scholarly journals TOWARDS MINIMUM PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES FOR THE DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE EU

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1017-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens van Puyenbroeck ◽  
Gert Vermeulen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Democratic Rule ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Eu

A critical observer would not deny that the practice of European Union (‘EU’) policy making in the field of criminal law in the past decade since the implementation of the Tampere Programme has been mainly repressive and prosecution-oriented.1 The idea of introducing a set of common (minimum) rules, guaranteeing the rights of defence at a EU-wide level, has not been accorded the same attention as the introduction of instruments aimed at improving the effectiveness of crime-fighting. What does this mean for the future of EU criminal policy? Will the EU succeed in the coming years in developing an area where freedom, security and justice are truly balanced? According to several authors, to date the EU has evolved in the opposite direction. As one observer put it:[I]f Procedural Criminal Law arises from the application of Constitutional Law, or indeed if it may be described as “a seismograph of the constitutional system of a State”, then as a consequence the Procedural Criminal Law of the European Union shows the extent of the Democratic Rule of Law, of the existence of a true “Rechtsstaat”, within an integrated Europe. This situation may be qualified as lamentable, as the main plank of the EU's criminal justice policy relates to the simplification and the speeding up of police and judicial cooperation—articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty of the EU—but without at the same time setting an acceptable standard for fundamental rights throughout a united Europe.2

scholarly journals The position of youth justice in EU criminal law: No game for kids

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-160
Author(s):  
Jantien Leenknecht ◽  
Johan Put
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthen and facilitate judicial cooperation over the years but does not clearly nor uniformly define the concepts of ‘criminal matters’, ‘criminal proceedings’, ‘criminal responsibility’ and so on in any of the cooperation instruments themselves. It is however important to know as to what the EU understands by the notion ‘criminal’ because Member States have developed specific rules in response to delinquent behaviour of minors, which are somewhat different from ‘general’ criminal law. The question arises whether the existing cooperation mechanisms only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. This article therefore aims to find out whether a consistent and shared view exists on the meaning of the concept ‘criminal’ and to subsequently clarify to what extent the existing EU instruments in criminal matters also apply to juvenile offenders.

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

As human rights have increasingly gained importance at the European Union level, this article examines the remaining scope of human rights protection under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While some international human rights instruments remain applicable, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union did not become part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The consequences, especially the inapplicability of the internationalised ne bis in idem principle, are analysed. Furthermore, the conditionality of the TCA in general as well as the specific conditionality for judicial cooperation in criminal matters are discussed. In this context, the risk that cooperation may cease at any moment if any Member State or the UK leave the European Convention of Human Rights is highlighted. Lastly, the authors raise the problem of the lack of judicial review, as the Court of Justice of the European Union is no longer competent.

The “Struggle” to Dissolve the Kosovo Specialist Chambers in The Hague: Stuck between Constitutional Text and Mission to Pursue Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 548-575
Author(s):  
Avni Puka ◽  
Fisnik Korenica
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Kosovo Specialist Chambers (KSC) manifest the first effort of the European Union to participate in an international criminal law project by running a hybrid criminal tribunal, vested with jurisdiction to investigate the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Marty Report. The KSC is entrusted with a mandate originating in a number of legal instruments. A “termination clause” is also present in the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. The Specialist Constitutional Chamber has recently ruled on an amendment discreetly activating the termination of the KSC. The Chamber’s decision outlawing “the amendment” manifests an attempt to reinforce the constitutive nature of the EU’s proprietorship over the KSC, attaching to it an international personality detached from that of Kosovo. The decision contends that the “power to dissolve” the KSC is basically vested with the EU, and Kosovo’s internal law cannot affect that relationship unilaterally. The article argues that the strong adherence of the Chamber’s decision on fundamental rights is an attempt to expose the victim-rights-centered mission of the KSC, clearly leaning towards a legitimacy rather than a legalistic exercise. The article concludes that the decision will have ample effect on the EU’s responsibility over the KSC, the nature of the “power to dissolve”, and the KSC’s mission in the European fundamental rights landscape in general.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Losy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.

scholarly journals The Relationship between EU Law and Fundamental Principles of Estonian Substantive Criminal Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 174-182
Author(s):  
Kaie Rosin
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

Although the EU lacks explicit competence to harmonise national principles of criminal law, there are many ways in which EU law and national criminal law are interconnected on a level deeper than mere minimum standards adopted from directives. The article analyses these intersections between EU law and fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law, explaining how the principles of criminal law recognised and interpreted in the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU and covered by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union exhibit the capacity to affect fundamental principles of Estonian substantive criminal law. The article focuses on five principles specific to substantive criminal law, which are derived from the fundamental principles of the Estonian Constitution and have equivalents in human-rights law: the principle of legality of criminal law, the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law, proportionality, ultima ratio, and the principle of individual guilt. The analysis demonstrates that the relationship between EU law and the various principles of substantive criminal law is not uniform because the principles of substantive criminal law are not developed evenly at European Union level.

scholarly journals Ściganie karne w Unii Europejskiej przed i po Traktacie z Lizbony – wybrane zagadnienia

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Toruński ◽  
Filip Gołba
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Legislative Activities ◽  
Criminal Matters

Current legislative activity of the European Union performed under Title V, Chapter 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: “Judicial cooperation in criminal matters” is part of a wider process of internationalisation of criminal law. It shows a paradigm shift of this branch of law, which until now has, fi rst and foremost, been a product of national legal systems. The article discusses selected issues concerning the regulation of criminal prosecution under European Union law. Due to the fact that the present shape of this regulation is the result of a long process of numerous legislative activities as well as various non-legislative forms of international cooperation, the article is not limited to the discussion of the current state of the criminal prosecution in the EU, but takes into account the historical emergence of various institutions, both before and after the establishment of the European Union. Its fi rst part presents the historical development of instruments designed to cope with crime, which the European Community and then the European Union had at their disposal. This part has two objectives: to describe the diffi culties encountered when the fi rst attempts to coordinate the fi ght against crime at the European level were undertaken and to show the signifi cance of the progress that has been made in this area in recent years. After that, selected issues concerning the harmonisation of rules governing the procedural rights of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings are discussed. The issue of minimum standards relating to penalties is also raised. The concluding part of the article assesses, whether the path of internationalization of criminal law chosen by the Member States in the post-Lisbon reality is justifi ed.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual Trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 468-495
Author(s):  
Auke Willems
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Eu

AbstractMore than any other EU institution, the Court of Justice of the European Union has upheld the presumption of mutual trust in EU criminal law cooperation. Surprisingly though, despite mutual trust’s centrality in the Court’s jurisprudence, it has long not qualified nor properly elaborated the notion of trust, but rather held on to its presumed existence based on a high level of fundamental rights protection throughout the Union. This article will assess the important role of the Court in establishing, upholding and ultimately qualifying the trust presumption in the EU criminal justice context. Along the lines of a number of key cases, the narrative of a strong defence of (the presumption of) mutual trust appears, but also of an evolution toward more room for rebuttal in recent cases. This signals the increased weight given to fundamental rights protection in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Instrument of Mobilization or a Bridge towards Understanding? Religion and Values in the Reform Process of the European Union

2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christof Mandry
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Political Identity ◽  
Fundamental Question ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Self ◽  
Reform Process ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe self-understanding of the Europeans has been profoundly put into question since 1989, and during the EU reform process, 'Europe' was confronted by the task of describing itself anew. In this context, the debate about the significance of the religious patrimony took on a key position in the discourse. The broad public discussions of the preambles to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union (ECT) indicate that the relationship between religion and political remains a controversial issue. The article argues that the 'preamble disputes' are part and parcel of the European Union's quest for a political identity and that the outcome of the identity debate—the self-description as a 'community of values'—deals in a specific way with this fundamental question.

scholarly journals The European Union and the Search for an International Data Protection Framework

2014 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Kuner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Data ◽  
Data Protection Law ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
Global Data ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) has supported the growing calls for the creation of an international legal framework to safeguard data protection rights. At the same time, it has worked to spread its data protection law to other regions, and recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have reaffirmed the autonomous nature of EU law and the primacy of EU fundamental rights law. The tension between initiatives to create a global data protection framework and the assertion of EU data protection law raises questions about how the EU can best promote data protection on a global level, and about the EU’s responsibilities to third countries that have adopted its system of data protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document