scholarly journals The Carles Puigdemont Case: Europe's Criminal Law in the Crisis of Confidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1349-1358
Author(s):  
Stefan Braum
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Criminal Law

AbstractThe case of Carles Puigdemont underlines that European criminal law is in a crisis of confidence. The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein has rejected a Spanish European arrest warrant for the criminal offence of rebellion because it lacks double criminality. It applied German law de lege artis without, however, questioning the European legal framework. The case would have provided an opportunity to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in order to further specify the European law criteria of double criminality. This would have been the adequate legal response to a politically explosive case. In the end, the Spanish judiciary sees itself disavowed and the system of the European arrest warrant called into question.

The Taricco saga

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11
Author(s):  
Stefano Manacorda
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
European Criminal Law

On 8 September 2015, a new chapter opened in the history of European Criminal Law as a consequence of the judgment issued by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice in the Taricco case. As a background hereto, the complex series of judicial decisions that have taken place must be recalled, by stressing the role played – among others – by the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice (I). On such a basis, a comparative overview will allow us to identify some of the essential legal dilemmas at stake by focusing on the different conceptions surrounding the legal regime of time limitation for criminal offences and the wider implications arising therefrom (II). Apart from the divergence of perspectives which arises between the Italian and European judges, the judicial saga represents a turn in the history of the so-called European Criminal Law which deserves to be analysed.

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 Fulfillment of the Conditions of Law no. 302/2004 on the European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Nicolae Silviu Pana
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Measure ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework “Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did”. Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: “from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure” (European Court of Justice, 2016).

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

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.

scholarly journals 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

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.

scholarly journals GUARANTEE OF THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND OF THE RIGHT NOT TO CONTRIBUTE TO ONE’S OWN INCRIMINATION IN ROMANIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (83) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Carmen Adriana Domocos
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right

The Romanian legislation establishes in the new penal procedure law the right to silence and the right of non-incrimination of the defendant in the criminal trial.The right to silence (to remain silent) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to which judicial authorities cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect or a defendant to make statements, while having, however, a limited power to draw conclusions against them, from their refusal to make statements.Therefore, the right to silence involves not only the right not to testify against oneself, but also the right of the suspect or defendant not to incriminate oneself. The suspect or defendant cannot be compelled to assist in the production of evidence and cannot be sanctioned for failing to provide certain documents or other evidence. Obligation to testify against personal will, under the constraint of a fine or any other form of coercion constitutes an interference with the negative aspect of the right to freedom of expression which must be necessary in a democratic Romanian society.The right not to contribute to one’s own incrimination (the privilege against self-incrimination) is the implicit procedural guarantee of the right to a fair trial, which results from the case law of the European Court of Justice within the meaning of Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention, according to which judicial bodies or any other state authority cannot oblige a perpetrator (suspected of having committed a criminal offence), a suspect, a defendant or a witness to cooperate by providing evidence which might incriminate him or which could constitute the basis for a new criminal charge. It is essential to clarify certain issues as far as this right is concerned.

The Practices of ‘Splitting’ and ‘Common Accord’ Under Scrutiny: the European Parliament‘s Request for an Opinion of the European Court of Justice on the Istanbul Convention

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 472-486
Author(s):  
Elizaveta Samoilova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Forms Of Violence ◽  
Istanbul Convention ◽  
The Eu

Abstract With all eyes on the recent global COVID-19 pandemic, another pandemic has been growing in the shadows: violence against women. The Council of Europe’s Istanbul Convention creates a legal framework in order to protect women against all forms of violence. Its ratification process, however, has faced considerable challenges, particularly in the Central and Eastern European Member States. This article discusses the basic elements of the Istanbul Convention, reflects on the ratification process in the EU and its Member States, and sets out the main legal issues raised in the European Parliament’s request for an opinion (A-1/19 of 22 November 2019) to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Special focus is put on the choice of the correct EU legal basis and the practices of ‘splitting’ and ‘common accord’. This article argues that the European Parliament’s request for an opinion provides the perfect opportunity for the Court of Justice of the European Union to further clarify the law and the practice of concluding mixed agreements by the EU and its Member States.

European Court of Justice Upholds German Electricity Pricing Scheme

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (7) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Renewable Resources ◽  
German Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Electricity Pricing ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
German Government ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Pricing Scheme

A German law known as the Stromeinspeisungsgesetz (Law on feeding electricity from renewable resources into the public grid) requires producers of electricity to purchase (at a fixed, minimum price) and pass along to electricity distributors energy produced from renewable resources in the producer's area of service. (Bundesgesetzblatt (BGBl. [Register of German Federal Law] 1990 I, p. 2633). As required by Article 88 of the Consolidated EC Treaty, the German government notified the Commission of the European Communities of the law's state aid provisions in 1990, and received authorization for those provisions from the Commission. The Commission concluded that the law was consistent with the energy policy aims of the European Communities and that its impact on the industry would be slight.

Opting in and Opting Out: Doing the Hokey Cokey with EU Policing and Judicial Cooperation

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 543-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole McCartney
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Vehicle Registration ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dna Profiles

Policing and judicial cooperation across international borders is now an expectation, and within the EU, is often mandated, but the desirability of criminal justice cooperation between EU Member States and the UK is now debated. This article examines recent UK political interventions in the field of EU criminal law. This has focused upon the so-called ‘block opt-out’ decision whereupon the UK government has to choose whether to ‘opt out’ en masse of all unamended policing and criminal law instruments entered into prior to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty (under Article 10(1) of Protocol 36). The article will look in particular at two EU instruments central to the ongoing and future development of EU policing and judicial cooperation: the European Arrest Warrant and the exchange of forensic DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration details under the Prüm Treaty. While the UK government is asserting (at the time of writing) that it is to opt back ‘in’ to the European Arrest Warrant, it is refraining from opting back in (so remaining ‘out’) of the Prüm Treaty. Examining the rationales for the use of the opt-out, and the decisions in respect of each of these instruments, the article will ask whether the choice to ‘opt out’ can be reconciled with the aspiration of securing an EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, and whether it is appropriate that the UK should be doing the ‘hokey cokey’ with EU policing and judicial cooperation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document