scholarly journals The Right to Liberty in European Union Law and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 215-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro MANCANO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Current Content ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractThis article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.

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.

Wpływ Brexitu na współpracę sądową w sprawach karnych w Unii Europejskiej

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-56
Author(s):  
Anastazja Gajda
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Criminal Matters

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is one of the main challenges for the continued functioning of the European judicial area in criminal matters. In this article, special attention will be paid to selected aspects of ensuring further judicial cooperation in criminal matters after Brexit. This primarily concerns the possibility of further participation of the United Kingdom in specific organs supporting this cooperation (Eurojust and Europol) and the the application of legal instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, with reference to the flagship legal instrument, i.e. the European arrest warrant. It also presents a unique position of the United Kingdom in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice EU, which that state is guaranteed under the provisions of Treaties.

scholarly journals THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IN LIGHT OF DECISION THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE ARANYOSI AND CALDARARU

TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Mićo Bošković ◽  
Tomislav Trajković ◽  
Gordana Nikolić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

For a long time, extradition has been a dominant form of international mutual legal assistance, but in many cases it has proven to be an insufficiently efficient instrument. Having that in mind, on the territory of the European Union, a European arrest warrant has been established as an institute that should contribute to the effectiveness of combating modern crime and facilitate the surrender of persons between member states in order to effectively prevent the escape of suspects or convicted persons. Regarding this, the Article will first give a brief overview of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision, which regulates the European arrest warrant, and will analyze it in order to define the strengths and weaknesses of the task itself. The subject of research in this article is primarily devoted to the analysis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the “Aranyosi and Caldararu” case. With this verdict, the European Court of Justice, derogates some of the key principles that order is based on and special attention is devoted to the devaluation of the principles of mutual trust and the principles of mutual recognition of judicial decisions among EU states, which the Council of the European Union considers as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation.

scholarly journals THE NON BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Darius-Dennis Pătrăuș
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Widespread Application ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The non bis in idem principle was first established in the Hammurabi Code (2,500 BC), under the name of res judicata pro veritate habetur.According to the non bis in idem principle, "no one is allowed to be summoned again in court or punished in another criminal case for the same criminal offense for which he has already been convicted or acquitted under the law of a state". The non bis in idem principle has a broad field of application in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.The harmonization of Member States' laws and the abolition of borders at EU level created the premises for the widespread application of the non bis in idem principle.For this reason, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been charged with interpreting the rule, namely the non bis in idem principle, as regulated in art. 54 CISA.At the present stage of regulation, an interpretation contrary to the non bis in idem principle would be likely to erode the right and affect international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

Can public access to documents support the transparency of automated decision-making? The European Union law perspective

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Automated Decision Making ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Due to the concerns which are raised regarding the impact of automated decision-making (ADM) on transparency and their potential discriminatory character, it is worth examining the possibility of applying legal measures which could serve to increase transparency of ADM systems. The article explores the possibility to consider algorithms used in ADM systems as documents subjected to the right to access documents in European Union (EU) law. It is focused on contrasting and comparing the approach based on the right to access public documents developed by the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) with the approach to the right to access public information as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The analysis shows discrepancies in the perspectives presented by these Courts which result in a limited scope of the right to access public documents in EU law. Pointing out these differences may provide a motivation to clarify the meaning of the right to access information in EU law, the CJEU’s approach remaining as for now incoherent. The article presents the arguments for and ways of bringing together the approaches of the CJEU and the ECtHR in the light of a decreasing level of transparency resulting from the use of ADM in the public sector. It shows that in order to ensure compliance with EU law, it is necessary to rethink the role which the right to access information plays in the human rights catalogue.

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 Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Marguery
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Fiction ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

This article contends that the presumption of mutual trust between the European Union Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, a failure of the latter can have detrimental effects on judicial cooperation and, especially, on the functions of punishment. In particular, mutual recognition and mutual trust create a bridge between the external limits of punishment (fundamental rights) and the internal limits to the functions of punishment (retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation). The non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights undermines the very social functions of punishment. Such a failure can only be prevented if the Member States and the European Union endeavour to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy with concerns for individuals at its very core.

‘Surrendering’ the Fugitive—The European Arrest Warrant and the United Kingdom

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mackarel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

This article explains how the European Arrest Warrant forms part of the response to the modern needs of the European Union in dealing with transnational crime and considers the experience of the UK in implementing and using the warrant. The warrant is the first manifestation of the EU policy of mutual recognition in relation to cooperation in criminal matters and in questioning how effectively the UK has put the warrant into operation under the Extradition Act 2003, the article compares the analyses of the European Commission, Eurojust and the House of Lords. Finally, the approach to interpretation taken by the courts to cases coming before them concerning the warrant under the 2003 Act is examined.

scholarly journals UNION REGULATIONS ON PASSENGER RIGHTS IN CASE OF FLIGHT CANCELLATION, REFUSAL AT BOARDING OR LONG DELAY OF FLIGHTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-36
Author(s):  
ELISE NICOLETA VÂLCU
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
State Level ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Law System ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Goods And Services ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The European Union is a "supranational governance" structured by its well-defined institutions. The decision-making triangle formed by the Commission, the Parliament and the Council legislate in agreement or consultation, covering the whole picture of policies developed at EU level and implemented at Member State level. Among the most important developed policies, it is necessary to mention the freedom of movement of the Union nationals, freedom of movement of goods and services, judicial cooperation in criminal matters, etc. Freedom of movement implies a series of segmental rights, such as the right to temporary or permanent residence, the right to work, to travel and study, etc. The Union law system identifies legal instruments to regulate the rights of passengers traveling within the Union, from the Union to a third country, or arriving in the territory of a Member State irrespective of the type of transport, air, rail, water or road.At present, in the field of air transport we identify Regulation no. 261/2004 on the right to compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of refusal of boarding and cancellation or long delay of flights, which is part of a comprehensive package of legislation aimed at protecting consumers in general across the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document