DOJ-OGR-00002145.jpg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 21 of 30
William JULIE
avocat a la cour — attorney at law
69. Articles 3 and 4 of the EAW FD set out a number of grounds for refusing the enforcement
of a EAW, that are respectively mandatory and optional. Article 4(6) on optional grounds
provides that a Member State may refuse the execution of a EAW « issued for the
purposes of execution of a custodial sentence or detention order, where the requested
person is staying in, or is a national or a resident of the executing Member State and that
State undertakes to execute the sentence or detention order in accordance with its
domestic law ». This article is the only provision in the EAW FD that allows Member
States to consider nationality in the execution of a EAW. As such, nationality can only
act as a bar to the execution of a EAW issued for the purpose of executing a custodial
sentence, not conducting a criminal prosecution.
70. It follows that European Union law does not prohibit the extradition of nationals.
(iii) French constitutional law
71. As regards the status of the protection of nationals from extradition under French law,
the fact that France did not have to change its Constitution or domestic laws regarding
the extradition of nationals to incorporate the EAW FD effectively means that the
prohibition against the surrender of a French citizen to foreign authorities does not
constitute an absolute prohibition per se under French law**.
72. The Conseil Constitutionnel (French constitutional Court) has long considered that France
could not ratify an international amendment which went against the Constitution, thereby
necessitating a modification of the text of the Constitution prior to the ratification of the
purported international treaty*>. For example, the Constitution had to be amended prior to
the ratification of the Rome Statute, to create an exception to the rule that the President of
the Republic cannot be found criminally liable in respect of acts committed during his
mandate. By contrast, the provisions of the Rome Statute which require Contracting Parties
to surrender their nationals when the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is
established did not trigger an amendment to the French Constitution. Like the EAW FD,
the example of the Rome Statute must be taken as evidence that there is no constitutional
principle against the extradition of nationals in France.
34 By contrast, several Member States of the EU such as Germany, Poland or Cyprus, had to amend their national
constitutions prior to incorporating the EAW FD, following constitutional courts’ rulings.
35 Décision No. 98-408 DC, 22 Janvier 2009.
51, rue Ampére - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 — fax. 01 88 33 51 81 wj@wjavocats.com - 20
www.wjavocats.com - palais C1652
DOJ-OGR-00002145
Document Details
| Filename | DOJ-OGR-00002145.jpg |
| File Size | 828.2 KB |
| OCR Confidence | 94.7% |
| Has Readable Text | Yes |
| Text Length | 2,841 characters |
| Indexed | 2026-02-03 16:20:32.154518 |