EU: Extradition Convention - "rolling ratification"
01 July 1996
The UK Home Office announced on 27 June that agreement had finally been reached on the text of the "Convention on the improvement of extradition between the Member States of the European Union" and that it awaited formal approval by the Council of Ministers. A little-publicised change in the draft Convention, agreed at the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on 4 June, was to allow any two Member States who have ratified it to put it into practice between them.
Article 15.3 says that the Convention will come into operation ninety days after the last Member States has formally ratified it. But Article 15.4 goes on to say that:
"any Member State may... declare that as far as it is concerned the Convention shall apply to its relations with Member States that have made the same declaration."
The effect of this change will be that national parliaments - who have to ratify all Conventions but may not amend them in any way - which are the least diligent can pass it on the nod and start to operate it. While national parliaments which seeks to conduct a proper and thorough scrutiny of the proposed Convention will be faced by their governments arguing that there is little point in a lengthy process as countries "X" and "Y" are already operating it. In the UK because of its archaic procedures it can be excepted to go through parliament without any debate or vote.
The EU Council of Ministers - representing all 15 EU governments - has been frustrated because the Dublin Convention, signed by them in June 1990, still awaited full ratification six years later. It was thought too contentious to try and by-pass national parliaments for the three Conventions signed in July 1995 - the Europol Convention, the Customs Information System and protection of financial interests. The concept of "rolling ratification" was first introduced in March 1995 when the Council of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers agreed the Convention on "Simplified extradition procedure between Member States of the EU". This was the so-called "voluntary" extradition Convention where the person to be extradited consents. Whereas this new, substantive, Convention on "involuntary" extradition has major legal and civil liberties implications (see Statewatch vol 6 no 1).
The "involuntary" Extradition Convention is intended to bypass provisions in the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition on several key areas. The first is the removal of the exceptions under the latter Convention on "political offences". The second is to explicitly cope with problems between Member States not just on suspected terrorist offences but also offences of "conspiracy and criminal association" to cover organised crime. The third area is the tricky issue of the extradition of nationals to stand trial in another EU state. Three of the countries in the Nordic Union - Denmark, Finland and Sweden - have agreed that they will not invoke their declarations under the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition to refuse to extradite "residents".
Draft Convention on the improvement of extradition between the Member States of the European Union.