scholarly journals Constructing Suspicion Through Forensic DNA Databases in the EU. The Views of the Prüm Professionals

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helena Machado ◽  
Rafaela Granja ◽  
Nina Amelung
Keyword(s):  
Data Exchange ◽  
Identification System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transnational Governance ◽  
Forensic Dna ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dna Databases ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This article explores the fluid and flexible forms of constructing suspicion, which take shape in transnational governance of crime through forensic DNA databases. The empirical examples are the views of professionals engaged with the so-called Prüm system. This technological identification system was developed to enable DNA data exchange across EU Member States in the context of police and judicial cooperation to control cross-border crime and terrorism. We argue that suspicion is constructed through forms of deterritorializing and reterritorializing assumptions about criminality linked to the movements of suspect communities across the European Union. Transnational crime management is configured through narratives of global expansion of criminal mobility, technical neutrality of DNA identification and the reliance on criminal categorizations of particular national populations.

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

Can European human rights instruments limit the power of the national state to punish? A tale of two Europes

2020 ◽  
pp. 147737082098035
Author(s):  
Gaëtan Cliquennois ◽  
Sonja Snacken ◽  
Dirk Van Zyl Smit
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
National State ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
And Control ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Eu

The power to punish is traditionally seen as an essential prerogative of the national state. Over the last three decades, judicial and standard-setting bodies of the Council of Europe (CoE) have sought increasingly, at a regional level, to monitor and control the power of European states to punish. In parallel, the European Union (EU) has become an increasingly important penal actor, fostering a common approach to transnational forms of criminality, as well as seeking judicial cooperation between EU member states in order to deal with a wider range of crimes. Little attention has been paid, however, to the interactions, coherence or discrepancies between the CoE’s and the EU’s bodies and policies. Therefore, we analyse the inter-relationship of the CoE and EU penal and prison policies. We focus on the instruments that can be used to limit European states’ powers to punish, but also, particularly in the case of the EU, on countervailing forces resulting from policies conducted in the field of terrorism and from countries hit by populism. Finally, we develop the concept of ‘two Europes’, which encapsulates not only the discrepancies between the approaches adopted by the CoE and the EU towards human rights moderation of European prison and penal policies but also wider penal policy differences between a modern, liberal democratic, humanistic Europe and a nationalistic Europe conducting harsh penal policies, increasing its margin of appreciation and using its sovereignty in order to avoid implementing such blurred policies.

Generating Trust Through Law? Judicial Cooperation in the European Union and the “Principle of Mutual Trust”

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Wischmeyer
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

For a long time, EU institutions have emphasized the connection between one of the most important concepts of the integration method, mutual recognition, and the presence of mutual trust between EU Member States. Only recently, the ECJ reaffirmed in its Opinion 2/13 that mutual trust is at the heart of the EU and a “fundamental premiss” of the European legal structure. But can law really restore, advance or even govern by trust? This question is crucial for the EU of today, which finds itself in the midst of a severe crisis of trust. For the EU as a community “based on the rule of law” generating trust through law might seem the natural, maybe the only politically viable response to a crisis of trust. Nevertheless, even if one agrees that the rule of law requires people to place trust in legal rules, and that courts and administrative agencies need to trust each other in order to work efficiently and consistently, how would legal rules be able to generate or promote trust? Moreover, isn't it deeply rooted in our ideas about constitutional government that democratic law must institutionalize mutual distrust rather than govern by trust? These conceptual and normative objections did not stop the European Union from pursuing the project of trust-building through law in one of the most sensitive areas of EU law, judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters. This Article will ask whether the project to promote trust through law is a promising one, and, eventually, how to reinterpret statutory provisions and legal principles that purport to generate trust amongst their addressees.

scholarly journals Electronic Identification for Universities: Building Cross-Border Services Based on the eIDAS Infrastructure

Information ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 210 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diana Berbecaru ◽  
Antonio Lioy ◽  
Cesare Cameroni
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Access To Services ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Exchange Program ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Electronic Transactions ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The University ◽  
Academic Services ◽  
The Eu

The European Union (EU) Regulation 910/2014 on electronic IDentification, Authentication, and trust Services (eIDAS) for electronic transactions in the internal market went into effect on 29 September 2018, meaning that EU Member States are required to recognize the electronic identities issued in the countries that have notified their eID schemes. Technically speaking, a unified interoperability platform—named eIDAS infrastructure—has been set up to connect the EU countries’ national eID schemes to allow a person to authenticate in their home EU country when getting access to services provided by an eIDAS-enabled Service Provider (SP) in another EU country. The eIDAS infrastructure allows the transfer of authentication requests and responses back and forth between its nodes, transporting basic attributes about a person, e.g., name, surname, date of birth, and a so-called eIDAS identifier. However, to build new eIDAS-enabled services in specific domains, additional attributes are needed. We describe our approach to retrieve and transport new attributes through the eIDAS infrastructure, and we detail their exploitation in a selected set of academic services. First, we describe the definition and the support for the additional attributes in the eIDAS nodes. We then present a solution for their retrieval from our university. Finally, we detail the design, implementation, and installation of two eIDAS-enabled academic services at our university: the eRegistration in the Erasmus student exchange program and the Login facility with national eIDs on the university portal.

Political aspects of security of the European Union Member States

2020 ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Kusztykiewicz-Fedurek
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Security ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Key Aspects ◽  
The Eu

Political security is very often considered through the prism of individual states. In the scholar literature in-depth analyses of this kind of security are rarely encountered in the context of international entities that these countries integrate. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to key aspects of political security in the European Union (EU) Member States. The EU as a supranational organisation, gathering Member States first, ensures the stability of the EU as a whole, and secondly, it ensures that Member States respect common values and principles. Additionally, the EU institutions focus on ensuring the proper functioning of the Eurozone (also called officially “euro area” in EU regulations). Actions that may have a negative impact on the level of the EU’s political security include the boycott of establishing new institutions conducive to the peaceful coexistence and development of states. These threats seem to have a significant impact on the situation in the EU in the face of the proposed (and not accepted by Member States not belonging to the Eurogroup) Eurozone reforms concerning, inter alia, appointment of the Minister of Economy and Finance and the creation of a new institution - the European Monetary Fund.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

TERRITORIAL COHESION POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU REGIONAL SECURITY

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (Vol 18, No 4 (2019)) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Ihor LISHCHYNSKYY
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Sustainable Development ◽  
Regional Security ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cohesion Policy ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Territorial Cohesion ◽  
Interregional Cooperation ◽  
The Eu

The article is devoted to the study of the implementation of territorial cohesion policy in the European Union in order to achieve a secure regional coexistence. In particular, the regulatory and institutional origins of territorial cohesion policy in the EU are considered. The evolution of ontological models of cohesion policy has been outlined. Specifically, the emphasis is placed on the key objective of political geography – effectively combining the need for "territorialization" and the growing importance of networking. The role of urbanization processes in the context of cohesion policy is highlighted. Cross-border dimensions of cohesion policy in the context of interregional cooperation are explored. Particular emphasis is placed on the features of integrated sustainable development strategies.

The Southern Gas Corridor infrastructure project – implications for the energy security of the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-99
Author(s):  
Justyna Misiągiewicz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Energy Security ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Caspian Region ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Energy Field ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Infrastructure Project ◽  
The Eu

Nowadays, energy security is a growing concern in state foreignpolicy. Interdependency in the energy field is a very important dimensionof contemporary relations between states and transnational corporations.Energy security is becoming a key issue for the European Union (EU). TheUnion is one of the world’s fastest-growing energy markets and the biggestimporter of energy resources. For the foreseeable future, Europe’s energydependence will probably increase. Facing a shortage of energy, Europe isdependent on imports and the EU member states need to diversify their energysupplies. The Caspian region contains some of the largest undevelopedoil and gas reserves in the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, thenewly independent Caspian states became open to foreign investment. Thegrowing energy needs have given the EU a strong interest in developing tieswith energy-producing states in the Caspian region to build the necessarypipeline infrastructure. In this analysis, the pipeline infrastructure that exists orwill be built in the near future will be presented. The analysis will concentrateon routes transporting gas from the Caspian region and the most importantproblems and solutions in designing the midstream energy system in the region.The key aim of the article is to analyse the Southern Gas Corridor (SGC)infrastructure project, which will inevitably contribute to the EU’s energy securityinterest.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

scholarly journals Losers together? Grand coalitions in the EU member states

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Marco Morini ◽  
Matthew Loveless
Keyword(s):  
Significant Rise ◽  
Grand Coalition ◽  
Party Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
New Parties ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Political Experience ◽  
Election Results ◽  
Electoral Performance ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Over the last two decades, the formation of grand coalitions has grown in the European Union (EU), even in countries with no previous political experience with them. Alongside a significant rise in both new and radical parties, grand coalitions signal the increasing fragmentation of contemporary European politics. We, therefore, investigate the electoral performance of both mainstream and new parties entering and leaving grand coalitions. We find that mainstream parties do not appear to enter grand coalitions after negative election results. They are, however, punished in the following elections, albeit not as heavily as previous findings have shown. This post-grand coalition electoral penalty is true for both major and minor grand coalition members. These findings contribute to the literature on party competition and provide insights into the choices mainstream parties' have been making in response to recent and rapid changes in the electoral landscape of the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document