Assessing mutual trust among EU members: evidence from the European Arrest Warrant

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 656-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif Efrat
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

Mutual Trust, Essence and Federalism – Between Consolidating and Fragmenting the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice after LM

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Wendel
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights

Mutual trust – Essence of EU fundamental rights – Values under Article 2 TEU – Intrinsic link between essence and values – Federalism – LM judgment – Rule of law crisis in Poland – Right to fair trial – Judicial independence – Fundamental right to an independent tribunal – Prohibition on transfers – Obligation to presume compliance with fundamental rights – Condition of ‘systemic deficiencies’ as a federal safeguard – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – European Arrest Warrant – Dublin system

Resisting a European Arrest Warrant: A social rights perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 299-312
Author(s):  
Neža Šubic
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
High Threshold ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
The Social ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article starts from the premise that social rights should be taken seriously in the context of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Historically neglected, social rights have slowly gained recognition as legal entitlements. The article focuses on the protection of social rights – understood here as the rights to an adequate standard of living, healthcare and education – in regard to one aspect of the EAW: resisting its execution due to a real risk of a breach of social rights in detention in the issuing Member State. The social rights–based argument for resisting an EAW is premised on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisprudence on ‘exceptional circumstances’ in which mutual trust can be rebutted, in particular Aranyosi and LM. The article identifies three ways for protecting social rights in the context of resisting an EAW. First, elements of social rights can be protected through resisting an EAW on the basis of a real risk of a breach of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. Second, social rights could be protected by resisting an EAW on the grounds of those non-absolute civil rights that indirectly protect elements of social rights. Third, the option of resisting an EAW by relying directly on social rights is also examined. Taking a social rights perspective expands the type of cases in which an individual can resist surrender due to a risk of facing poor detention conditions; this includes certain situations where the potential breach does not reach the high threshold of the prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment. However, the article concludes that the rigid framework for balancing mutual trust and fundamental rights established by Aranyosi and LM ultimately creates a ceiling for the protection of social rights and prevents them from being fully respected and protected in the context of resisting an EAW.

scholarly journals The Impact on National Sovereignty of Mutual Recognition in the AFSJ. Case-Study of the European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64
Author(s):  
Suzanne Andrea Bloks ◽  
Ton van den Brink
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Dynamic Perspective ◽  
The Impact

AbstractNational sovereignty has been the key consideration for basing judicial cooperation in the European Union on mutual recognition. More than one decade after the creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ), this contribution assesses whether mutual recognition-based EU legislation in civil and criminal law indeed respects national sovereignty. To this end, it studies the Framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the EU’s flagship instrument in the AFSJ. We distinguish two elements of national sovereignty: (a) the protection of the State and its basic structures (its statehood); (b) the State’s values, principles and fundamental rights (its statehood principles), and assess the EAW from a dynamic perspective: from its initial inception, in which mutual trust primarily implied little interferences with the laws and practices of issuing states, to the current state of affairs which is marked by what could be called a ‘mutual trust supported by harmonization’- approach. Especially in the judge-driven harmonization of the EAW and the dialogue between judicial authorities we witness important (and oftentimes overlooked) elements that impact national sovereignty. At the end, the findings of the article are put in the context of the current rule of law crisis in the EU.

scholarly journals The Curious Case of Carles Puigdemont—The European Arrest Warrant as an Inadequate Means with Regard to Political Offenses

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-275
Author(s):  
Julia König ◽  
Paulina Meichelbeck ◽  
Miriam Puchta
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Political Conflicts ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Constitutional Identity

AbstractIn contrast to traditional extradition law, the political offense exemption has been abolished within the framework of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Notwithstanding its overall success, the EAW does not constitute an adequate instrument with regard to political offenses. In light of the recent case of the former Catalan President, Carles Puigdemont, the abolition has proven to be too hasty and the justificatory force behind the principles of mutual trust and recognition is, with respect hereto, rather limited. The damage caused to these principles by upholding the exemption would be negligible, given the small number of cases—Puigdemont being the first political offender requested under the aegis of the EAW. However, the potential benefits are substantial, given that the exemption provides for a higher level of human rights protection—analogous to the values of European Union (EU). Solely relying on the double criminality requirement in order to properly take into account the specificities of the Member States’ legal systems essentially positions the judges at the forefront of where mutual trust and constitutional identity collide. Moreover, the exemption prevents states from intervening in other states’ internal political conflicts, through the medium of criminal law.

Limiting mutual trust on fundamental rights grounds under the European arrest warrant and lessons learned from transfers under Dublin III

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-203
Author(s):  
Fenella M. W. Billing
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Right

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has examined the limitation of the principle of mutual trust in European arrest warrant (EAW) cases in a number of recent decisions. The court has found that when the executing judicial authority possesses information demonstrating that the requested person is at a real risk of violation of the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed in art 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, then the individual should not be automatically surrendered. Instead, the proceedings should be postponed to obtain supplementary information or discontinued if the risk cannot be discounted. The ‘real risk’ test has also been extended to non-absolute rights, such as the right to a fair trial. However, the CJEU’s reasoning about the limitation of mutual trust is not yet fully formed in relation to certain aspects concerning the nature of fundamental rights and the EAW procedure. This article explores these gaps of understanding about the scope of the limitation on mutual trust in surrender cases and, in doing so, assesses the consistency of similar developments in the area of transfers of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation III.

scholarly journals Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: Converging Human Rights Standards, Mutual Trust and a New Ground for Postponing a European Arrest Warrant

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 197-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi
Keyword(s):  
Case Note ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
Critical Overview

This case-note provides a critical overview of Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 ppu, Aranyosi and Căldăraru. The cjeu tries to reconcile the principles of mutual trust and recognition with the protection of the fundamental rights of the requested person. Instead of introducing a new ground of refusal for a European Arrest Warrant based on the breach of fundamental rights, the cjeu opted for a ground of postponement. Furthermore, it brings its two-tier ‘systemic deficiencies’ test closer to the standards used by the ECtHR and encourages dialogue between the issuing and executing judicial authorities. Nevertheless, the scope of application of the new ground of postponement is not entirely clear and it is not yet sure what happens after the executing judicial authority postpones its decision due to evidence of a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the issuing Member State.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document