15. Justice and Home Affairs

Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex

This chapter examines the European Union’s justice and home affairs (JHA), which have evolved from a peripheral aspect into a focal point of European integration and today are at the centre of politicization in the EU. It first considers the institutionalization of JHA cooperation and its gradual move towards more supranational competences before discussing political contestation as expressed in the context of Brexit and the crisis of the common asylum and Schengen systems. The development of cooperation is retraced, looking at the main actors in the JHA, the organization and capacities of EU institutions, the continuity of intergovernmentalism, the proliferation of semi-autonomous agencies and databases, and the flow of policy, taking into account asylum policy and immigration policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the challenge of implementation. The chapter shows how the gradual move of cooperation among national agencies concerned with combating crime; fighting terrorism; and managing borders, immigration, and asylum from loose intergovernmental cooperation to more supranational governance within the EU has remained contested, and argues that this contestation exemplifies the limits of political unification.

Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex

This chapter examines the European Union’s justice and home affairs (JHA), which have evolved from a peripheral aspect into a focal point of European integration. It first considers the institutionalization of JHA cooperation, focusing on the Treaty of Lisbon which constitutes a milestone in the communitarization process, before discussing the main actors in the JHA. In particular, it looks at the organization and capacities of EU institutions, the continuity of intergovernmentalism, and the proliferation of semi-autonomous agencies and databases. It also explores the flow of policy, taking into account asylum policy and immigration policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the challenge of implementation. The chapter shows how cooperation among national agencies concerned with combating crime, fighting terrorism, and managing borders, immigration and asylum has gradually moved from loose intergovernmental cooperation to more supranational governance within the EU.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
André S. Berne ◽  
Jelena Ceranic Perisic ◽  
Viorel Cibotaru ◽  
Alex de Ruyter ◽  
Ivana Kunda ◽  
...  

Crises are not a new phenomenon in the context of European integration. Additional integration steps could often only be achieved under the pressure of crises.  At present, however, the EU is characterised by multiple crises, so that the integration process as a whole is sometimes being questioned. In 2015, the crisis in the eurozone had escalated to such an extent that for the first time a member state was threatened to leave the eurozone. Furthermore, the massive influx of refugees into the EU has revealed the shortcomings of the Schengen area and the common asylum policy. Finally, with the majority vote of the British in the referendum of 23 June 2016 in favour of the Brexit, the withdrawal of a member state became a reality for the first time. Even in the words of the European Commission, the EU has reached a crossroads. Against this background, the twelfth Network Europe conference included talks on the numerous challenges and future integration scenarios in Europe. 


2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Mar Fernández

AbstractIn recent years there has been increasing interest in the literature regarding the changes that European integration has meant for the external administration of the member states. This article seeks to contribute to this study through analysis of an area that has received little attention until now: the Europeanization of consular affairs in the field of visa issuance. The article analyses the common visa policy and discusses its consequences for member states' management of overseas consular affairs. The main conclusion reached is that this policy has been a catalyst for change in the working of consular services, which have become part of networks of intergovernmental cooperation and have been progressively informed by Community norms and procedures. However, it would be premature to say that this process of change is paving the way for the emergence of a European consular administrative sphere. For the moment, the integrated management of consular affairs in the field of visas continues to be a mainly state-controlled process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Satzger

In 1999, mutual recognition was declared to be the cornerstone of judicial cooperation not only, but also in criminal matters within the European Union (EU). Often this method seems to be regarded as a result of the close European integration and thus an invention of the EU. This article tries to show that even in traditional judicial assistance cases a similar trend could be witnessed and that mutual recognition is also applied – to a more or less intensive degree – in other regions and also in other areas of the law. In the author’s view, mutual recognition is a dynamic concept; its potential degree of realization depends on a number of contextual preconditions. As a result of the comparative view, he maintains that an ‘ordre public-proviso’ is a necessary ‘outlet’ and not at all outdated, especially in the context of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU.


Author(s):  
Juan Fernando López Aguilar

El proceso europeo de aproximación y/o armonización legislativa en materia penal y procesal penal arrancó en tiempo reciente: de hecho, hasta hace bien poco parecía un ejercicio de voluntarista wishful thinking, en la medida en que impactaba sobre un ámbito preservado a la idea tradicional de soberanía de los Estados. La incorporación de la legislación penal y la cooperación judicial penal al ámbito definitivo de la política europea es ejemplificativa de la construcción europea en espacios históricamente monopolizados por los legisladores nacionales. En efecto, en este ámbito se han superado en poco tiempo las limitaciones de la cooperación intergubernamental en el III Pilar que emergió con la entrada en vigor del TUE de 1992, tras su conversión en Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia en el posterior Tratado de Ámsterdam de 1999. En este marco se adoptaron importantes Decisiones Marco (DM) que dieron pasos significativos en el ámbito de la cooperación judicial, mediante la implementación de medidas específicamente orientadas a la seguridad europea contra la criminalidad grave transfronteriza por la vía de la cooperación judicial en materia penal. La conversión del Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia en una genuina política europea sujeta al procedimiento legislativo ordinario (con especialidades) tras el Tratado de Lisboa de 2009, junto a la proyección de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE (en especial, de los principios de seguridad jurídica, de «proporcionalidad» y de «necesidad» y/o «subsidiariedad» en la articulación y aplicación de la legalidad penal) son ahora en efecto, la expresión más rotunda de la ambición política y de la dimensión constitucional de la UE. En paralelo a la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, el Programa de Estocolmo, adoptado en diciembre 2009, estableció la conversión del antiguo acervo del III Pilar en una nueva y genuina política europea sujeta, por tanto, en lo sucesivo, al Derecho europeo. Los desarrollos futuros de los principios de primacía, eficacia directa, interpretación uniforme, seguridad jurídica y garantía jurisdiccional de los derechos de la ciudadanía, en el marco de las legislaciones internas en los EEMM de los que siguen siendo competentes los Parlamentos nacionales, requerirán un ejercicio intensivo de clarificación judicial por vía interpretativa, y por tanto, exigirá poner particular énfasis en la formación judicial, y del conjunto de las profesiones jurídicas, en la comprensión y manejo del Derecho europeo.The European approximation and/or harmonization in both criminal matters and criminal procedure legislation got started not so long ago: As a matter of fact, until recently, it all seemed a voluntary exercise of wishful thinking, in as much as it was making on a field so far preserved within the traditional realm of States’ sovereignty. The final incorporation of criminal law and criminal judicial cooperation to the sphere of European policy is an outstanding example of the european construction towards areas and competences that had been historically monopolised by national legislators. Indeed, the limitations in this matter of the intergovernmental cooperation in the Third Pillar that emerged with the entry into force of the TEU in 1992, after its conversion into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the subsequent Treaty Amsterdam 1999, have been just recently overcome. Accordingly, some most important Framework Decisions (FD) meaning significant steps in the area of judicial cooperation were taken, through the implementation of specific measures on European security against serious cross-border crime by means of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The conversion of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is a genuine European policy subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (with some specialties) after the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, together with the projection of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (i.e., of the principles of legal certainty, of «proportionality» and «necessity» and/or «subsidiarity» in the articulation and application of criminal law) are now, in fact, the most visible expression of the EU’s political ambition and constitutional dimension.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199492
Author(s):  
Catherine Van de Heyning

The submission discusses the provisions in the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement on data protection as well as the consequences for the exchange of passenger name record data in the field of criminal and judicial cooperation. The author concludes that the impact of the Agreement will depend on the resolvement of the United Kingdom to uphold the standards of protection of personal data equivalent to the EU’s in order to reach an adequacy decision.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-137
Author(s):  
Elodie Sellier

This article examines the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty (LT) in the overall institutional architecture of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), alongside their impact on the operation of the internal–external nexus in counterterrorism (CT) policies. It argues that the inclusion of CFSP actors in the making and implementation process of CT policies eased the legal, institutional and policy boundaries between the CFSP and the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). This is despite the specific status granted to the CFSP in the Treaties, the former remaining subject to intergovernmental procedures and unanimity in decision-making, even after the strides towards the ‘communautarization’ of policies achieved by the LT, in Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in particular. Central to the analysis is the interplay and division of competences between ‘new’ CFSP actors endowed with a coherence mandate, such as the European External Action Service and the upgraded office of High Representative, and ‘old’, pre-Lisbon, CT actors, JHA structures and member states in particular. This article finds that the involvement of the CFSP and more particularly its defence component, that is, the Common Defence and Security Policy, to realize CT objectives ‘affected’ the very content of foreign and security policies and heralded a process of ‘judiciarization’ of CSDP missions deployed in third countries resulting from the integration of criminal justice and law components in their mandate. The article concludes that the ensuing blurring of frontiers between the realms of CSDP and JHA raises fundamental rights concerns as to the judicial remedies available to individuals suspected or accused of terrorist activities.


2020 ◽  
pp. 46-53
Author(s):  
Yuri Borko ◽  

The first part of the article shows that in the mid-1960s some Soviet researchers of the European integration problems concluded that integration did not correspond to the Leninist-Stalinist theory of the general crisis of capitalism. On the contrary, it corresponded to some Western concepts of the custom union, the common market, and economic integration. A new approach to the European integration studies was offered by the Institute of World Economy and International Relation (IMEMO), established in 1956. For many decades IMEMO was serving as the focal point for the European integration studies, and was providing the Soviet leadership with analytical information. The number of inquiries from authorities increased significantly. Firstly, it can be explained by the achievements of integration. Secondly, it was due to the growth of economic cooperation between the USSR and the EEC. Thirdly, Moscow defined new foreign policy priorities towards Western countries including Europe. There were two turning-points of bilateral relations: with France – in 1966, and with Germany – in 1969. The Organization for security and cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was established during final session of the top-level Conference of European States in Helsinki in August 1975. Fourthly, experience of the EEC was relevant for the COMECON


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document