* Where a Member State in exceptional circumstances cannot observe the time limits provided for in Article 17 of the Framework Decision on the EAW, it shall inform Eurojust, giving the reasons for the delay.

The EAW Framework Decision came into force on 1 January 2004 in eight member states, namely Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

Under the EAW Framework Decision, the requirement for double criminality is removed for a wide range of categories of crimes, and made a discretionary rather than a compulsory ground for a refusal to extradite for offences not falling within those categories.

Prior to the adoption of the EAW Framework Decision in 2002, 11 of the then 15 member states — namely Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Sweden — had domestic rules which prevented the extradition of their nationals.

The EAW Framework Decision sets out the reasons by which the executing judicial authority must or may refuse to surrender a person subject to an arrest warrant.

When a person the subject of an EAW is found within the jurisdiction of a member state and arrested, that member state is required by the Framework Decision to execute the warrant.

While the manner in which the arrest of a person the subject of an EAW is not specified in the Framework Decision, once arrested, he or she has the right to be informed of the warrant, its contents, and the person's right to consent to his or her surrender to the member state that issued the warrant.

The European Arrest Warrant ( EAW ) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union ( EU ).

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution ( not merely an investigation ), or enforcing a custodial sentence.

Where sentence has already been passed an EAW can only be issued if the prison term to be enforced is at least four months long.

* The judicial authority executing the EAW may seek the advice of Eurojust if there are more than one EAWs issued for the same person when deciding which EAW shall be executed.

* the act on which the EAW is based comes under the jurisdiction of the executing member state and would be statute barred there,

If the whereabouts of the person sought are known the EAW may be transmitted directly to the designated central authority of that member state.

It is therefore entirely consistent with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence to recognise as valid an EAW issued by a prosecuting authority designated under Article 6.

It is home to No. 138 Expeditionary Air Wing ( 138 EAW ), and as such, is one of the RAFs " Main Operating Bases " ( MOB ).

The current Station Commander is dual-hatted ; as the commander of both the EAW and Station.

He is an active member of English PEN, and is also an EAW member.

The most famous examples of this development is the MEW index developed by William Nordhaus and James Tobin in their Measure of Economic Welfare ( MEW ) in 1972, the Japanese Net National Welfare ( NNW ) indicator in 1973, the Economic Aspects of Welfare index ( EAW ) index of Zolatas in 1981, the ISEW indicator of Daly and Cobb in 1989 and the UN ’ s human development index, or HDI, in 1990.

The introduction of the EAW system was intended to increase the speed and ease of extradition throughout EU countries by removing the political and administrative phases of decision-making which had characterised the previous system of extradition in Europe, and converting the process into a system run entirely by the judiciary.

Each stack of speakers in this sound reinforcement setup consists of two EAW SB1000 direct radiating subwoofers ( each contains two 18 " drivers ) and two EAW KF850 full range cabinets for the mid and high frequencies.

* Dedicated Fugitives Unit that acts as the UK Central Authority for all European Arrest Warrants ( EAW ).

The EAW index, applied to the United States for the period from 1950 to 1977, showed that the economic aspects of social welfare are a diminishing function of economic growth in industrially mature, affluent societies.

As soon as Poland joined the European Union, applications were made for their extradition based on European Arrest Warrants ( EAW ).

Eurojust acts in two cases concerning the EAW:

No 125 Expeditionary Air Wing ( EAW ) was formed at Leuchars on 1 April 2006.

The EAW does not include the flying units at the station.

No. 138 EAW primarily consists of three squadrons of Panavia Tornado GR4 / GR4A multi-role fast-jet ground-attack aircraft.

No. 138 Expeditionary Air Wing ( 138 EAW ) was formed at RAF Marham on 1 April 2006 ; encompassing most of the non-formed unit personnel on the station.

The EAW does not include the flying units at the station.

No. 135 Expeditionary Air Wing ( EAW ) was formed at the station on 1 April 2006 and encompasses most of the non-formed unit personnel.

The EAW does not include the flying squadrons or any other formed units.

No 325 Expeditionary Air Wing ( EAW ) was formed at the station on 1 April 2006.

The EAW does not include the flying units at the station.

The EAW does not include the flying units at the station or the other formed units i. e. Tactical Medical Wing.

The EAW does not include any of the flying squadrons.

European Arrest Warrants ( EAW ) are arrest warrants valid throughout all Member States of the EU.

As one of the tasks of Eurojust as defined in the Treaty of Nice was to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition requests, it was natural that Eurojust should have competences related to the EAW, an instrument replacing extradition requests between Member States.

1 of the Framework Decision on Combating Terrorism ( 2002 ).

A recent German decision to include Article 6 of the Convention on Cybercrime and the EU Framework Decision on Attacks against Information Systems may make selling or even manufacturing vulnerabilities illegal.

The Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams were the instruments used by the EU to establish this possibility.

The European Arrest Warrant was established by an EU Framework Decision in 2002.

The Framework Decision is silent as to whether secondary participation in, or an attempt to commit, an offence of the kind listed here itself excluded from the requirement for correspondence.

Under the Framework Decision, member states are precluded from refusing the surrender of their own nationals wanted for the purposes of prosecution, but they may condition the surrender of a requested person on his or her being returned to the issuing state to serve any sentence ultimately imposed.

Many member states have enacted other reasons by which surrender may be refused which are not referred to in the Framework Decision.

Under the Framework Decision the executing judicial authority must refuse to surrender the requested person if:

Under the Framework Decision the executing judicial authority may refuse to surrender the requested person if:

Under this Framework Decision an executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant unless the requested person:

The 2009 Framework Decision should have been implemented by member states by 28 March 2011.

Article 3 of the Framework Decision which lists grounds upon which executing states must refuse to surrender a requested person does not expressly include any ground for refusing the surrender of a requested person if that surrender would infringe a person's human rights.

:" This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof.

Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to surrender a person for whom a European arrest warrant has been issued when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the said arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person's position may be prejudiced for any of these reasons.

: This Framework Decision does not prevent a Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.

:" This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.

The others took the view that the rights exist independently from the Framework Decision.

The Framework Decision also establishes the possibility for executing member states to request certain guarantees from issuing states prior to ordering the surrender of a requested person.

The intend of the Framework Decision is that EAWs be immediately recognised by all member state once issued.