MAE: anche il Lord "interpretano conformemente"

Anche l'House of Lord procede ad applicare il mandato di arresto europeo intepretatndo le disposizioni interne in maniera conforme alla decisione quadro.
Ecco l'interessante pronuncia dei Lords:

Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] UKHL 6HL(E): Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mance: 28 February 2007

A European arrest warrant could itself constitute a “certificate” within s 64(2)(b) and (c) of the Extradition Act 2003.The House of Lords (Lord Scott dissenting) so stated when unanimously dismissing an appeal by Moutaz Almallah Dabas from the Divisional Court (Latham LJ and Jack J) [2007] 1 WLR 145 which on 4 May 2006 dismissed his appeal from District Judge Evans, sitting at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 17 November 2005, who ordered his extradition to Spain to await trial for the offence of complicity in Islamic terrorism connected with the Madrid train bombings in 2004. The defendant resisted extradition on the principal ground that the arrest warrant did not satisfy s 64(2) of the 2003 Act because it was not accompanied by a certificate as required by s 64(2)(b) and (c). Part 1 of the Act was enacted to give effect to the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states (2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L 190, p 1) and applied to extradition to category 1 territories which included designated member states, including Spain.LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL said that if interpreting s 64(2)(b) and (c) in isolation he would understand the section to require the issue of something amounting to a certification that the conduct described in the warrant fell within the European Framework list (para (b)) and was punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with a custodial term of at least three years (para (c)). But Part 1 of the Act had to be read in the context of the Framework Decision which was intended to simplify and expedite surrender procedures between member states by adopting “a system of free movement of judicial decisions in criminal matters” on the basis of mutual recognition in which a warrant in common form was uniformly acceptable. Framework decisions were binding on member states as to the result to be achieved but left the choice of form and methods to national authorities. While a national court could not interpret a national law contra legem, it had to “do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision in order to achieve its intended result”: see Criminal proceedings against Pupino (Case C-105/03) [2006] QB 83, paras 43, 47. The warrant here met the formal requirements of the Framework Decision, including signature by a judge on behalf of the issuing judicial authority. If it was invalid for lack of separate certification the effect of the Act would be to introduce a requirement not found in the Framework Decision and to impede, to some extent, achievement of its purpose by reintroducing an element of technicality. Happily that was not so: the Spanish judge by signing the warrant gave his authority to and thereby vouched the accuracy of its contents. The warrant was in substance if not in form a certification by him.Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood delivered concurring opinions. Lord Mance agreed. Lord Scott of Foscote delivered an opinion dismissing the appeal on different grounds.