The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an arrest warrant valid throughout all member states of the European Union (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a detention period.

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a custodial sentence.^[1] It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more. 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 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. Since it was first implemented in 2004 the use of the EAW has steadily risen. Member state country evaluation reports suggest that the number of EAWs issued has increased from approximately 3,000 in 2004 to 13,500 in 2008.

Background[link]

Measures which sought to harmonising extradition rules across EU member states go back to the mid 1990s when the EU institutes two treaties under the Maastricht Treaty which sought to streamline existing extradition procedures under the European Convention on Extradition. In 1999 the European Council further proposed to abolish formal extradition procedures for sentenced persons.^[2] However it was not until the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks in the United States that much more far reaching proposals were mooted.^[3] While originally proposed as an anti-terrorist measure the European Arrest Warrant soon became to a wide range of ordinary crimes.^[4] The political decision to adopt the EAW legislation was made in at the Laeken European Council in December 2001, the text being finally agreed in June that following year.

The European Arrest Warrant was established by an EU Framework Decision in 2002.^[5] Framework decisions were legal instruments of the second pillar of the European Community akin to directives and only takes effect when implemented in a EU member state by transposing it into domestic law. The European Arrest Warrant replaced the 1957 European Convention on Extradition (ECE) which had previously governed extraditions between most member states, and various legal instruments which had been adopted to streamline the process of extradition under the ECE such as the agreement of 26 May 1989 between the 12 member states, on the simplification of the transmission requests for extradition, the Convention on simplified extradition procedure between 1995 and the Convention on Extradition of 1996 and the provisions of the Schengen Agreement regarding extradition.

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. By 1 November 2004 all member states had implemented the legislation except Italy, which did so on 22 April 2005.^[6] Bulgaria and Romania implemented the Decision on their accession in 2007.

Distinctive features[link]

There are several features of the European Arrest Warrant which distinguish it from the treaties and arrangements which previously governed extradition between EU member states. EAWs are not issued through diplomatic channels, they can be executed for a wide variety of offences without any requirement that the offence to which the warrant relates corresponds to an offence under the law of the state asked to execute the warrant, there is no exception for political, military or revenue offences and there is no exception clause allowing a state to refuse to surrender its own nationals.^[7]

Double criminality[link]

Double criminality is a feature of international extradition law by which states may refuse to extradite fugitives if the conduct which is alleged to have constituted a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition would not have resulted in the committal of a criminal offence in the state being asked to effect the extradition.

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.

The categories within which are as follows:

• participation in a criminal organisation,
• terrorism,
• trafficking in human beings,
• sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
• illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
• illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
• corruption,
• fraud, including fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union,
• laundering of the proceeds of crime,
• counterfeiting currency,
• computer-related crime,
• environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
• facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
• murder, grievous bodily injury,
• illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
• kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
• racism and xenophobia,
• organised or armed robbery,
• illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
• swindling,
• racketeering and extortion,
• counterfeiting and piracy of products,
• forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
• forgery of means of payment,
• illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
• illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
• trafficking in stolen vehicles,
• rape,
• arson,
• crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
• unlawful seizure of aircraft or ships, and
• sabotage.

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.

Another issue which has arisen is the accuracy of a description of an offence as being in a category exempt from the requirement for correspondence, and whether the executing judicial authority is required to accept the issuing judicial authority's classification as definitive.

Surrender of nationals[link]

Prior to the adoption of the EAW Framework Decision in 2002, 11 of the then 15 member states — namely Austria,^[8] Belgium,^[9] Denmark,^[10] Finland,^[10] France,^[11] Germany,^[11] Greece,^[11] Luxembourg,^[11] Portugal^[11] and Sweden^[10] — had domestic rules which prevented the extradition of their nationals. Although the Nordic EU members — Denmark, Finland and Sweden — did allow the extradition of their nationals to each other and to other Nordic countries, they refused the extradition of both their nationals and the nationals of other Nordic countries elsewhere.^[10] In addition seven of the 13 member states which joined between 2004 and 2007 — namely Bulgaria,^[12] Cyprus,^[11] the Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania,^[11] Poland,^[11] and Slovenia — employed a similar prohibition prior to their accession.

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. The Netherlands which requires issuing states to return both Dutch nationals and permanent residents, also requires issuing states to agree that any sentences imposed will be converted into those applicable under Dutch law using the 1995 Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. This has the effect of re-introducing the double-criminality requirement for Dutch nationals and permanent residents, as the conversion of a sentence imposed in an issuing state could not be converted into a comparable sentence by a Dutch court if the conduct constituting the criminal offence in the issuing state does not constitute a criminal offence in the Netherlands.^[13][14]

Grounds for refusal to execute warrant[link]

The EAW Framework Decision sets out the reasons by which the executing judicial authority must or may refuse to surrender a person subject to a arrest warrant. Many member states have enacted other reasons by which surrender may be refused which are not referred to in the Framework Decision.

Mandatory grounds under the Framework Decision[link]

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

• the alleged offence come under the jurisdiction of the courts of the executing state and it the subject of an amnesty there,
• the requested person has been acquitted in a member state of the European Union of an offence in respect of the same acts as contained in the arrest warrant, or was convicted of that offence and has served the sentence imposed (if any) for that offence, or
• the requested person is below the age of criminal responsibility in the executing state.^[15]

Optional grounds under the Framework Decision[link]

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

• the requested person is being prosecuted in the executing member state for the same act,
• the prosecutorial authorities in the executing state decided not to prosecute the requested person, or having begun such a prosecution halted it,
• the requested person was being prosecuted in the executing member state, that case having progressed to final judgement,
• the act on which the EAW is based comes under the jurisdiction of the executing member state and would be statute barred there,
• the requested person was prosecuted in a third country, the final judgement having been made, provided that the sentence in respect of the offence (if one was imposed) had been served or may no longer be executed under the laws of the third country,
• the offence was committed or alleged to have been committed in the territory of the executing state, or
• the offence was committed or alleged to have been committed other than in the territory of the issuing state and the law executing state would not allow for the prosecution of the same offence if committed outside its territory.

[edit] Trials in absentia

In 2009 the Council of Ministers adopted an amending framework decision which deals with the surrender of persons sought by member states to serve a custodial sentence when that sentence is the result of a trial conducted in the requested person's absence. Under this Framework Decision a executing judicial authority may refuse to execute a European Arrest Warrant unless the requested person:

• knew of the time and place of the trial in advance and that judgement might be made against him or her if he or she failed to attend,
• knowing that a trial was scheduled, had instructed lawyers to defend the case who duly did so,
• of being told of the judgement and a right to a trial de novo (either by way of appeal or retrial), decided not to contest the judgement or failed to request such an appeal or retrial within the applicable time frame, or
• not having been served with the decision, will be served with the decision without delay and duly informed of his of her right to a trial de novo (either by way of appeal or retrial) and the time frame within which such a trial may be requested.^[16]

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

Human rights[link]

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. However recitals (12) and (13) of the preamble and Article 1(3) do refer to human rights:

Recital (12)

"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."

Recital (13)

"No person should be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Article 1(3)

"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."

In 2006, 20 of the then 25 member states included text which was based on at least one of these provisions or which explicitly referred to the European Convention on Human Rights, in their domestic implementing legislation. The others took the view that the rights exist independently from the Framework Decision.^[13]

Fair Trials International (FTI), the London-based human rights non-governmental organisation, claims to have highlighted a number of cases which demonstrate that the European Arrest Warrant system is causing serious injustice and jeopardizing the right to a fair trial. In particular, FTI allege that:

• European Arrest Warrants have been issued many years after the alleged offence was committed.
• Once warrants have been issued there is no effective way of removing them, even after extradition has been refused.
• They have been used to send people to another EU member state to serve a prison sentence resulting from an unfair trial.
• Warrants have been used to force a person to face trial when the charges are based on evidence obtained by police brutality.
• Sometimes people surrendered under an Arrest Warrant have to spend months or even years in detention before they can appear in court to establish their innocence.^[17]

Conditional surrender[link]

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. Whether and how member states require such guarantees depends on the law of the member state in question.

• Where a requested person is liable on conviction to life imprisonment, the executing state may make the surrender subject to the requested person having the legal right to apply for parole after having served twenty years.
• Where a requested person is a national or a resident of the executing state, the executing state may make the surrender subject to the requested person being returned to the executing state to serve any prison sentence ultimately imposed.^[18]

Procedure[link]

Issuing judicial authority[link]

A European Arrest Warrant may only be issued by the competent judicial authority in an EU member state or a state with a special agreement with the EU. The issuing judicial authority must complete a form stating identity and nationality of the person sought, the nature and legal classification of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the alleged committal of the offence including when and where it was committed and the degree of participation of the person sought, and scale of penalties for the offence.^[19]

Many member states have designed public prosecutors as their judicial authorities for the purposes of the framework decision. Such designations have been questioned before the British and Irish courts on the basis that in order for an authority to be judicial it should be a court or judge. In both states the designated issuing authority is a judge. However the courts of each have rejected these arguments.^[20] In Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority the English High Court found that:

"it cannot be said that the term judicial applies only to a judge who adjudicates. The differing European traditions recognise that others, including prosecutors, can be included within that term for various purposes. 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. To do otherwise would be to construe the word 'judicial' out of context and look at it simply through the eyes of a common law judge, who would not consider a prosecutor as having a judicial position or acting as a judicial authority."^[21]

Transmission[link]

Unlike traditional extradition arrangements, EAWs need not be transmitted to any particular state. The intend of the Framework Decision is that EAWs be immediately recognised by all member state once issued. 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.

If the whereabouts of the person sough are known the EAW may be transmitted directly to the designated central authority of the member state in which the person is. Otherwise the issuing judicial authority may seek the assistance of the European Judicial Network in circulating the warrant, may seek to issue an alert under the Schengen Information System, or seek the services of Interpol.^[22]

Minimum threshold[link]

The EAW Framework Decision requires that a warrant can only be issued when an offence is punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more, or in conviction cases, where the remaining term of imprisonment is four months or more. This can nonetheless include a wide variety of trivial offences. In 2007, a report commissioned by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers noted that EAWs had been issued for such offences as possession of 0.45 grams of cannabis, possession of 3 ecstasy tablets, theft of two car tyres, driving under the influence of alcohol where the limit was only significantly exceeded and theft of a piglet. The report concluded that it would be appropriate to have a discussion at EU level on the proportionate issuance of European Arrest Warrants.^[23]

Arrest[link]

While the manner in which the arrest of a person the subject of a 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.^[24]

Time limits[link]

The Framework Decision prescribes time limits for the making of a final decision to a surrender request. Where a requested person consents to his or her surrender, the executing judicial authority should make a final decision within ten days of such a consent. Where a requested person refuses to consent to his or her surrender, the executing judicial authority should make a final decision within 60 days of the arrest.^[25] In 2011 the European Commission reported that the average time for the surrender of persons who consented was 16 days while the average time for those who did not consent was 48.6 days.^[26]

Specialty[link]

A state wishing to prosecute a surrendered person for offences committed before his or her surrender, or extradite a surrendered person to a third state, must, subject to certain exception, obtain the permission of the executing judicial authority. Such a request is made in the same form as a European Arrest Warrant, and granted or refused using the same rules which determine whether surrender would be granted or refused.^[27]

This requirement is referred to as the principle of specialty and is intended to ensure that a state cannot seek the surrender of a person for an extraditable offence whilst intending to prosecute that person for a non-extraditable offence once surrendered, or extradite the surrendered person to a third state for a offence which would not have been extraditable offence from the original executing state.

By default the principle of specialty applies to all persons surrendered pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant unless the executing judicial authority indicates otherwise. However this position may be reversed where both the issuing and the executing states have made declarations to that effect.^[28]

The permission of the executing state is not required:

• for offences which could not incur custodial sentences, or which could only incur them as a result of the failure to pay a fine,

• where the surrender person was discharged from custody and having had the opportunity to leave that state (i.e. the original issuing state) remained there for 45 days, or left that state only to return,^[29]

• the surrendered person renounced his or her right to specialty either before or after his or her surrender,^[30]

• where the person is sought by another state pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant and consents to being surrendered to that state.^[31]

See also[link]

	European Union portal
	Law portal

• Area of freedom, security and justice
• European Investigation Order

References[link]

External links[link]

• Text of the framework decision (as enacted)
• Consolidated text of the framework decision
• Information page on European Arrest Warrants from the European Commission
• Schorkopf, Frank. European Arrest Warrant, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law
• T.M. C Asser Instituut: European Arrest Warrant Project
• European Criminal Bar Association: European Arrest Warrant
• UK Crown Prosecution Service: Legal Guidance on the European Arrest Warrant

An arrest warrant is a warrant issued by a Judge on behalf of the state, which authorizes the arrest and detention of an individual, or the search and seizure of one's property.

Canada[link]

Arrest warrants are issued by a judge or justice of the peace under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Once the warrant has been issued, section 29 of the Code requires that the arresting officer must give notice to the accused of the existence of the warrant, the reason for it, and produce it if requested, if it is feasible to do so.

United Kingdom[link]

The procedure for issuing arrest warrants differs in each of the three legal jurisdictions.

England and Wales[link]

In England & Wales, arrest warrants can be issued for both suspects and witnesses.

Arrest warrants for suspects can be issued by a justice of the peace under section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 if information (in writing) is laid before them that a person has committed or is suspected of having committed an offence.^[1] Such arrest warrants can only be issued for someone over 18 if:^[1]

• the offence to which the warrant relates is an indictable offence or is punishable with imprisonment, or
• the person's address is not sufficiently established for a summons to be served on him.

Arrest warrants for witnesses can be issued if:

• a justice of the peace is satisfied on oath that:^[2]
  • any person in England or Wales is likely to be able to give material evidence, or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence, at the summary trial of an information by a magistrates' court,
  • it is in the interests of justice to issue a summons under this subsection to secure the attendance of that person to give evidence or produce the document or thing, and
  • it is probable that a summons would not procure the attendance of the person in question.

• or, if:^[2]
  • a person has failed to attend court in response to a summons,
  • the court is satisfied by evidence on oath that he is likely to be able to give material evidence or produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence in the proceedings,
  • it is proved on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that he has been duly served with the summons, and that a reasonable sum has been paid or tendered to him for costs and expenses, and
  • it appears to the court that there is no just excuse for the failure.

Scotland[link]

This section is empty. You can help by adding to it.

Northern Ireland[link]

In Northern Ireland arrest warrants are usually issued by a magistrate.

United States[link]

Warrants are usually issued by courts but can also be issued by one of the chambers of the United States Congress or other legislatures (via the call of the house motion) and other political entities.

In the United States, an arrest warrant must be supported by a signed and sworn affidavit showing probable cause that a specific crime(s) has been committed by the individual(s) named in the warrant.

In most jurisdictions, an arrest warrant is required for misdemeanors which usually do not occur within the view of a police officer. However, as long as police have the necessary probable cause, a warrant is usually not needed to arrest someone suspected of a felony.^[3] Laws vary from state to state.

Mittimus[link]

A mittimus is a writ issued by a court or magistrate, directing the sheriff or other executive officer to convey the person named in the writ to a prison or jail, and directing the jailor to receive and imprison the person.

An example of the usage of this word is as follows: "... Thomas Fraser, Gregor Van Iveren and John Schaver having some time since been Confirmed by the Committee of the County of Albany for being Persons disaffected to the Cause of America and whose going at large may be dangerous to the State, Ordered Thereupon that a Mittimus be made out to keep them confined till such time as they be discharged by the Board or any other three of the Commissioners." Minutes of the Commissioners for detecting and defeating Conspiracies in the State of New York, Albany County Sessions,1778–1781. (Albany, New York: 1909) Vol. 1, Page 90

In police jargon, these writs are sometimes referred to as a writ of capias, defined as orders to "take" a person or assets. Capias writs are often issued when a suspect fails to appear for a scheduled adjudication, hearing, etc.

Bench warrant[link]

A bench warrant is a variant of an arrest warrant that authorizes the immediate on-sight arrest of the individual subject to the bench warrant. Typically, judges issue bench warrants for persons deemed to be in contempt of court—possibly as a result of that person's failure to appear at the appointed time and date for a mandated court appearance. Bench warrants are issued in either criminal or civil court proceedings.

Commonly (but not always), the person who is subject to a bench warrant has intentionally avoided a court appearance to escape the perceived consequences of being found guilty of a crime. If a person was on bail awaiting criminal trial when the nonappearance took place, the court usually forfeits bail and may set a higher bail amount to be paid when the subject is rearrested, but normally the suspect is held in custody without bail. If a person has a bench warrant against him when stopped by a law enforcement officer, the authorities put them in jail and a hearing is held. The hearing usually results in the court setting a new bail amount, new conditions, and a new court appearance date. Often, if a person is arrested on a bench warrant, the court declares them a flight risk (likely to flee) and orders that person to be held without bail.

Bench warrants are traditionally issued by sitting judges or magistrates.

Outstanding arrest warrant[link]

An outstanding arrest warrant is an arrest warrant that has not been served. A warrant may be outstanding if the person named in the warrant is intentionally evading law enforcement, is unaware that a warrant is out for him/her, the agency responsible for executing the warrant has a backlog of warrants to serve, or a combination of these factors.

Some jurisdictions have a very high number of outstanding warrants. The U.S. state of California in 1999 had around 2.5 million outstanding warrants, with nearly 1 million of them in the Los Angeles area.^[4] The city of Baltimore, Maryland, had 100,000 as of 2007.^[5] New Orleans, Louisiana, has 49,000.^[6]

Some places have laws placing various restrictions on persons with outstanding warrants, such as prohibiting renewal of one's driver's license or obtaining a passport.

See also[link]

• Arrest without warrant
• European Arrest Warrant
• Search warrant

References[link]

• Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction by Frank Schmalleger (2002)

Gerard Batten MEP
[[file: |frameless|alt=]]
Member of the European Parliament for London
Incumbent
Assumed office 1 May 2004
Personal details
Born	(1954-03-27) 27 March 1954 (age 58) London, United Kingdom
Nationality	British
Political party	UK Independence Party
Website	Gerard Batten MEP

Gerard Joseph Batten^[1] (born 27 March 1954, London) is a Member of the European Parliament for London for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). He was first elected in 2004.

He sits as a member of the Independence and Democracy Group. He was a founder member of UKIP in September 1993. He was the first Party Secretary from 1994 to 1997. He has fought local elections, a by-election, a European election, and two general elections as a UKIP candidate. As well as his seat in the European Parliament he is a member of UKIP's National Executive Committee.^{[citation needed]}

Batten was appointed a member of the European Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Defence in July 2004, and shortly afterwards was also appointed UKIP's official spokesman on Security and Defence. In this role, he has attacked the Labour government's plans to introduce Identity Cards.^[2]

Before becoming an MEP he was a salesman for British Telecom for 28 years. At the 2007 UK Independence Party conference, he was selected as the party's candidate to contest the London mayoral election, 2008.^[3] He stood in the 2009 UKIP leadership election,^[4] coming second.

Prodi controversy[link]

In April 2006, Batten stated that a London constituent and former FSB agent, Lieutenant-Colonel Alexander Litvinenko, had been told that Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, had been the KGB's "man in Italy", demanding an inquiry into the allegations. Batten told the European Parliament that Litvinenko had been warned by FSB deputy chief General Anatoly Trofimov that there were numerous KGB agents among Italian politicians, and that "Romano Prodi is our man in Italy". According to the Brussels-based newspaper EU Reporter on 3 April 2006, "another high-level source, a former KGB operative in London, has confirmed the story."^[5] Among the most serious claims, by Batten's account, is that Prodi assisted in the protection of KGB operatives allegedly involved in the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981. The Italian parliamentary commission, the Guzzanti Commission, later concluded that KGB and GRU (Soviet military intelligence) did attempt to assassinate Pope John Paul II.^{[citation needed]}

On 26 April 2006, Batten repeated his call for a parliamentary inquiry, stating that: "Former, senior members of the KGB are willing to testify in such an investigation, under the right conditions... It is not acceptable that this situation is unresolved, given the importance of Russia's relations with the European Union."^{[citation needed]}

On 11 November 2006, Lt Col Litvinenko was admitted to hospital with suspected poisoning after eating at a London restaurant and died on 23 November 2006. The police later concluded he has been poisoned with polonium - even a small dose of it is sufficiently lethal. Anatoly Trofimov was assassinated by unknown gunmen in April 2005.^{[citation needed]}

On 22 January 2007, the BBC and ITV News released documents and video footage, from February 2006, in which Litvinenko made the same allegations against Prodi.^[6][7]

Taking on the Bilderberg Group[link]

On 12 September 2011, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, Batten made an extraordinary one-minute speech questioning why the media do not report on the annual Bilderberg meetings of some of the world's most powerful people. Here's a transcription of his speech,^[8] also available as a YouTube video^[9]:

"Thank you, Mr. President. The [European] Commission have recently replied to my written question confirming that Commissioners [Joaquin] Almunia and [Neelie] Kroes attended the Bilderberg meeting in St. Moritz in June. The Commission cannot tell me details of what was discussed, but that surely the Bilderberg meetings do not take decisions.

If Bilderberg meetings are just talking shops, why do the most powerful figures from around the world, including George Osborne, the [British] Chancellor of the Exchequer, bother to attend? What other summit of world leaders in politics, finance and business would go completely unreported in the mainstream media such as the BBC?

It’s impossible not to reach the conclusion that the non-reporting of these events is anything other than a conspiracy between the [Bilderberg] organizers and the media. It merely confirms the belief of many that the hidden agenda and purpose of the Bilderberg Group is to bring about undemocratic world government. It’s a disgrace that the European Commission is colluding in that."

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Gerard Batten

• Official website Gerard Batten MEP
• Batten 4 London Mayor Official Mayoral Candidacy Website
• Profile on European Parliament website
• Islamic fundamentalism is incompatible with freedom and Western liberal democracy, by Gerard Batten, Freedom Today, November/December 2006
• Video Interview with Gerard Batten MEP Video Interview made on 16 February 2010