Co-existence of various instruments protecting fundamental rights in European arrest warrant proceedings: Court of justice of the European Union case of Melloni (C-399/11)

2014 ◽  
pp. 83-90
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

How Much Independence is Necessary to Issue a European Arrest Warrant?

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-26
Author(s):  
Tanja Niedernhuber
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legislative Change ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Moment

The competence for issuing a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a hot topic at the moment. It has been the subject of four rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) alone in 2019. These are preceded by three more rulings on the same subject from 2016. All of these judgments addressed the same core question: was the issuing authority a “judicial authority” and independent enough to issue an EAW pursuant to Art. 6 (1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (FD-EAW)? If the answer to that question is “no”, the EAW issued by the incompetent authority is not valid. This article analyses the concept of “judicial authority” in the context of the FD-EAW and the legislative change currently discussed in Germany in the light of the requirements established by the CJEU.

scholarly journals THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IN LIGHT OF DECISION THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE ARANYOSI AND CALDARARU

TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Mićo Bošković ◽  
Tomislav Trajković ◽  
Gordana Nikolić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

For a long time, extradition has been a dominant form of international mutual legal assistance, but in many cases it has proven to be an insufficiently efficient instrument. Having that in mind, on the territory of the European Union, a European arrest warrant has been established as an institute that should contribute to the effectiveness of combating modern crime and facilitate the surrender of persons between member states in order to effectively prevent the escape of suspects or convicted persons. Regarding this, the Article will first give a brief overview of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision, which regulates the European arrest warrant, and will analyze it in order to define the strengths and weaknesses of the task itself. The subject of research in this article is primarily devoted to the analysis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the “Aranyosi and Caldararu” case. With this verdict, the European Court of Justice, derogates some of the key principles that order is based on and special attention is devoted to the devaluation of the principles of mutual trust and the principles of mutual recognition of judicial decisions among EU states, which the Council of the European Union considers as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation.

scholarly journals Supremacía de la constitución versus primacía del derecho de la UE en materia derechos fundamentales: concordancias y discordancias entre el tribunal constitucional y el tribunal de justicia de la UE en el asunto Melloni

2017 ◽  
pp. 637
Author(s):  
Francisco Javier Donaire Villa
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Se analiza en este artículo el primer diálogo judicial directo entre el TC español y el Tribunal de Justicia de la UE, sobre la Euroorden y la interpretación del artículo 53 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE cuando el nivel nacional de protección de los derechos es superior al dispensado por una norma de Derecho derivado de la Unión. Se ponen de manifiesto las posibles tensiones entre supremacía constitucional y primacía del Derecho de la Unión Europea, y la evocación por el Tribunal Constitucional de su doctrina de los derechos constitucionalmente reconocidos como límites a la integración en la Sentencia que cierra el diálogo con el Tribunal de Justicia en el Asunto Melloni.This paper surveys the first direct judicial dialogue between the Spanish Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant and the interpretation of Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when the national level of protection of rights is higher than that provided by a rule of secondary legislation of the Union. It highlights the possible tensions between constitutional supremacy and primacy of European Union law, and the evocation made by the Constitutional Court of its doctrine on rights constitutionally recognized as limits to the European integration contained in the judgment which closes the dialogue between both Courts within the so-called Melloni case.

Limiting mutual trust on fundamental rights grounds under the European arrest warrant and lessons learned from transfers under Dublin III

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-203
Author(s):  
Fenella M. W. Billing
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Supplementary Information ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Right

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has examined the limitation of the principle of mutual trust in European arrest warrant (EAW) cases in a number of recent decisions. The court has found that when the executing judicial authority possesses information demonstrating that the requested person is at a real risk of violation of the right to be free from inhuman or degrading treatment guaranteed in art 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, then the individual should not be automatically surrendered. Instead, the proceedings should be postponed to obtain supplementary information or discontinued if the risk cannot be discounted. The ‘real risk’ test has also been extended to non-absolute rights, such as the right to a fair trial. However, the CJEU’s reasoning about the limitation of mutual trust is not yet fully formed in relation to certain aspects concerning the nature of fundamental rights and the EAW procedure. This article explores these gaps of understanding about the scope of the limitation on mutual trust in surrender cases and, in doing so, assesses the consistency of similar developments in the area of transfers of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation III.

scholarly journals The European Arrest Warrant: Between Trust, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Introduction. The European Arrest Warrant: Extradition in Transition

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 244-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elies van Sliedregt
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Select Committee ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

The Framework Decision to establish the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) entered into force on 1 January 2004. Since the adoption of the Italian law on 22 April 2005 transposing the Decision, it has been operational throughout the European Union. In its evaluation report of January 2006, the European Commission welcomes the arrest warrant as an ‘overall success’, as it provides for an effective and swift surrender procedure whilst guaranteeing judicial control and the observation of fundamental rights. National evaluation reports, such as the 30th report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, show that the arrest warrant is widely used to secure the arrest and surrender across the Union. The European Arrest Warrant seems to have largely taken over traditional extradition procedures.

scholarly journals The Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Issuance of European Arrest Warrants in Lithuania

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-114
Author(s):  
Saulė Milčiuvienė ◽  
Edita Gruodytė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Judicial Authority ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The European arrest warrant system is one of the greatest achievements in the development of cooperation in judicial matters among EU Member States. However, its implementation has raised many questions, resulting in referrals by national courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for preliminary rulings. This article analyses the impact of the CJEU’s preliminary rulings on Lithuanian law concerning European arrest warrants. Specifically, the focus of the paper is institutional configuration and corresponding regulation in this field because/after the CJEU decided that (1) the Ministry of Justice cannot be considered a judicial authority because as part of the executive branch it cannot guarantee the protection of the parties’ fundamental rights; (2) however, the Prosecutor General of Lithuania can be considered a judicial authority because it participates in the administration of criminal justice and is independent of executive governance, and because its decisions to issue European arrest warrants are subject to judicial review.

Grenzen der gegenseitigen Anerkennung bei der Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karina Kopowski
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Judicial Authority

Individual circumstances can limit the scope of mutual recognition in surrender procedures and lead to non-execution of a European arrest warrant. The study focuses on the limits to mutual recognition, apart from standardised grounds for refusal, that result from the Framework Decision being embedded in the primary law of the European Union. Because grounds for refusal are vitally important for the protection of (Union) fundamental rights in surrender procedures, the study develops a guideline for steps to be considered by the executing judicial authority when deciding upon surrender.

Court of Justice of the European Union (Seventh Chamber) Kerly Del Rosario Martinez Silva v Instituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) Comune di Genova

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-363
Author(s):  
Bjarney Friðriksdóttir
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Abstract This case report provides an account of the issues addressed in the preliminary ruling of the CJEU in Martinez Silva vs. Italy. The case centres on the limitations Member States of the European Union are permitted to apply in granting third-country nationals in employment equal treatment with nationals in social security rights according to Directive 2011/98/EU (the Single Permit Directive). Additionally, the preliminary ruling of the Court is discussed is discussed in the context of the human rights principle of equal treatment as it is enshrined in EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and International Labour Law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document