scholarly journals Mutual recognition in criminal matters, deprivation of liberty and the principle of proportionality

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 718-732
Author(s):  
Leandro Mancano
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

This paper argues that the application of mutual recognition to judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union (EU) imposes a redefinition of the right to liberty to adjust the latter to the peculiarities of the Union legal order. The article emphasizes the important role that the principle of proportionality in EU law can have for improving the protection of the right to liberty. The two main scenarios of this research are analysed against the different understandings of proportionality: on the one hand, the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision and the interpretation of the EU Court of Justice; on the other, the three Framework Decisions on transfer of prisoners, probation measures and pre trial measures alternative to detention. The conclusions reveal that, despite the increasing attention paid to proportionality in relation to the right to liberty in mutual recognition, the potential offered by EU law to better protect the right to liberty is still underexploited.

scholarly journals The Right to Liberty in European Union Law and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 215-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro MANCANO
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Current Content ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractThis article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Pojęcie współmałżonka w prawie unijnym – uwagi na tle orzeczenia w sprawie Coman (C‑673/16)

Politeja ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3(66)) ◽  
pp. 103-117
Author(s):  
Ewa Kamarad
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Eu

The Term ‘Spouse’ in EU Law – Comments on the Judgment in the Coman Case (C‑ 673‑16) The paper concerns the judgment of 5 June 2018 issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Coman case (C‑673‑16), in which the Court for the first time defined the term ‘spouse’ for the purpose of Directive 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. It discusses the consequences of the judgement and its relation to the traditional mechanisms of private international law and the EU principle of mutual recognition.

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.

‘Surrendering’ the Fugitive—The European Arrest Warrant and the United Kingdom

2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mackarel
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

This article explains how the European Arrest Warrant forms part of the response to the modern needs of the European Union in dealing with transnational crime and considers the experience of the UK in implementing and using the warrant. The warrant is the first manifestation of the EU policy of mutual recognition in relation to cooperation in criminal matters and in questioning how effectively the UK has put the warrant into operation under the Extradition Act 2003, the article compares the analyses of the European Commission, Eurojust and the House of Lords. Finally, the approach to interpretation taken by the courts to cases coming before them concerning the warrant under the 2003 Act is examined.

scholarly journals Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-175
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.

scholarly journals Is mutual recognition a viable general path for cooperation?

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helmut Satzger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Ordre Public ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Judicial Assistance ◽  
The Eu

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.

scholarly journals Exploring the Autonomy of the European Union Legal Order

2021 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-88
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts ◽  
José A. Gutiérrez-Fons ◽  
Stanislas Adam
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Right ◽  
Building Walls ◽  
The Eu

Two different dynamics govern the autonomy of the European Union (EU) legal order. On the one hand, autonomy seeks to define what EU law is not, i.e. it is not ordinary international law. Positively, on the other, autonomy seeks to define what EU law is, i.e. a legal order that has the capacity to operate as a self-referential system of norms that is both coherent and complete. Yet the concept of autonomy of the EU legal order in no way conveys the message that the EU and its law are euro-centric and that the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Court of Justice’) seeks to insulate EU law from external influences by building walls that prevent the migration of legal ideas. Autonomy rather enables the Court of Justice to strike the right balance between the need to preserve the values on which the EU is founded and openness to other legal orders. The autonomy of the EU legal order is thus part of the very DNA of that legal order as it allows the EU to find its own constitutional space whilst interacting in a cooperative way with its Member States and the wider world.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document