scholarly journals Constitutional identity as a tool to improve defence rights in European criminal law

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 446-463
Author(s):  
Cristina Sáenz Pérez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Early Years ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Constitutional Identity

Since the early years of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), fundamental rights concerns have been at the centre of the development of judicial cooperation in criminal matters that has taken place in the European Union (EU). The attempts to ensure compliance with minimum standards across the EU after Lisbon did not solve the other pressing issue in this area, namely the existence of different fundamental rights safeguards at the national level. Melloni tried to settle this dispute by limiting the protection of fundamental rights to those harmonized by EU law, but recent case law has questioned this approach. This article explores the possibility of applying Article 4(2) Treaty on European Union to protect a degree of legal diversity that contributes to improving the fundamental rights framework applicable to judicial cooperation measures. The goal is to analyse the possibility of implementing a limited constitutional identity exception that enables Member States to protect rights that are part of their constitutional identity. For this purpose, the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Taricco saga will be examined and compared with the way in which domestic courts have implemented national identity exceptions.

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 THE NON BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY?

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Darius-Dennis Pătrăuș
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Widespread Application ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The non bis in idem principle was first established in the Hammurabi Code (2,500 BC), under the name of res judicata pro veritate habetur.According to the non bis in idem principle, "no one is allowed to be summoned again in court or punished in another criminal case for the same criminal offense for which he has already been convicted or acquitted under the law of a state". The non bis in idem principle has a broad field of application in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.The harmonization of Member States' laws and the abolition of borders at EU level created the premises for the widespread application of the non bis in idem principle.For this reason, the Court of Justice of the European Union has been charged with interpreting the rule, namely the non bis in idem principle, as regulated in art. 54 CISA.At the present stage of regulation, an interpretation contrary to the non bis in idem principle would be likely to erode the right and affect international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation

2012 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 955-977 ◽  
Author(s):  
NOREL NEAGU
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Criminal Matters

AbstractAs a result of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union over the former third pillar (Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters), several cases were referred to the Court for interpretation, inter alia, of the dispositions of the Schengen Convention dealing with criminal matters, especially the ne bis in idem principle. This principle was also addressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Supreme Court of the United States. While addressing the problem at international level, this article focuses principally on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the ne bis in idem principle, concisely presenting the legal framework, findings of the Courts, and some conclusions on the interpretation of the principle. The study also analyses the absence of uniformity in interpretation and the use of different criteria in addressing identical situations by different courts, or even by the same court, concluding on a (seemingly) fortunate approximation in interpretation at European level.

scholarly journals The right to take collective action in EU law based on the European Pillar of Social Rights and the recent case law of the CJEU

Pro Futuro ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Márton Leó Zaccaria
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Collective Action ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Recent Case ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law

This paper is built around the workers’ fundamental right to take collective action and collective bargaining. Although, this right is firmly embedded in the majority of labour law systems in the social policy (meaning labour law, too) of the European Union, it is worth analysing it separately with an independent meaning. We can approach this right from the fundamental rights, the fundamental treaties or from certain directives, so we can find several questions that are difficult to answer properly. These problems are mostly catalysed by the necessary collision between the need for socially motivated legal protection and the fundamental economic freedoms. In my research, I analyse this right – along with some other connected ones – with the help of the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Pillar of Social Rights because the latter highlights the holistic approach in the current reforms of EU social policy.

scholarly journals Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oskar Losy
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.

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

The Limitations of the Harmonisation of Criminal Law in the European Union Protected by Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-334
Author(s):  
Kaie Rosin ◽  
Markus Kärner
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Legislative Procedure ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Criminal Matters

Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu give Member States the possibility to suspend the legislative procedure of eu criminal law. Article 82(3) allows that kind of emergency brake mechanism for the process of adopting minimum standards for harmonising rules of criminal procedure enhancing judicial cooperation in criminal matters and Article 83(3) for establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. A Member State can only use the emergency brake clause when the proposal for the directive would affect the fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. This prerequisite deserves a closer analysis, therefore the aim of this article is to interpret the meaning of tfeu articles 82(3) and 83(3) to better understand the limitations of the harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document