General provisions under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199492
Author(s):  
Sören Schomburg
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

In its general provisions, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) highlights the importance of the protection of Human Rights. The article describes the potential impact of the new rules under the TCA on (international) ne bis in idem and arrest warrants between the UK and EU Member States. It further explains the role of the Specialised Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation which is vested with a significant role.

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.

scholarly journals Stumbling Towards the UK’s New Administrative Settlement: A Study of Competition Law Enforcement After Brexit

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 233-251
Author(s):  
Joe TOMLINSON ◽  
Liza LOVDAHL GORMSEN
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Key Dimensions ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Substantive Law ◽  
The Eu

AbstractWhile there has been much talk of the role of parliaments and courts in the Brexit process, far less—indeed very little—has been said about the challenges facing the largest part of the UK government: the administrative branch. Whatever results from the UK’s negotiations with the EU, Brexit will likely necessitate wide-ranging and fast-paced administrative reform in the UK. In this article, we use a detailed case study of a particular part of administration—the Competition and Markets Authority (‘CMA’)—to highlight the nature and extent of the challenges facing administrative agencies. This case study is demonstrative as, while there is an extant UK competition administration structure, competition law and its enforcement are highly Europeanised. We propose that the challenges facing administrative bodies in the UK—including the CMA—can be understood as possessing three key dimensions: internal organisation issues; external coordination issues; and substantive legal issues. We argue that, in many instances, these three dimensions will be in tension which each other. That is to say, the reality of reforming administration post-Brexit will involve trade-offs between questions of internal organisation, external coordination, and substantive law.

scholarly journals EU–UK institutional arrangements and Brexit: a view from Switzerland

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Kaspiarovich
Keyword(s):  
Trade Agreement ◽  
Institutional Arrangements ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
The One ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

In 1972 the UK signed an accession treaty with the EU while Switzerland and the EU concluded a free trade agreement. Nowadays, both countries have a very close relationship with the EU and are not (or not anymore) EU Member States. This article aims to analyse two complex legal paths taken by countries able but not willing (or no longer willing) to be part of the EU through institutional arrangements they have already negotiated or are currently negotiating with the EU. On the one hand, the UK was part of the EU legal order and is now extracting itself from the realm of EU law while switching to relations with the EU based on international law. On the other hand, Switzerland has built its relations with the EU on numerous bilateral agreements based on EU law without establishing a homogeneous institutional mechanism, which the EU has been insistently demanding since 2013. These two situations are paradoxically similar as for both of them the design of institutional arrangements depends on the degree of integration with/extraction from EU law. A comparison between the EU–UK withdrawal agreement, the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) and the EU–Switzerland draft institutional agreement, as proposed in this article, confirms that the degree of institutional flexibility that the EU is able to offer to a third country with which it concludes an agreement is dependent on whether that agreement is based on EU law, and in particular, EU internal market law. This article argues that depending on the nature of law the agreement is based on, from an EU perspective variations in the role of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and/or of an arbitral tribunal may make sense, but this is not the case when one takes an outside perspective.

Dispute settlement and jurisdictional issues for law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK trade and cooperation agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199602
Author(s):  
Albert Janet
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Specialized Committee ◽  
The Eu

The rules on dispute settlement of Part 3 of the Trade and cooperation Agreement provide for a consultation procedure between the Parties, to be held either within the framework of the Specialized Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation or within the framework of the Partnership Council. A decision by either of these bodies is considered a mutually agreed solution. The Parties may also reach a solution without involving these bodies. If no mutually agreed solution is reached, the complaining Party may suspend the Titles to which the breach pertains, and the respondent Party may suspend all of the remaining Titles. The Specialized Committee on Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation decides what measures are needed to ensure that any cooperation affected by the suspension of the Titles is concluded in an appropriate manner. The suspended Titles can be reinstated by the Parties if the breach no longer exists.

Data Protection in Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 148-166
Author(s):  
Rastislav Funta ◽  
Peter Ondria
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
European Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The redesign of data protection in the police and judicial area is intended to create uniformity at the European level for the citizens of EU Member States. This scientific article analyses the subject of data protection in law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The focus is primarily on the existing provisions and the latest developments of the EU with regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The international level with regard to data protection in the police and judicial area and possible changes due to the developments in data protection under European law are also examined in more detail.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

scholarly journals Inequalities in the European Union—A Partial Order Analysis of the Main Indicators

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 6278
Author(s):  
Lars Carlsen ◽  
Rainer Bruggemann
Keyword(s):  
Indicator System ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Disposable Income ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Educational Aspect ◽  
The Eu

The inequality within the 27 European member states has been studied. Six indicators proclaimed by Eurostat to be the main indicators charactere the countries: (i) the relative median at-risk-of-poverty gap, (ii) the income distribution, (iii) the income share of the bottom 40% of the population, (iv) the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita, (v) the adjusted gross disposable income of households per capita and (vi) the asylum applications by state of procedure. The resulting multi-indicator system was analyzed applying partial ordering methodology, i.e., including all indicators simultaneously without any pretreatment. The degree of inequality was studied for the years 2010, 2015 and 2019. The EU member states were partially ordered and ranked. For all three years Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, and Finland are found to be highly ranked, i.e., having rather low inequality. Bulgaria and Romania are, on the other hand, for all three years ranked low, with the highest degree of inequality. Excluding the asylum indicator, the risk-poverty-gap and the adjusted gross disposable income were found as the most important indicators. If, however, the asylum application is included, this indicator turns out as the most important for the mutual ranking of the countries. A set of additional indicators was studied disclosing the educational aspect as of major importance to achieve equality. Special partial ordering tools were applied to study the role of the single indicators, e.g., in relation to elucidate the incomparability of some countries to all other countries within the union.

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.

Cooperation with EU agencies and bodies under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement: Eurojust, OLAF and the EPPO

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199605
Author(s):  
Rebecca Niblock
Keyword(s):  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
European Public ◽  
Title Vi ◽  
Significant Change ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Practical Impact ◽  
The Eu

This article will examine the provisions of Part III, Title VI of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) on Eurojust. While the agreement in the TCA with regard to Eurojust allows cooperation to continue, the new arrangements amount to a significant change. The article also looks at cooperation between the UK and other EU agencies, specifically the European Anti-Fraud Office and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, concluding that the practical impact of the UK’s departure from the EU is unlikely to be significant.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document