US embassy cable - 05VIENNA317

UNCLAS VIENNA 000317 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR CA/OCS/ACS/EUR AND EUR/AGS 
L/LEI FOR KEN PROPP 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN, AU 
SUBJECT: AUSTRIAN RESPONSE: PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLETING 
INSTRUMENTS IMPLEMENTING U.S.- EU. EXTRADITION AND MUTUAL 
ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT 
 
REF: A) STATE 8107 B) VIENNA 243 
 
1.  Under cover of a note verbale, Embassy has just 
received a formal Austrian response to the latest 
November 15, 2004 proposals for completing the texts of 
the extradition and mutual legal assistance protocols. 
In a telephone conversation our contacts at the MFA 
suggested these were only minor technical issues relating 
to the "final clauses".  Consular Section is verifying 
whether other substantive issues remain open that would 
require further negotiations. 
 
2.  An informal translation of the above-mentioned 
Austrian note with the suggested changes reads as 
follows: 
 
(Complimenary opening) 
 
1) Since the final clauses deal with the two instruments 
referred to as "Protocols" (also in all the other treaty 
provisions), the Austrian side would favor also using the 
term "this Protocol" in the final clauses. 
 
2) Austria notes that in the final clauses reference is 
made to the "Extradition Agreement" and the "Mutual Legal 
Assistance Agreement" as opposed to the short forms 
proposed in the two preambles as being "the U.S.-EU 
Extradition Agreement and "the U.S.-EU Mutual Assistance 
Agreement".  The Austrian side would favor the use of the 
latter short forms, which are used in most other protocol 
articles. 
 
3) In the final clauses Austria would favor using the 
term "both parties" as opposed to specifying "the 
Republic of Austria" and "the United States of America", 
where appropriate.  Using the term "both parties" would 
facilitate the preparation of the final texts and 
eliminate the need for the alternating rule.  Should the 
final proposed clauses remain as they are, the contract 
parties' names must be alternated.  This means the 
English language text intended for Austria would need to 
read "subject to the completion by the Republic of 
Austria and the United States of America of. " whereas 
the text for the U.S. would have to read "subject to the 
completion by the United States of America and the 
Republic of Austria of.".  The same rule of alternation 
would need to be applied for the German version text. 
 
(Complimentary close) 
 
BROWN