>It was not rude but a reasonable assumption. Let's revisit what we discussed:
Yeah, variations of "did you even read the link" are rude. Yours was perhaps particularly aggressive.
>But in the link you could clearly see that the court dismissed the EAW on charges of rebellion. If Spain had only issued the EAW based on this charge, or if Spain had issued two separate EAW for the separate charges, this is clearly showing what I was claiming.
"Another important advantage of the EAW compared to extradition proceedings is that for 32 categories of offences, there is no verification on whether the act constitutes a criminal offence in both countries. The only requirement is that the offence needs to be punishable by a maximum period of at least 3 years of imprisonment in the issuing Member State."
The dual criminality check does not apply to most crimes. It did apply in the basically unique case of "rebellion", but the EAW largely did away with dual criminality checks.
>It is not given that the court would have found the charges valid and there are all legal means available to challenge the court's decision.
There are no meaningful legal means to challenge the validity of the charges in the EAW process, the entire point of the process is to skip that. You get to challenge the validity of the charges after you've been extradited and brought in front of the courts of the requesting country.
>But even if he had been extradited due to the charges of misusing public funds, whatever is wrong with that?
Specifically in Puigdemonts case I do not wish him extradited as I doubt he would be treated respectfully in Spain. But his case is obviously one-of-a-kind.
>There are extradition treaties between many countries and that would be an absolutely valid case for extradition, if the charges make sense in the local jurisdiction. Should every criminal be safe as soon as they are crossing a border?
EAW is completely different from regular extradition treaties.
>The important thing is that a court is checking the charges and that there is legal recourse, before any extradition.
The whole purpose of EAW has been to get rid of as much legal recourse as possible, and over time various CJEU decisions have been further eroding practices some national courts had established.
>you failed to make me understand why I should
You'll probably receive better replies in the future if you avoid the unnecessary personal attacks.
What you're missing is the erosion of the ability of the executing states to say things like "hey this is sketchy, we think this crime might not have happened", "hey the police department in this particular city is notoriously untrustworthy", or "hey this prosecutor is widely known in the local press to be corrupt and owns a collection of ferraris".
Now foreign authorities are trusted by default and significant parts of their reasoning are not subject to review, that's bad.
That's rather rude of you, I did in fact read the entire text of the link.
I hate citing wikipedia, but if you'll skip forward a few lines, you'll find this nugget:
"On 12 July 2018 the higher court in Schleswig-Holstein confirmed that Puigdemont could not be extradited by the crime of rebellion, but may still be extradited based on charges of misuse of public funds"
Puigdemont would have almost certainly ended up extradited, but he would enjoy the EAW protections which would presumably not be desirable for the Spanish government.
EU is not a single uniform blob. There are neighbourhoods where you have to worry about being shot, and there are neighbourhoods where people leave their keys inside their cars.
"Subject to review" means little more than "is the form filled correctly?", it certainly does not mean second-guessing by the courts in the executing state.
Like, yeah, your EIO will be rejected if you don't tick any of the crime-category boxes in the form.