In accordance with Article 2(2) of the European Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the offences listed in that provision allow each EU member state to request a suspect (called a 'requested person') their 'surrender between judicial authorities' (the EU term that replaced extradition) pursuant to a European arrest warrant, without verification of the double criminality of the act.
The plaintiffs (a lawyers' organization) alleged that because it includes 'vague and imprecise' wording, such as "computer-related crime", "racism and xenophobia" or "counterfeiting and piracy of products" it breached or was at least capable of breaching the principle of legality in criminal matters.
The court, however, dismissed the legality objections on the ground that the precise definition, of those offences and their penalty, was a matter for the national law of each of the (at the time 27) issuing Member States and therefore the legality principle was not a concern for the European Council.
[4] The government's proposal was later amended to remove the categories after complaints from the business sector, such as "the unlawful use of computers".
[4] Experts have noted that the legal systems of mainland China and Hong Kong follow 'different protocols' with regard to the important conditions of double criminality and non-refoulement, as well as on the matter of executive vs. judicial oversight on any extradition request.