
One of the major obstacles in traditional extradition was the principle of double criminality, which allowed refusal if the offence did not exist in identical terms in both legal systems.
To avoid this barrier in serious cases, the EAW framework includes a list of 32 categories of offences for which double criminality does not apply. These include terrorism, murder, human trafficking, and participation in a criminal organization.
This measure ensures that serious offenders cannot exploit legal differences between Member States. While it simplifies the process, it does not eliminate legal safeguards or judicial scrutiny.
Is the European Arrest Warrant Automatic?
Despite its efficiency, the EAW is not automatic or blind. A judge in the executing state must always examine the warrant to ensure that legal guarantees are respected before authorizing surrender.
From the outset, the rights of the detained person are protected. The individual must be informed of the warrant in a language they understand, has the right to a lawyer both in the executing and issuing states, and is entitled to an interpreter if necessary.
There are also grounds for refusal. A warrant may be denied if the person has already been tried for the same facts, or if there is a proven and serious risk that surrender would violate fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial or protection from inhuman or degrading treatment.
Judicial cooperation is essential, but it can never come at the expense of human rights.
How Long Does an EAW Take?
Speed is one of the defining features of the European Arrest Warrant. The executing judge has a maximum of 60 days to make a final decision on surrender.
If the person consents to surrender, the process is significantly accelerated: the decision and transfer must take place within 10 days of consent.
These timelines stand in stark contrast to traditional extradition procedures, which could last months or even years.
The Practical Impact of the European Arrest Warrant
The EAW has transformed judicial cooperation in Europe by replacing slow diplomatic processes with a direct, judge-to-judge mechanism. As a result, the concept of a “safe haven” within the EU has largely disappeared.
Each year, thousands of individuals are surrendered under European Arrest Warrants to face justice. However, for anyone subject to an EAW, immediate legal action is critical.
Given the strict deadlines involved, contacting a lawyer experienced in European Arrest Warrant proceedings is not optional—it is essential.
Legal Grounds for Refusing a European Arrest Warrant
Although the EAW is effective, it is neither automatic nor absolute. The law establishes clear grounds on which surrender must or may be refused.
Mandatory grounds for refusal include situations where the individual has already been tried for the same offence (ne bis in idem), was below the age of criminal responsibility at the time of the facts, or where the offence is time-barred under the law of the executing state.
Optional grounds for refusal include cases where the person is a national of the executing state, where domestic proceedings are already pending for the same facts, or where the offence was committed on the territory of the executing state.
The most important limitation remains the protection of fundamental rights. If there is a real risk of inhuman treatment, denial of a fair trial, or detention conditions that violate human dignity, surrender must be refused.
Identifying and successfully arguing these grounds requires technical expertise. A lawyer specialized in European Arrest Warrants understands which arguments apply and how to present them effectively within the strict procedural deadlines.
