28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
EU proposal
on European arrest warrant: Swedish parliament votes in favour
- update 23.5.02
This became clear on Thursday (14.3.02), when the Swedish centre-right party, Moderaterna (the second largest group in parliament), unexpectedly withdrew its earlier support for the social-democrat government's plans to have the framework decision on combating terrorism nodded through by parliament before the end of spring. Moderaterna also withdrew their support for another EU framework decision on the introduction of a common EU-wide arrest arrant. The turn-about of the Swedish parliament could delay the adoption of new national law necessary for the implementation of the two EU measures by up to one year and revive opposition in other EU countries against the sweeping "anti-terror" measures adopted by the Council of the European Union since 11 September.
The spokesman of Moderaterna on crime policies and chairman of the parliamentary judicial committee, Fredrik Reinfeldt MP, told the Swedish press agency TT that his party was not prepared to approve the EU-measures before agreement is reached on changes of national law necessary to implement the EU measures in Sweden: "These proposals highlight essential issues regarding the relation between the rule of law in a constitutional State and the European Union and it is our opinion that the national legislation council, legal experts and other interested circles must be given an opportunity to carefully analyse the consequences first", Reinfeldt told TT. "If we just approve the framework decisions without being aware of their consequences for Sweden, we do not know how "terrorism" will be defined here. This will also have effects on accelerated extradition procedures, since terrorism is one of the grounds for extradition". Reinfeldt is also critical of the very principle of member state governments agreeing on framework decisions and other EU measures within the Council without sufficient prior consultation of national parliaments which are expected to merely nod through ensuing national legislation.
In seeking parliamentary approval of its policies, the social-democrat minority government of Prime Minister Persson usually relies on the support of its red-green allies, the Left Party and the Environmentalist Green Party. But this time both parties opposed the EU measures from the very beginning and the government would have needed support from the right to push through its agenda.
European background
The EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council reached "political
agreement" on the two Framework Decisions on 6 December
(the measures have yet to be formally adopted). Under the Framework
Decision on combating terrorism all member states bind themselves
to introduce stringent common minimum penalties for offences
considered to be terrorism-related. Among others, the framework
decision aims to make leadership of, participation in, and support
of a "terrorist organisation" a criminal offence entailing
severe punishment. The content of the framework decision has
drawn strong public criticism in a number of member states. Among
others, critics point out that the definition of the term "terrorist
organisation" in the framework decision is all too extensive
and vague and therefore could be used as a catch-all provision
to put under surveillance and prosecute people on political grounds
and to associate street protest with terrorism. Such fears were
further fuelled by a recent proposal from the Spanish EU Presidency
linking "violent urban youthful radicalism" to terrorism.
The instrument of "framework decisions" was introduced
into the Treaty on European Union (TEU) by the 1997 Amsterdam
Treaty which entered into force in 1999. According to Article
34 of the amended TEU, framework decisions adopted unanimously
by the Council leave to the national authorities "the choice
of form and methods" of their implementation and thus "shall
not entail direct effect". At the same time, however, they
are "binding upon the Member States as to the result achieved".
This means that, once a framework decision has been adopted by
the Council, national parliaments have little other choice than
approving changes of national law necessary to implement the
objectives defined by the framework decision concerned. This
is questionable in view of the fact that most national parliaments
are not involved in and often poorly informed on the process
of drafting and negotiating proposals for Council decisions.
As a matter of fact, draft Council measures are often made fully
available to parliaments and to the public only once senior officials
under the Council and COREPER have come very close to agreement
on their content.
From the point of view of executive branches of government (the
Council and the influential committees and working groups of
officials under it) the advantage of Framework Decisions is that,
as opposed to Conventions, they do not even require ratification
by national parliaments. Thus, the introduction of Council Framework
Decisions has further widened the "democratic deficit"
that has long been a feature of EU-decision making.
Swedish background
According to well-established legislative practice in Sweden,
the government publishes early drafts of legislation and refers
them to interested instances and parties (government agencies,
academic experts, NGOs) for consideration before submitting them
to parliament. The outcome of such public consultation procedures
often results in significant changes of the final wording of
a bill and the outcome of the parliamentary vote. Significantly,
at the Laeken Council in December, the Swedish government gave
its approval to the Council decisions on terrorism and on the
European arrest warrant without any prior public consultation
procedure. However, as required by Swedish constitutional law,
the government did subject its approval of the two Council decisions
to a parliamentary reservation. Apparently, the government reckoned
that, with the expected support from Moderaterna, pushing
through the proposals in parliament would be an easy game anyhow.
The government never expected that opponents of the EU-measures
would succeed, within a couple of months, to launch a critical
public debate. This is, however, exactly what happened. In what
was widely seen as a symbolical protest against the Council's
and the government's disdain for democratic parliamentary decision-making,
the Left Party, Vänsterpartiet, did what the government
should have done: it initiated a public consultation procedure.
Copies of the two framework decisions were sent to all parties
usually consulted by the government. This "shadow"
hearing procedure proved a full success. Opinions poured in,
including such from judicial authorities, the Police Union, NGOs
and academic experts. While comments on the content of the EU-decisions
range from cautious support to strong rejection, most opinions
voice concern about the lack of transparency and democratic scrutiny
characterising EU-related decision-making. It is this widespread
public scepticism that seems to have brought about the last-minute
turn-about of Moderaterna.
Commenting on the government's loss of parliamentary support,
the Justice speaker of Vänsterpartiet, Ms Alice Åström,
said: "At last, a national parliament is putting up resistance
against unaccountable EU decision-making. The member state governments
and the Council must understand that, in a democratic society,
laws cannot be made without public debate and the involvement
of parliaments. We also hope that the strong reservations expressed
by leading Swedish legal experts with regard to the content of
the two EU framework decisions concerned will bring parliamentary
assemblies in other EU-countries to reconsider their stands".
Responding to suggestions that her party was delaying the European
fight against terrorism the chairwoman of Vänsterpartiet,
Ms Gudrun Schyman stressed: "The fight against terrorism
and international organised crime is important, but it may not
be conducted at the expense of human rights and democracy."
Source: 18.03.02. Nicholas Busch, Editor,
FECL, Blomsterv. 7, S-791 33 Falun. Tel/Fax: +46/23 799940. Email:
nbusch@telia.com Web site: www.fecl.org
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.