Jump to content

Talk:European Arrest Warrant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Common or colloquial terms for this ?

[edit]

I hit on a redlink for Euroorden in a article for ETA and I fixed that with Euroorden and now want to add this to this article. Does anyone have any more names that are used for this process ?. Ttiotsw 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean?

[edit]

"Detention of 0.45 grams of cannabis" etc. This looks like a mistranslation, as "detention" doesn't look right in English. Should it be "detection" or "possession"? 86.149.132.157 (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Mann

[edit]

This section is vastly one-sided and incomplete. Did the prosecution have any evidence (one would assume so)? What is the Portuguese/prosecution side of the story have to offer? Presumably he wasn't simply "drinking beer with friends" and scooped up for a 2-year prison sentence. 24.16.147.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Definatly, this article is very "British". The British perpetrators are seen as inocent victims being abused by the anti-british Europe. This article should be more balanced and more objectiv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.119.156.206 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Apparently I'm echoing earlier comments, but are all of these examples drawn from an anti-EAW activist group? Has an EAW never served a legitimate purpose?

Yeah, some balance is needed in that section. Currently it's "criticism only", even though it's not named that way. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official POV on EAW impact is in [1] "Final report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations - The practical application of the European Arrest Warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States", which has two corrigenda [2] [3], how's that for eurocracy? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The corrigenda refer to a different document than the one quoted in the article. This should be updated as they have apparently managed to go from provisional report (2007) to final report (2009). KathaLu (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much boilerplate from Fair Trials in this article. It focuses too much on UK cases. Other sources for criticism are needed. KathaLu (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assange

[edit]

An EAW was issued for him. [4] This is likely to become a notable case. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is arrested now, and it is covered a lot in the news, so it is a notable case now. I wrote some time ago in the article, partly as a sarcasm "Several of the above listed people are not prominent enough to have Wikipedia articles. Some people with Wikipedia articles who have got an European Arrest Warrant issued on them are:". What about the balance between people listed with details (some without Wp articles) and people just listed? --BIL (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calle Jonsson

[edit]

Should be merged here per WP:BLP1E. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if more information from the article is added. If not then No, it has its own article in Swedish wikipedia and so on..--BabbaQ (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. While it's a notable use of European arrest warrants, the case is notable in and of itself per WP:GNG, as well as WP:CRIME. The alleged crime was considered highly noteworthy in Sweden, it was very well documented by Swedish and Greek newspapers, and it has influenced the international relationship between Sweden and Greece on a long-term basis. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article has been given additional information that makes it no longer a matter of merging.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOT according to the Council of the European Union !

[edit]

Under "Controversy", the Wiki article states that "according to the Council of the European Union, the EAW has been used in a manner that does not respect ...". This wording is misleading. The link points to an internal Council document but this document does not express the opinion of the Council!!! This is not the Council but just a working party, i.e. experts or delegates from the Member States giving their opinion. Would someone like to change it, please? The document dates from 2007, I don't know whether something came out of the discussion but when the Council of the European Union makes a statement or legislates they will do so in a formal, rather different kind of document. KathaLu (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These documents might contain more recent information that needs incorporating:
--Boson (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

I agree with the concerns above; it looks like the examples (ie. most of the article content) have been taken form a single source which lobbies against EAWs. The choice of cases, and the wording, gives the impression that EAWs are only used for gross injustices. Is there any way to balance the article? bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

0.81 mg/L blood alcohol content

[edit]

The article mentions "driving a car under the influence of alcohol, where the limit was not significantly exceeded (0.81 mg/l)". In many European jurisdictions this actually would be exceeding the limit significantly, the UK having an exceptionally high limit for European (or even world) standards. In many EU countries the limit is 0.20 mg/L or even 0.0 mg/L. I therefore propose removing this example from the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section Restored

[edit]

I came looking for this information, and found that it had just all been deleted. So I have put it back. Wikipedia articles should not just be dry legal texts, but should include information as to the operation of laws. I personally have no knowledge of the subject, and make no comment as to the content of this section. But there clearly is some Controversy. And it should be aired. And it certainly should not have been simply deleted without comment. Tuntable (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Arrest Warrant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

High profile cases

[edit]

Material starting "Due to a leak from within the new Police National Computer of the UK ... " was recently added to this section. The cited source appears to contain no mention of "the new Police National Computer" and no mention of a European Arrest Warrant. Is there any argument for retaining any of this material? --Boson (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows well the legal basis and procedure of the EAW, please explain what went fundamentally wrong in the Puigdemont affaire. How it came that a regional German judge, not having the mandate nor time nor means to investigate and properly inform himself about what happened in Catalonia between July and October 2017, had the last word in a case infinitely complex and with a severe European dimension. The damage to the European Union is still to be measured in the months and years to come. The damage is multifold: on the one hand the disastrous precedent that a Member State regional judge absolve an individual from the charge of violating the Constitution and perpetrating a coup d'état aganst another Member State. Would-be putschists movements across Europe likely to multiply. On the other hand, in my opinion the more severe damage, the *humiliation* of an entire Nation, Spain, millions of Spanish citizens under shock by the Puigdemont-friendly sentence by the German regional judge. This collective trauma will backfire for sure against the European Union sooner or later. --Julian (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.211.139.231 (talk) [reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Arrest Warrant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Arrest_Warrant&oldid=1194923185"