The EU and Death Penalty Abolition: The Limited Prospects of Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as an External Policy Tool

2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 481-505
Author(s):  
Eef Vandebroek ◽  
Frank Verbruggen
Keyword(s):  
Death Penalty ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Policy Tool ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Data protection and passenger name record in judicial criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199492
Author(s):  
Catherine Van de Heyning
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Record Data ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

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.

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.

15. Justice and Home Affairs

2020 ◽  
pp. 343-362
Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex
Keyword(s):  
European Integration ◽  
Focal Point ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Asylum Policy ◽  
Intergovernmental Cooperation ◽  
The Common ◽  
Immigration And Asylum ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Peripheral Aspect ◽  
The Eu

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.

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.

Chinese Curses, Lawyers’ Dreams, Political Nightmares and New Dawns: Interesting Times for the UK’s Relationship with the EU

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 83-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Forwood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Scottish Independence ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu ◽  
End Results

AbstractThis chapter aims to explore some challenges that are likely to arise in the context of the UK’s present and future relationships with the EU. Three aspects come under scrutiny, namely the global opt-out available for the UK in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the contemplated 2017 referendum on whether the UK should remain an EU Member State. The chapter stresses not only the importance of restoring objectivity in the debates surrounding these issues, but also the necessity of taking due account of the uncertainties that these processes unavoidably entail as to their end results for both the UK and Scotland.

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.

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.

Chinese Curses, Lawyers’ Dreams, Political Nightmares and New Dawns: Interesting Times for the UK’s Relationship with the EU

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 83-99
Author(s):  
Nicholas Forwood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Scottish Independence ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu ◽  
End Results

Abstract This chapter aims to explore some challenges that are likely to arise in the context of the UK’s present and future relationships with the EU. Three aspects come under scrutiny, namely the global opt-out available for the UK in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the contemplated 2017 referendum on whether the UK should remain an EU Member State. The chapter stresses not only the importance of restoring objectivity in the debates surrounding these issues, but also the necessity of taking due account of the uncertainties that these processes unavoidably entail as to their end results for both the UK and Scotland.

scholarly journals The position of youth justice in EU criminal law: No game for kids

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-160
Author(s):  
Jantien Leenknecht ◽  
Johan Put
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Juvenile Offenders ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Youth Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthen and facilitate judicial cooperation over the years but does not clearly nor uniformly define the concepts of ‘criminal matters’, ‘criminal proceedings’, ‘criminal responsibility’ and so on in any of the cooperation instruments themselves. It is however important to know as to what the EU understands by the notion ‘criminal’ because Member States have developed specific rules in response to delinquent behaviour of minors, which are somewhat different from ‘general’ criminal law. The question arises whether the existing cooperation mechanisms only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. This article therefore aims to find out whether a consistent and shared view exists on the meaning of the concept ‘criminal’ and to subsequently clarify to what extent the existing EU instruments in criminal matters also apply to juvenile offenders.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document