The European Commission’s e-Evidence Proposal – Critical Remarks and Proposals for Changes

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-353
Author(s):  
Maciej Rogalski
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Production Orders ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
European Production ◽  
The Eu

Abstract In response to problems that exist in practice pertaining to how law enforcement authorities in European Union Member States can obtain electronic evidence concerning the commission of a crime, on 17 April 2018 a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on European Production and Preservation Orders for electronic evidence in criminal matters (COM(2018) 225 final, 2018/0108 (cod)) was published. The proposal contains a series of new solutions aimed at speeding up and facilitating cooperation within the EU on obtaining electronic evidence in criminal matters. It is worth examining how the specific solutions accepted and the way they have been formulated may affect the fundamental rights of participants in criminal proceedings, particularly when that impact may be adverse. From this perspective, a detailed analysis is made of what entities will be authorised to issue European Production Orders, in relation to what kinds of electronic evidence, and under what conditions.

Independence: In or Out of Europe? An Independent Scotland and the European Union

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Happold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
National Governments ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

There is a question mark over the future of the nation-state in Europe. National monetary policy has been transferred to the European level in most European Union member States. Over the next ten years the EU will have a stronger role in defence and foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement. The very policies that supposedly define the concept of national sovereignty are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments.

scholarly journals Wzmocnienie praw procesowych jednostki w postępowaniu karnym w Unii Europejskiej - propozycje Komisji Europejskiej z listopada 2013 r.

2015 ◽  
pp. 103-139
Author(s):  
Anastazja Gajda
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Legal Regulations ◽  
Legal Aid ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The aim of the study is to present the proposals of legal regulations presented by the European Commission in one of the fields of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (JHA), i.e. within the framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Commission’s proposals aim at strengthening of the rights of suspects/defendants in criminal proceedings in the EU. They consist of the right to a fair trial and include: strengthening of the presumption of innocence principle and the right to be present at the trial, special safeguards for children suspected or accused of a crime and the right to provisional legal aid for citizens suspected or accused of a crime. In the paper I analysed the most important provisions of the projects and showed that these proposals are intended to ensure the protection of fundamental rights within the JHA.

scholarly journals A leading role for the EU in drafting criminal law powers? Use of the Council of Europe for policy laundering

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-106
Author(s):  
Paul De Hert ◽  
Angela Aguinaldo
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Electronic Evidence ◽  
Production Orders ◽  
The Eu

In light of the ongoing story on the regulatory steps towards electronic evidence and transnational production orders, civil rights organizations have expressed both alarm and astonishment on the regulatory initiatives in the Council of Europe regarding transnational production orders. Member states of the European Union (EU) engage actively in soft law entrepreneurship by allowing themselves to obtain directly from service providers subscriber and other communications content. This has not only been done domestically through national laws but likewise on a multilateral level as EU member states are now seen drawn towards the Council of Europe. Within said Council of Europe, member states are now enabled to stretch the extraterritorial powers exercised by their law enforcement authorities in obtaining electronic evidence through a controversial Guidance Note and soon, a Second Additional Protocol. Interestingly, throughout these developments, the EU remained passive but as of late, has come up with proposals for the European Production and Preservation Orders, among others. The mixture of alarm and astonishment among civil liberties representatives about the decision making procedures at the level of the Council of Europe can be best understood in a broader regulatory context of policy enterpreneurship, rent-seeking behaviour and, overall, rational choice institutionalism. Comparing the Council of Europe with the EU, the structure of the former makes it the more attractive venue for policy actors such as law enforcement authorities to maximize their benefits at the least amount of costs. Being competitors in policymaking vis-à-vis cooperation in criminal matters, the EU can however lose its sociopolitical ascendancy over time as an institutional venue to discuss cooperation matters. In light of this, one should not forget that two Europes coexist. These coexisting realities are now being used to the advantage of laundering policies, testing which forum would maximize benefits the most. These developments should caution us that there might be a systemic failure in ensuring safeguards in criminal investigations are always in place.

scholarly journals A Cross-Country Measurement of the EU Bioeconomy: An Input–Output Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3033
Author(s):  
Kutay Cingiz ◽  
Hugo Gonzalez-Hermoso ◽  
Wim Heijman ◽  
Justus H. H. Wesseler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Financial Crisis ◽  
Union Member ◽  
National Income ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Input Output ◽  
Income Share ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

This paper measures the development of the national income share of the bioeconomy for 28 European Union Member States (MS) and 16 industries of BioMonitor scope from 2005 to 2015. The paper proposes a model which includes the up- and downstream linkages using Input-Output tables. The results show that for the majority of the MS the value added of the up- and downstream sector is at the band of 40%–50% of the total bioeconomy value added and has on average increased since the financial crisis.

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

scholarly journals TOWARDS MINIMUM PROCEDURAL GUARANTEES FOR THE DEFENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE EU

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1017-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens van Puyenbroeck ◽  
Gert Vermeulen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Democratic Rule ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
The Eu

A critical observer would not deny that the practice of European Union (‘EU’) policy making in the field of criminal law in the past decade since the implementation of the Tampere Programme has been mainly repressive and prosecution-oriented.1 The idea of introducing a set of common (minimum) rules, guaranteeing the rights of defence at a EU-wide level, has not been accorded the same attention as the introduction of instruments aimed at improving the effectiveness of crime-fighting. What does this mean for the future of EU criminal policy? Will the EU succeed in the coming years in developing an area where freedom, security and justice are truly balanced? According to several authors, to date the EU has evolved in the opposite direction. As one observer put it:[I]f Procedural Criminal Law arises from the application of Constitutional Law, or indeed if it may be described as “a seismograph of the constitutional system of a State”, then as a consequence the Procedural Criminal Law of the European Union shows the extent of the Democratic Rule of Law, of the existence of a true “Rechtsstaat”, within an integrated Europe. This situation may be qualified as lamentable, as the main plank of the EU's criminal justice policy relates to the simplification and the speeding up of police and judicial cooperation—articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty of the EU—but without at the same time setting an acceptable standard for fundamental rights throughout a united Europe.2

scholarly journals Russian-German initiative tackles infectious diseases

2007 ◽  
Vol 12 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
Collective Editorial team
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Infectious Diseases ◽  
Member State ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Member States ◽  
Transnational Cooperation ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

Transnational cooperation is often essential when dealing with infectious diseases, and one challenge facing European Union Member States is finding ways to collaborate with partners outside the EU. An example of one Member State doing just this is the Koch-Metschnikow-Forum (KMF).

Comparison of Regulatory Requirements for Pharmaceuticals in Non- European Union Member States Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-44
Author(s):  
Shivani Jani ◽  
Nilesh Patel ◽  
Urvi Chotaliya ◽  
Ashok Patel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Member States ◽  
Registration Process ◽  
Eu Membership ◽  
Regulatory Guidelines ◽  
Small Countries ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

Background: Literature review suggested that regulatory guidelines should be harmonized for better processing of applications and for the upliftment of the regulatory field. Therefore it was thought worthwhile to compare the guidelines for countries where there is requirement of harmonization. Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia were selected because of being European countries and still they are not a part of EU. Introduction: Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia are small countries of Europe but they are not members of European Union. They have their own guidelines for the submission of MAA for marketing of pharmaceuticals and medical devices. They are trying to obtain the EU membership and therefore it was worthwhile to compare the guidelines of these countries. Method: The registration process of pharmaceuticals in Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia was studied throughly. Along with it, the guidelines for European Union were also studied. A comparison of guidelines of all the three countries with the guidelines of European Union for pharmaceuticals was carried out. Result: The comparison of guidelines showed that there are still some changes needed in the guidelines of Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia before they can merge with the guidelines of European Union. Some of the points in the guidelines are very different from the guidelines of EU. Conclusion: So it was worthwile to study the regulatory requirements of pharmaceuticals in Non- European Union Member States Kosovo, Ukraine and Serbia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document