scholarly journals Modern Trends of Development and Improvement by Means of Unification of the Judicial Extradition Procedure of Persons Who Have Committed Crimes of a Terrorist Nature

2017 ◽  
pp. 124-126
Author(s):  
Дарья Кошкина ◽  
Darya Koshkina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Main Trend ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

The article considers the modern trends of development of mechanisms of regulation of international relations on the example of the judicial extradition procedure of persons who have committed crimes of a terrorist nature, which is one of the key instruments to counter international terrorism. So, the author identified the harmonization of the national legislation of the EU Member States as the main trend as well as in other interregional organizations. A typical example is the European arrest warrant (EAW), introduced by the Framework decision “On the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between EU Member States” of 2002. The author analyzed the regulatory counter-terrorism documents of the main interregional organisations and came to conclusion that harmonization of national legislations on issues of legal support of the extradition of persons who have committed the terrorist crimes, is a really necessary measure to ensure international cooperation between different States, including at the level of law enforcement, in matters of anti-terrorist activities. In addition, the article provides relevant examples from law enforcement practices relating to extraterritorial terrorist activities. The author analyzed the motivations of the State to unify their national legislations on improving the effectiveness of legal measures to counter international terrorism.

scholarly journals Transformation of the European arrest warrant in light of protection of the rights of extradited individuals

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Kamila Danilovna Shaibakova
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

The subject of this research is the norms of international legal acts, legislations of the EU member-states, decisions of foreign national courts, as well as decisions of the European Court on Human Rights and European Court of Justice. A hypothesis is advanced that within the framework of the European arrest warrant there are new trends associated namely with the desire to strengthen the system of protection of rights of the extradited individuals, which can negatively affect functionality of the procedure as a whole. Thus, a number of cases of the national courts (for example Artur Celmer case) and Court of the European Union (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru case), as well as provisions of the constitutional courts lead to the fact that the principle of mutual recognition of court decision is used with caution. The article examines the case law of national courts of the EU member-states, as well as practice of the European Court of Justice and European arrest warrant. The author compared the decisions of the aforementioned courts for confirming the hypothesis that the protection of extradited individuals plays a significant role in the context of operation of the European arrest warrant. The intention to provide legal guarantees to individuals extradited in the context of the European arrest warrant, which loses its main influence; particularly the procedure is interrupted due to absence of guarantees of protection of rights in case of extradition, as well as raises doubt towards judicial systems and their decisions of some EU member-states brought forth by political actions of these countries. Moreover, protection of rights and guarantee of fair trial increases.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Rule of Law vs. Poland and Hungary – an Inconsistent Approach?

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-259
Author(s):  
Nasiya Daminova
Keyword(s):  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Values ◽  
Multiple Challenges ◽  
The Eu

The first attempts of the European Commission and Parliament to invoke Art. 7(1) of the Treaty on European Union against the Polish and Hungarian governments demonstrate the EU’s political willingness to claim its own authority in defending core European values (Art. 2 TEU) in case of state disobedience. However, despite these attempts to integrate the Rule of Law concept into the overall EU’s supervisory machinery, the Commission’s and the Parliament’s submissions indicate a lack of coherency in implementing the principle as a relevant tool to address multiple challenges arising within the EU Member States legal systems. The parallel developments in the CJEUs case-law (LM/ML, Torubarov) support this statement. Regardless of the Council’s yes/ no decisions in the Polish and Hungarian cases, these lines of reasoning are capable of giving rise to further questions in application of the European Arrest Warrant Framework decision or the Asylum Procedures Directive, in particular the EU Member States which remain within the scope of the EU’s attention in view of systemic Human Rights violations (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia). Moreover, the series of the CJEU’s judgements on the Polish judicial reform are capable of paving the way to the de facto intervention into traditional areas of the EU Member States competence – the organisation of the national judicial systems, in light of the development of a EU-specific principle of effective judicial review.

scholarly journals The Defense Policy of the European Union on the Modern Stage

2018 ◽  
pp. 8-28
Author(s):  
Andrii Martynov
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
International System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Spheres Of Influence ◽  
International Power ◽  
The Eu

The European Union is facing unprecedented challenges, both global and internal: regional conflicts, terrorism, growing migratory pressures, protectionism, social and economic inequalities. A safe and secure EU where all citizens feel sure and can move freely, external borders are secured, where international norms are respected, Europe determined to fight terrorism. The European international system is not rigid; it is characterized by constant changeability of the configuration of forces, spheres of influence. The states of the European Union system may be divided into static, transformative and turbulent. For example, Brexit, together with the cooperation and peaceful co-existence, proceed from the current state of the international system, as far as structural limitations imposed on the actions of states by the hierarchy of a system are more stable than the level of their influence. The disparity between the status of a state in the system and its potential abilities are the most credible explanations of conflict behaviour thereof. Conflict and cooperation are the most important manifestations of the subject of international relations and logically proceed from structural peculiarities of a current international system. Generally speaking, the existence of the system of international relations is defined by conditions of coexistence of contemporary Poles of international power, the superpower status of which is fixed with respect to peripheral social subject by relevant factorial, spectral, departmental, geo-civilizational, and institutional elements. The expansion in the range of issues, which did not require the unanimous approval of the EU member-states, but solely by voting on the principle of the qualified majority, was to promote the enforced cooperation between the EU member-states. These vectors were chosen due to the changes in the international arena which occurred during the period researched, reflected rather in these areas than in the economic policy since the state received the freedom of action in the search of a new balance of power. What is more, the EU institutions that govern the common foreign and security policy and the European defence remained weak even after the Maastricht treaty has been reviewed and the Amsterdam treaty has been signed. The monetary union is an identity instrument of the EU. The multi-ethnics identity is the feature of the migration processes in European Union.

Deutsche Staatsanwaltschaften zwischen Verfassungsrecht und europäischem Leitbild

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Wallenta
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
The Eu

The ministerial right to issue instructions to public prosecutors has always been controversial. The decision of the ECJ on the European arrest warrant of 27th May, 2019 has reignited this discussion. The author arrives at the following finding: constitutionally legitimized – criticized under Union law. Therefore, he has developed the idea of an exemption from the ministerial individual right of instruction in the field of cooperation with the member states of the EU, which was also the basis of a draft law of the BMJV to amend § 147 GVG of January 2021. Wallenta describes the conflicting interests in detail and presents his proposed solution in a practical manner. The volume is aimed equally at representatives of academia and practice.

scholarly journals The principle of ne bis in idem in the context of European arrest warrant: A view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 149-170
Author(s):  
Boris Tučić
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Eu

In this paper, we analyze the most significant ruligs of the Court of Justice of the Europian Union regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant which established the principle of ne bis in idem as one of the grounds for both mandatory and optional non-execution of the extradition request issued to the judicial authority of the executing Member State. Although the European arrest warrant is one of the most important mechanisms of cooperation in criminal matters between Member States, the provisions of the Framework decision that established the European arrest warrant as part of the EU law do not define precisely enough some of the key aspects of its implementation, leaving plenty of space for different interpretations and actions of national authorities, which in turn contributes to legal uncertainty and unequal application of the EU law within Member States. In this context, the European Court of Justice made some of the key points in the 2010 Mantello case and 2018 AY case, and primarily focused on issues related to the ''same act'' category as one of the key criteria for applying the ne bis in idem principle in transnational context. The inductive-deductive method and content analysis were used in the analysis of the cases mentioned above.

scholarly journals BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION NO. 2002/584/JHA REGARDING THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
MIHAELA PĂTRĂUŞ
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Area ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Judicial Authority

Article 6, paragraph 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA provides that the issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the Member State competent to issue a judicial decision in accordance with the law of that State for the purpose of surrender on the basis of the European arrest warrant to another EU Member State.The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, by its recent case-law, held that the notion of issuing judicial authority does not concern the prosecutor's offices in a Member State which are at risk of being subjected, directly or indirectly, to individual orders or instructions by the executive power in the context of adopting a decision on the issuing of the European arrest warrant. The effects of this judgment are mandatory for all Member States and require clarification from the Member States affected by the ECJ ruling regarding the nature of the European arrest warrant authority, even a possible intervention by the legislature in these EU Member States, to facilitate the settlement of cases of arrest in full agreement with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust of judgments in the European area.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document