scholarly journals Are Alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant Underused? The Case for an Integrative Approach to Judicial Cooperation Mechanisms in the EU Criminal Justice Area

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-101
Author(s):  
Jannemieke Ouwerkerk
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Integrative Approach ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

Hard Way from Extradition to European Arrest Warrant

2010 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
O. Potyomkina
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
The Eu

The article is referred to a hard way of the European Arrest Warrant adoption, which became the first tool in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal cases having embodied the judicial decisions mutual recognition principle. The foundation of a single European Arrest Warrant with due regard to all existing problems of its appliance is a significant breakthrough in the EU states cooperation, given that it forces them to rely on each other's legislation. The European Warrant was designed to efface national boundaries in the sphere of court cooperation, to establish a "freedom of movement" and a single market of judicial decisions.

Implementation of European Arrest Warrant in Croatia: A Risk for the Functioning of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the eu?

2015 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomislav Sokol
Keyword(s):  
Public Attention ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Croatian accession to the eu included the implementation of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. The way Croatia implemented the eaw Framework Decision, however, has resulted in controversies and public attention, both in Croatia and other Member States, revealing many problems within the system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu. The aim of the paper is to investigate the implementation of the eaw Framework Decision within Croatia; to determine whether the manner in which the said Member State has carried out the implementation has highlighted a risk for the functioning of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the eu; and which legal measures should be used in order to prevent disintegration of the cooperation from happening. Several legal measures are proposed, both on the national and the European level, to prevent the risk of further undermining the system of judicial cooperation within the eu. These measures are presented within the context of several overarching legal principles like (providing clearer definition of the notion of) non-verification of double criminality and protection of legal interests of the Member States issuing the European Arrest Warrant.

scholarly journals The Perils of the ‘Europeanisation’ of Extradition Procedures in the EU Mutuality, Fundamental Rights and Constitutional Guarantees

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-200
Author(s):  
Theodore Konstadinides
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Treaty ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

This article focuses on the main problems regarding the current application of EU extradition procedures in relation to the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It introduces the ‘Europeanisation’ of extradition procedures through a discussion based on the continuity of the principle of mutual recognition from the EC Treaties to the EU Constitutional Treaty. The latest manifestation of this continuity is the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant (adopted on 13 June 2002) that is aimed at simplifying the extradition procedures for suspected criminals within the territory of the European Union by creating a positive list of criminal areas. The author discusses the innovations introduced by the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (abolition of the test of dual criminality) and then focuses on two main problem areas based on the reaction of certain Member States: i) the compatibility with constitutional guarantees, where the author focuses on the eagerness of the national courts to contest the constitutionality of the EU Arrest Warrant implementation laws for authorising the extradition of their own nationals; ii) the compatibility with Human Rights, where the author argues that the principle of mutual recognition is not adequate for adjudicating interstate criminal cases when it operates in isolation. The article then focuses upon the balance between procedural efficiency and civil liberties and proposes certain procedural and institutional checks that would assist in moving from the current embryonic stage of EU criminal law to its adolescence.

Extradition under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199558
Author(s):  
Edward Grange ◽  
Ben Keith ◽  
Sophia Kerridge
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

When the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) was reached between the UK and the EU on 24 December 2020, it gave extradition practitioners only a few days to identify what, if anything, would remain from the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system before it came into force on 1 January 2021. The article starts by setting out how the EAW was implemented in the UK prior to 1 January 2021, before turning to the TCA itself and what it means for extradition or ‘surrender’ between EU member states and the UK. In short, the EAW system no longer applies. The authors set out how the TCA provides a degree of continuity, now under the watchful eye of the UK–EU ‘Specialised Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation’. There are notable departures from the EAW system however, in both practical and legal terms, that open the door to increased scrutiny of extradition requests. The authors explore the impact these changes may have on the future of extradition with the EU27, to or from the UK.

Safeguarding Suspects' Rights in Europe

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-665 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline S. Hodgson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Incremental Approach ◽  
Defense Lawyer ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Eu

This article analyses the protection of suspects’ rights within the relatively new sphere of EU criminal justice. It evaluates both EU and ECHR protections through the lens of comparative criminal justice, emphasizing the importance of understanding the ways that safeguards for suspects operate in practice across different jurisdictions. By linking together analysis of ECHR fair trial guarantees, EU measures to strengthen police and judicial cooperation, and comparative insights into the function of the defense lawyer, it brings a new perspective to the discussion of how best to protect suspects subject to EU cooperation measures. It challenges the effectiveness of mutual trust and recognition, which is the principle underpinning EU criminal justice cooperation, and which assumes ECHR compliance across Member States. In addition to uneven compliance and enforcement, ECHR protections lack the detail and prescriptive qualities required to protect adequately suspects subject to new EU measures for extradition and evidence sharing. Differences in criminal procedural tradition have made difficult any agreement on universal safeguards for suspects at the EU level, but the EU's new incremental approach to defense rights through the Roadmap and recent ECtHR caselaw have altered the legal landscape, giving cause for optimism.

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.

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.

Wpływ Brexitu na współpracę sądową w sprawach karnych w Unii Europejskiej

2020 ◽  
pp. 35-56
Author(s):  
Anastazja Gajda
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Unique Position ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Criminal Matters

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is one of the main challenges for the continued functioning of the European judicial area in criminal matters. In this article, special attention will be paid to selected aspects of ensuring further judicial cooperation in criminal matters after Brexit. This primarily concerns the possibility of further participation of the United Kingdom in specific organs supporting this cooperation (Eurojust and Europol) and the the application of legal instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, with reference to the flagship legal instrument, i.e. the European arrest warrant. It also presents a unique position of the United Kingdom in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice EU, which that state is guaranteed under the provisions of Treaties.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document