European Arrest Warrants and Minimum Standards for Trials in absentia – Blind Trust vs. Transnational Direct Effect?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-287
Author(s):  
Martin Böse
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Cross Border Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The right of the accused person to be present at the trial and defend himself in person forms an essential part of the right to a fair trial. In this regard, the minimum standard enshrined in Art. 6 ECHR has been further developed by the minimum rules on procedural rights established by the EU legislator. According to a recent judgment of the Union’s Court of Justice, the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant still allows the executing state to surrender a person convicted in absentia even if the EU minimum standard is not met. This paper will argue that common minimum standards have repercussions on cross-border cooperation based on mutual recognition and may emerge as a ground for refusal.

scholarly journals Mutual recognition in criminal matters, deprivation of liberty and the principle of proportionality

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 718-732
Author(s):  
Leandro Mancano
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

This paper argues that the application of mutual recognition to judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union (EU) imposes a redefinition of the right to liberty to adjust the latter to the peculiarities of the Union legal order. The article emphasizes the important role that the principle of proportionality in EU law can have for improving the protection of the right to liberty. The two main scenarios of this research are analysed against the different understandings of proportionality: on the one hand, the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the interpretation of the EU Court of Justice; on the other, the three Framework Decisions on transfer of prisoners, probation measures and pre trial measures alternative to detention. The conclusions reveal that, despite the increasing attention paid to proportionality in relation to the right to liberty in mutual recognition, the potential offered by EU law to better protect the right to liberty is still underexploited.

scholarly journals Pojęcie współmałżonka w prawie unijnym – uwagi na tle orzeczenia w sprawie Coman (C‑673/16)

Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(66)) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Ewa Kamarad
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

The Term ‘Spouse’ in EU Law – Comments on the Judgment in the Coman Case (C‑ 673‑16) The paper concerns the judgment of 5 June 2018 issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Coman case (C‑673‑16), in which the Court for the first time defined the term ‘spouse’ for the purpose of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It discusses the consequences of the judgement and its relation to the traditional mechanisms of private international law and the EU principle of mutual recognition.

scholarly journals Multilingualism as a Principle of the EU Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 245-252
Author(s):  
K. Kh. Rekosh
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Discourse Relations ◽  
Official Languages ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Since the jurisprudence reflects relations between the institutions, bodies and organizations of the EU and native speakers, the EU Court of Justice plays a huge role in shaping the legal discourse. Relations between the EU and citizens show the effectiveness of the principle of multilingualism, that is apparent before the Court. The enlargement of the Union to 28 member States and, accordingly, the increase of the number of official languages to 24 complicate the implementation of the principle of multilingualism and create many problems for the EU Court of Justice: legal, linguistic, budget, translation. All documents of the Court are not translated into 24 EU official languages completely and often limited to summaries. All documents are translated only into French and proceeding languages, for the scale of the translation work have a direct impact on the timing of legal proceedings. To provide help in written translations, much work is carried out in the Court on drawing up dictionaries, thesauri, where multilingualism is fully manifested. On the use of languages and language regime, There is an extensive legal practice, however, the term «multilingualism» is not used by the Court, despite the recognition of the principle of equality of all official languages, perhaps, due to the fact that the Court itself not always follows it. The article shows that multilingualism as a legal concept and principle opens up, sometimes adjacent to the already distinguished objects of regulation, new areas of legal research. Comparison of legal solutions to the problems of multilingualism in different states with a variety of languages, law and order, or in international organizations, lays basis of "comparative linguistic law" Now in the doctrine of law of the European Union neither the linguistic law, nor the comparative linguistic law do not exist, but to provide cooperation in the field of justice and mutual recognition of judicial decisions on the basis of the principle of multilingualism, the EU has adopted the Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in the framework of criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals The Impact of Legislative Harmonisation on Effective Judicial Protection in Europe's Area of Criminal Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-142
Author(s):  
Valsamis Mitsilegas
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

By focusing on the adoption of EU minimum standards in the field of procedural rights in criminal proceedings, this article will assess the relationship between secondary law harmonisation, and the principles of effectiveness of EU law and of effective judicial protection in Europe's area of criminal justice. This article will begin by exploring the third pillar legacy on harmonisation, by focusing on what the EU has not done (i.e.to legislate on a horizontal instrument on defence rights) and what the EU has done (i.e.to legislate specifically on judgments in absentia with the specific purpose of clarifying, and in some instances limiting, the grounds for refusal in a number of EU mutual recognition measures). The analysis will then examine the impact of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and will evaluate critically the impact of EU harmonisation measures on defence rights on effective judicial protection. The analysis will focus on the relationship between EU law and national law, as well as on the relationship between EU law and the Charter and ECHR. Great emphasis will be placed on the strengthening of enforcement avenues offered by the normalisation of EU criminal law after Lisbon. These avenues have the potential to ensure that, even minimum, harmonisation measures in the field of defence rights can have a real impact on enhancing effective judicial protection and achieving the effectiveness of EU legislation on the ground.

scholarly journals The Many-faced Court: The Value of Participation in Annulment Proceedings

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-246
Author(s):  
Michał Krajewski
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
The Eu

European Court of Justice – General Court – EU procedural law and practice – Procedural rights of the parties to judicial proceedings before the EU Courts – Participation of the parties to judicial proceedings and the legitimacy of judicial decisions – Accuracy of decision-making, the right to a hearing and procedural economy as guiding values of EU procedural law and practice – Different procedural practices of the General Court and the Court of Justice – The filtering of appeals by the Court of Justice – The accountability of the EU Courts for their procedural law and standards

scholarly journals Cross-border cooperation in the execution of sentences between the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium: an empirical and comparative legal study on the implementation of EU framework decisions 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA

2020 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-404
Author(s):  
Robin Hofmann ◽  
Hans Nelen
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Scientific Debate ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Cross Border Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This study aims at comparing legal practices in the execution of sentences within the framework of cross-border cooperation between The Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. Based on quantitative and qualitative data, the implementation of the EU Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA on the transfer of prisoners and 2008/947/JHA on the mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions in the three countries is analyzed. Interview data with legal practitioners suggest that social rehabilitation, consents of the convicted individuals and the actual place of living, play an important role in the initiations of transfers. Empirical evidence that both Framework Decisions are increasingly instrumentalized for migration control purposes, as the current scientific debate suggest, is weak in the three case countries. The relatively small numbers of transfers of prisoners and judgements show, that the transfer instrument is still not implemented to its full potential. This study exemplifies remaining challenges connected to the principle of mutual trust in the daily practice of cross-border legal cooperation within the EU.

Cross-border exchange of tax information upon request and fundamental rights – Can the right balance be struck?: Joined cases C-245/19 and C-246/2019, État luxembourgeois contre B EU:C:2020:795

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110215
Author(s):  
Saturnina Moreno González
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Minimum Standard ◽  
Advocate General ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Information Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
National Tax ◽  
The Right

On 6 October 2020, in joined cases C-245/19 and C-246/19, État luxembourgeois contre B, the Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling about the fundamental right to a judicial remedy against an information order issued by the national tax authorities of a Member State in the application of Directive 2011/16/EU. The Court ruled that the holders of the taxpayer’s information have the right to directly challenge the request to provide information but, differing from the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott, the Court decided that, when other remedies are available, the taxpayer under tax investigation and other third parties concerned do not have the right to direct judicial remedy against the information order. Likewise, the Court clarified how specific and precise the information requested must be in order to admit that the request for information is foreseeably relevant for the taxation of the concerned taxpayer. Following the Berlioz case, the ruling at hand continues to outline the content, scope and limits of fundamental rights in cross-border exchanges of tax information upon request in the European Union. However, this casuistic approach will not necessarily result in the development of a coherent and general framework of protection, which underlines the need for a common minimum standard to enhance the protection of fundamental rights in cross-border situations.

Thematic Priorities For Sustainable Development of Ukraine-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation (The Case Study of Chernivtsi Region)

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-219
Author(s):  
Valentyna Bohatyrets ◽  
Liubov Melnychuk ◽  
Yaroslav Zoriy
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Strategic Orientations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Further Development ◽  
Cross Border Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

This paper seeks to investigate sustainable cross-border cooperation (CBC) as a distinctive model of interstate collaboration, embedded in the neighboring borderland regions of two or more countries. The focus of the research revolves around the establishment and further development of geostrategic, economic, cultural and scientific capacity of the Ukrainian-Romanian partnership as a fundamental construct in ensuring and strengthening the stability, security and cooperation in Europe. This research highlights Ukraine’s aspirations to establish, develop and diversify bilateral good-neighborly relations with Romania both regionally and internationally. The main objective is to elucidate Ukraine-Romania cross-border cooperation initiatives, inasmuch Ukraine-Romania CBC has been stirring up considerable interest in terms of its inexhaustible historical, cultural and spiritual ties. Furthermore, the similarity of the neighboring states’ strategic orientations grounds the basis for development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. The authors used desk research and quantitative research to conclude that Ukraine-Romania CBC has the impact not only on the EU and on Ukraine multi-vector foreign policy, but it also has the longer-term global consequences. In the light of the current reality, the idea of introducing and reinforcing the importance of Cross-Border Cooperation (CBC) sounds quite topical and relevant. This research considers a number of explanations for Ukraine-Romania Cross-Border Cooperation as a key element of the EU policy towards its neighbors. Besides, the subject of the research is considered from different perspectives in order to show the diversity and complexity of the Ukraine-Romania relations in view of the fact that sharing common borders we are presumed to find common solutions. As the research has demonstrated, the Ukraine-Romania cross border cooperation is a pivotal factor of boosting geostrategic, economic, political and cultural development for each participant country, largely depending on the neighboring countries’ cohesion and convergence. Significantly, there is an even stronger emphasis on the fact that while sharing the same borders, the countries share common interests and aspirations for economic thriving, cultural exchange, diplomatic ties and security, guaranteed by a legal framework. The findings of this study have a number of important implications for further development and enhancement of Ukraine-Romania cooperation. Accordingly, the research shows how imperative are the benefits of Romania as a strategic partner for outlining top priorities of Ukraine’s foreign policy.

scholarly journals Will the imaginary active consumers please stand up? Case note to Walbusch Walter Busch: Case C-430/17 Walbusch Walter Busch GmbH & Co. KG v. Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs Frankfurt am Main eV, EU:C:2019:47

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 713-719
Author(s):  
Joasia Luzak
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Frankfurt Am Main ◽  
Limited Space ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Withdrawal ◽  
The Eu

The questions posed to the Court of Justice of the EU in the recent case of Walbusch Walter Busch asked what qualifies as the means of communication with a limited space or time to display the information and how detailed the disclosure on the right of withdrawal needs to be on such a medium. The judgment in this case had to strike a balance between not limiting traders’ opportunities to use technological advances to reach consumers and one of the main objectives of consumer protection: ensuring consumers have a chance to make fully informed transactional decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document