The Handing Over of Property According to Article 29 of The European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision: Legal Scope, Implementation and Alternative Regimes For Handing Over Property In The Eu Member States

Croatian accession to the eu included the implementation of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. The way Croatia implemented the eaw Framework Decision, however, has resulted in controversies and public attention, both in Croatia and other Member States, revealing many problems within the system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu. The aim of the paper is to investigate the implementation of the eaw Framework Decision within Croatia; to determine whether the manner in which the said Member State has carried out the implementation has highlighted a risk for the functioning of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu; and which legal measures should be used in order to prevent disintegration of the cooperation from happening. Several legal measures are proposed, both on the national and the European level, to prevent the risk of further undermining the system of judicial cooperation within the eu. These measures are presented within the context of several overarching legal principles like (providing clearer definition of the notion of) non-verification of double criminality and protection of legal interests of the Member States issuing the European Arrest Warrant.

Download Full-text

Transformation of the European arrest warrant in light of protection of the rights of extradited individuals

Право и политика ◽

10.7256/2454-0706.2020.4.32293 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 42-48

Author(s):

Kamila Danilovna Shaibakova

Keyword(s):

European Court Of Justice ◽

Foreign National ◽

Member States ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Eu Member States ◽

National Courts ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

The Eu

The subject of this research is the norms of international legal acts, legislations of the EU member-states, decisions of foreign national courts, as well as decisions of the European Court on Human Rights and European Court of Justice. A hypothesis is advanced that within the framework of the European arrest warrant there are new trends associated namely with the desire to strengthen the system of protection of rights of the extradited individuals, which can negatively affect functionality of the procedure as a whole. Thus, a number of cases of the national courts (for example Artur Celmer case) and Court of the European Union (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru case), as well as provisions of the constitutional courts lead to the fact that the principle of mutual recognition of court decision is used with caution. The article examines the case law of national courts of the EU member-states, as well as practice of the European Court of Justice and European arrest warrant. The author compared the decisions of the aforementioned courts for confirming the hypothesis that the protection of extradited individuals plays a significant role in the context of operation of the European arrest warrant. The intention to provide legal guarantees to individuals extradited in the context of the European arrest warrant, which loses its main influence; particularly the procedure is interrupted due to absence of guarantees of protection of rights in case of extradition, as well as raises doubt towards judicial systems and their decisions of some EU member-states brought forth by political actions of these countries. Moreover, protection of rights and guarantee of fair trial increases.

Download Full-text

Modern Trends of Development and Improvement by Means of Unification of the Judicial Extradition Procedure of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes of a Terrorist Nature

Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law ◽

10.12737/article_58ec9f588a6bc3.11920276 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 124-126

Author(s):

Дарья Кошкина ◽

Darya Koshkina

Keyword(s):

Law Enforcement ◽

International Relations ◽

International Terrorism ◽

Main Trend ◽

Member States ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Counter Terrorism ◽

Eu Member States ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

The Eu

The article considers the modern trends of development of mechanisms of regulation of international relations on the example of the judicial extradition procedure of persons who have committed crimes of a terrorist nature, which is one of the key instruments to counter international terrorism. So, the author identified the harmonization of the national legislation of the EU Member States as the main trend as well as in other interregional organizations. A typical example is the European arrest warrant (EAW), introduced by the Framework decision “On the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between EU Member States” of 2002. The author analyzed the regulatory counter-terrorism documents of the main interregional organisations and came to conclusion that harmonization of national legislations on issues of legal support of the extradition of persons who have committed the terrorist crimes, is a really necessary measure to ensure international cooperation between different States, including at the level of law enforcement, in matters of anti-terrorist activities. In addition, the article provides relevant examples from law enforcement practices relating to extraterritorial terrorist activities. The author analyzed the motivations of the State to unify their national legislations on improving the effectiveness of legal measures to counter international terrorism.

Download Full-text

The principle of ne bis in idem in the context of European arrest warrant: A view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice

Civitas (Novi Sad) ◽

10.5937/civitas2101149t ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 149-170

Author(s):

Boris Tučić

Keyword(s):

European Court Of Justice ◽

Eu Law ◽

Member States ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Framework Decision ◽

Court Of Justice ◽

European Court ◽

Ne Bis In Idem ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

The Eu

In this paper, we analyze the most significant ruligs of the Court of Justice of the Europian Union regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant which established the principle of ne bis in idem as one of the grounds for both mandatory and optional non-execution of the extradition request issued to the judicial authority of the executing Member State. Although the European arrest warrant is one of the most important mechanisms of cooperation in criminal matters between Member States, the provisions of the Framework decision that established the European arrest warrant as part of the EU law do not define precisely enough some of the key aspects of its implementation, leaving plenty of space for different interpretations and actions of national authorities, which in turn contributes to legal uncertainty and unequal application of the EU law within Member States. In this context, the European Court of Justice made some of the key points in the 2010 Mantello case and 2018 AY case, and primarily focused on issues related to the ''same act'' category as one of the key criteria for applying the ne bis in idem principle in transnational context. The inductive-deductive method and content analysis were used in the analysis of the cases mentioned above.

Download Full-text

BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION NO. 2002/584/JHA REGARDING THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

Agora International Journal of Juridical Sciences ◽

10.15837/aijjs.v13i1.3725 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 13 (1) ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

MIHAELA PĂTRĂUŞ

Keyword(s):

Member State ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

Executive Power ◽

Member States ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Framework Decision ◽

Eu Member States ◽

European Area ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

Judicial Authority

Article 6, paragraph 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA provides that the issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the Member State competent to issue a judicial decision in accordance with the law of that State for the purpose of surrender on the basis of the European arrest warrant to another EU Member State.The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, by its recent case-law, held that the notion of issuing judicial authority does not concern the prosecutor's offices in a Member State which are at risk of being subjected, directly or indirectly, to individual orders or instructions by the executive power in the context of adopting a decision on the issuing of the European arrest warrant. The effects of this judgment are mandatory for all Member States and require clarification from the Member States affected by the ECJ ruling regarding the nature of the European arrest warrant authority, even a possible intervention by the legislature in these EU Member States, to facilitate the settlement of cases of arrest in full agreement with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust of judgments in the European area.

Download Full-text