16 Case study Putting human rights at the heart of the EAW Disproportionate use ruins people’s livelihoods Dan Surrendered from the UK to Romania Dan lived in the UK where he owned and ran a contracting and construction business. While living in the UK he was charged with fraud in Romania related to the sale of his used car to an acquaintance in Romania. He was tried and convicted in absentia in Romania without being given notification of the trial. Romanian authorities issued an EAW for his arrest to serve his sentence. In the UK case, the Romanian authorities claimed that he was present at the trial, although evidence that he was not was accepted by the UK court. As Dan disputed the charges, the UK court asked the Romanian authorities whether he would be granted a retrial in Romania, which they said he would. After surrender, however, he was denied the retrial that he was promised and sent to prison. He’s been sharing a cell with seven other people since. His contracting and construction business is now closed. Dan still hopes that he will one day be able to recover financially. Key Finding 2: The EAW is used without sufficient regard to the most basic human rights The EAW Framework Decision does not contain robust human rights safeguards. Unlike other EU criminal justice instruments, the EAW does not allow countries to refuse to execute the EAW when a person’s human rights are at risk. Some countries have created such rights in their own laws to prevent these violations, but most have not. “If I served my time in the UK, I could have continued my business, not close it down.” “In Romania, I was sentenced by default judgment. I was never in front of the judge. e court said I was present, although I’d been in Great Britain since 2012. Until 2012, when I left for the UK, I had no legal problems, not even a traffic ticket.” In 2014 the European Parliament asked the European Commission to propose an amendment to the EAW to expressly provide human rights grounds for non-execution, as well as mandating proportionality checks. The Commission did not agree that this was necessary and, besides, EU Member States did not have the political will to address the problem. Rather, the Commission placed reliance on a process begun in 2009 with an EU Council Resolution establishing a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons (the “Procedural Rights Roadmap”) to serve as the primary fix for the EAW. Our research shows that the ground-breaking laws enacted through the Procedural Rights Roadmap have improved respect for the right to a fair trial across Europe. But they have not resolved the problems with the EAW. Nor can they. The problems with the EAW have always gone far beyond the rights covered by those laws. The laws cannot resolve issues related to the disproportionate use of the EAW, and nor can they address the full extent of the human rights concerns that can arise when people are extradited, such as guarantees against ill-treatment. Moreover, the Roadmap is incomplete. Legislation on “e European pre-trial detention and vulnerable suspects is Arrest Warrant outstanding. And more needs to be done to ensure that was built without the existing laws will be implemented, such as providing defence rights in sufficient budgetary resources to the Commission so that mind.” it can fully perform its enforcement function, and Mikołaj Pietrzak, Dean of establishing evidentiary remedies for violations of the the Warsaw Bar procedural rights to better incentivize compliance. Association