{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 30",
    "document_number": "97-22",
    "date": "12/14/20",
    "document_type": "legal document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 20 of 30\nWilliam JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law\n63. The wording of these international agreements, which do not contain a prohibition on the extradition of nationals, raises some important questions. In particular, could France decide to extradite its nationals on the basis of these international agreements without violating applicable international law, European law, or French constitutional law?\n64. In order to determine whether the French government may grant an extradition request relating to a French citizen under the Extradition Treaty between France and the USA, it is thus necessary to evaluate the strength and status of the prohibition of the extradition of nationals under (i) applicable international law, (ii) European law, and (iii) French constitutional law.\n(i) International law\n65. As outlined, international treaties pertaining to extradition generally leave Contracting States a right not to extradite their nationals, and State practice largely varies in this regard. Some States are strongly committed to the rule against the extradition of nationals and have conferred the principle constitutional status (Germany, Poland, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Austria). Others have codified the principle in their national legislation (France, Lebanon, Chili, Qatar, Slovenia). By contrast, many States - in particular, Common law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and the USA, extradite their own citizens.\n66. Thus, there is no uniform rule regarding the extradition of nationals under international law.\n(ii) European law\n67. European law does not prohibit the extradition of nationals either. As mentioned, Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957 provides States with a discretionary right on whether or not to extradite their own citizens.\n68. More interestingly, the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (hereafter, “EAW FD”), which governs extradition matters between Member States of the European Union, does not allow Member States the possibility to refuse the surrender of their nationals when the EAW is issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. In fact, the surrender of a national who is the subject of criminal proceedings in another Member State of the European Union is at the cornerstone of the EAW FD.\n51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81\nwww.wjavocats.com - palais C1652\nwj@wjavocats.com - 19\nDOJ-OGR-00002144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 97-22 Filed 12/14/20 Page 20 of 30",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "William JULIÉ\navocat à la cour - attorney at law",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "63. The wording of these international agreements, which do not contain a prohibition on the extradition of nationals, raises some important questions. In particular, could France decide to extradite its nationals on the basis of these international agreements without violating applicable international law, European law, or French constitutional law?",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "64. In order to determine whether the French government may grant an extradition request relating to a French citizen under the Extradition Treaty between France and the USA, it is thus necessary to evaluate the strength and status of the prohibition of the extradition of nationals under (i) applicable international law, (ii) European law, and (iii) French constitutional law.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(i) International law",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "65. As outlined, international treaties pertaining to extradition generally leave Contracting States a right not to extradite their nationals, and State practice largely varies in this regard. Some States are strongly committed to the rule against the extradition of nationals and have conferred the principle constitutional status (Germany, Poland, Greece, Portugal, Estonia, Austria). Others have codified the principle in their national legislation (France, Lebanon, Chili, Qatar, Slovenia). By contrast, many States - in particular, Common law jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Australia, and the USA, extradite their own citizens.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "66. Thus, there is no uniform rule regarding the extradition of nationals under international law.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(ii) European law",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "67. European law does not prohibit the extradition of nationals either. As mentioned, Article 6 of the European Convention on Extradition 1957 provides States with a discretionary right on whether or not to extradite their own citizens.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "68. More interestingly, the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (hereafter, “EAW FD”), which governs extradition matters between Member States of the European Union, does not allow Member States the possibility to refuse the surrender of their nationals when the EAW is issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution. In fact, the surrender of a national who is the subject of criminal proceedings in another Member State of the European Union is at the cornerstone of the EAW FD.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "51, rue Ampère - 75017 paris - tél. 01 88 33 51 80 - fax. 01 88 33 51 81\nwww.wjavocats.com - palais C1652\nwj@wjavocats.com - 19",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "William JULIÉ"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "European Union"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "France",
      "USA",
      "Germany",
      "Poland",
      "Greece",
      "Portugal",
      "Estonia",
      "Austria",
      "Lebanon",
      "Chili",
      "Qatar",
      "Slovenia",
      "United Kingdom",
      "Australia"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/14/20",
      "13 June 2002"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "97-22",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal brief or memorandum discussing extradition law. It is a printed document with no handwritten text or stamps."
}