I'm afraid this demonstrates an ongoing lack of understanding, especially given that the correct* position has now been detailed here twice....
* which is that 1) Brückner appealed through the German courts, and based his appeal on the argument that under the EAW which brought him back to Germany, he couldn't have been prosecuted on the rape charge (which wasn't listed on the EAW); 2) the German courts needed to ask the ECJ for its adjudication on whether or not the EAW for Brückner allowed Germany to prosecute him for the rape; 3) today the ECJ issued an advisory opinion that Germany
was allowed to have prosecuted Brückner on the rape charge, given the nature of the EAW and other considerations.
ETA: and I'm afraid it was YOU who chose to use the Murdoch press (in the form of The Sun) as your (incorrect) source. Do you think the Murdoch press is generally a reliable source? Perhaps you'll be using Fox News as a source soon as well.....?
ETA2: You seem to be under the impression that media outlets can (and do) manipulate facts and invent false "facts" in order to support a predermined position. Is that what you think? In any case, the report in the Guardian represents the facts correctly, as did that BBC article I linked to earlier. I suggest that you read one or both of them.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ises-madeleine-suspect-was-lawfully-tried-for
The
GUARDIAN unfortunately fails to even mention that Brueckner won his appeal that the Gerrman authorities broke EU law when it failed to issue a European Warrant of Arrest.
Law, unfortunately, is not based on ‘sense’, it is based on carefully worded rules, as passed by the governing law makers, in this case the EU. The EU states repealed the previous 1957 extradition acts (ECE) and replaced it by a framework drawn up 2003/2004. In other words, instead of EU member states each having their own extradition rules, there is one law, the European Arrest Warrant. In other words, it is no longer true that ‘Germany will not extradite a German citizen’.
A key part of the EAW is:
‘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 Framework Decision also provides that the requested person have the right to the assistance of legal counsel and to an interpreter “in accordance with the national law of the executing Member State”.
https://tinyurl.com/j44kmly
Bearing in mind, it is the EU Parliament that passes EU laws and directives. The European Court of Justice - not to be confused with the human rights court! - is there to ensure the laws are interpreted according to the letter.
It is all very well for prosecution counsel Felix Halabi to argue it is ‘devoid of sense’ [to have to particularise an EAW] when “it is obvious the man is a degenerate” is the undertone. He also argues that being in the Schengen zone should not mean criminals can just go around ‘violently robbing people’ [he actually argued].
However, none of these appeals to the emotion or ‘common sense’, or even what the law
should be in his view, the judges only have the jurisdiction to decide whether the EAW has been interpreted correctly. Of course, in law, the odd typo or spelling mistake will not cancel out a prosecutor’s issuing of an EAW. The error has to be a material one for it to be ruled the law was not carried out correctly.
Brueckner’s lawyyer, Fuelscher, argued that under Brueckner’s probation terms and conditions, he was to report to the probation office once a month. There was no stipulation he was not to leave Germany.
Fuschler cleverly argues that Brueckner ‘was just on holiday’.
I say ‘cleverly’ because in a case law precedent, which the ECJ concluded as follows:
At the other extreme, the EAW has failed in some cases. The Irish Supreme Court refused to extradite an Irish citizen to Hungary who was alleged to have killed two children through negligent driving. While the Irish Court never questioned the facts of the case or the fairness or outcome of the Hungarian trial, it decided that the person did not technically “flee” from Hungary, only “failed to return”, having left the country with the consent of the Hungarian authorities; therefore, the legal requirements for extradition under an EAW had not been established.” [ibid]
So Brueckner’s counsel is arguing that ‘Brueckner did not flee’.
The panel of judges were to give their opinion by 6 August 2020, followed by their decision, which can take months. The opinion has now been issued. That opinion is that
Germany did break EU law in respect to the European Warrant of Arrest.
At no time did the ECJ have any authority to 'quash' the rape sentence. The media originally published the correct story that the ECJ opinion was that Germany was outside of its remit. It quickly changed to 'MADDIE SUSPECT SET BACK! FAILS IN HIS BID FOR FREEDOM'.
The fact of the matter is it was never going to be the case his sentence was immediately quashed because the ECJ does not have the jurisdiction to do so. It could have offered the
opinion the conviction was unsafe. Instead, it said this was unlikely. It would now be for the Criminal Appeal Court in Germany to decide whether the sentence is unsafe, given the police failed to follow correct procedure.
IMV it was always a tall order that CB could get his conviction overturned on that basis so the claim he lost and the German police won is wholly inaccurate as the ECJ court was
solely looking at whether the Germans broke EU law in respect of the EAW. It also offered the opinion it was just worthy of a slap on the wrist.
Clear now?
)