scholarly journals The Contributions of The Court of Justice of the European Union to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters with a Specific Focus on The Protection of Fundamental Rights

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-170
Author(s):  
GÖÇMEN İlke
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Specific Focus ◽  
Criminal Matters

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.

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 Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights Four Years after Opinion 2/13: Should We Lose Hope?

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-250
Author(s):  
Anna Francesca Masiero
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights is an issue frequently addressed by (not only internationalist) legal scholars, who stress that it would allow for an optimisation of the level of protection of fundamental rights in the European legal area. After reviewing the historical stages of accession, this paper focuses on the second opinion of the Court of Justice regarding it (Opinion 2/13 of 2014). Therein, accession is presented as an unattainable goal, probably because of the refusal of the Court of Justice to submit to the other European court, the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights. Subsequently, the paper reviews the possible effects of accession on the current legal scenario with special attention to the Italian legal system. Finally, it aims at figuring out how accession could affect criminal matters: in particular, by means of an example concerning the principle of legality, the purpose is to demonstrate how accession could lead to an improvement of the criminal guarantees of the European legal area.

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 evolution of standards for the creation and extension of jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the founding instruments of the European Communities and the European Union in the pre-Lisbon period

2020 ◽  
pp. 422-426
Author(s):  
Petro Rudyk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Economic Community ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Amsterdam Treaty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Gradual Evolution ◽  
Energy Community ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Court Of First Instance

The gradual evolution of the standards of the founding instruments of the European Communities and then the European Unionin the field of their judicial systems, which is subject to the integration processes in Europe, is comprehensively analyzed. Thoroughscientific works of both foreign and domestic scientists cover the problems of various spheres of development of the European Union,its institutions, in particular, its Court of Justice. However, the study of this topic was not given enough attention. Therefore, the purposeof the article is a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of the standards of the constituent instruments of these associations inrelation to the establishment and expansion of the jurisdiction of their Court of Justice in the pre-Lisbon period. It is established thatthe origins of the standards of the Court of Justice were enshrined in the founding treaties of the European Communities, and were furtherdeveloped in the founding instruments of the European Union, which were constantly being transformed. The jurisdiction of theCourt of Justice of the Coal and Steel Community was limited to a narrow sphere of economy, and with the entry into force of theTreaties establishing the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (1958), the Court became ajoint institution for the three communities, with the powers of ensuring respect for the law in the interpretation and application of eachof the treaties.The peculiarities of the amendments made to the provisions of the following constituent instruments are discovered. The SingleEuropean Act (1986) provided for a certain unification of the legislation of Western European countries, supplementing the foundingtreaties of the Communities with new provisions on the establishment of the Court of First Instance to hear certain claims of individualsand legal entities to relieve the Court of Justice. The Maastricht Treaty (1992) formally proclaimed the establishment of the EuropeanUnion and defined the new structure of the Court of Justice (Court, Tribunal and Specialized Tribunals), its composition and powers,and powers of the Member States in the judicial field. The Amsterdam Treaty (1997) expanded the jurisdiction of the Court of Justiceof the European Union, namely certain areas of activity of courts, their cooperation with other competent authorities of the MemberStates, joint actions of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, etc. The Treaty of Nice significantly deepened the standards of thefounding instruments of the Court of Justice, expanded the powers of its judicial bodies and modernized its structure (including theCourt of Justice and the Court of First Instance), defined high requirements for judges and advocates general, the periods of theirreplacement, extended the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, etc. Further transformation of the standards of the Court of Justicehas been carried out under the Lisbon Treaty, which requires a separate study.

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.

scholarly journals Integration and cooperation of International and European Private Law according charter of the fundamental rights of the European Union = Integración y cooperación del Derecho privado internacional y europeo según la carta de los derechos fundamentales de la Unión Europea

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 150
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights

Abstract: The time has come, given the relative maturity of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, regarding the peculiarities linked to the protection of fundamental rights in EU system of civil judicial cooperation to dedicate a detailed investigation and in the field of incidence of EU Charter of Fundamental Rights on EU’s legal system, as well as the specific modalities that affects the elaboration and application of the instruments of civil judicial co-operation.Keywords: CFREU, European Union integration, private international law, civil judicial cooperation, protection of fundamental rights.Resumen: Ha llegado el momento, dada la relativa madurez de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, en relación con las peculiaridades relacionadas con la protección de los derechos fundamentales en el sistema de cooperación judicial civil de la UE para dedicar una investigación detallada y en el campo de la incidencia. de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la UE sobre el sistema legal de la UE, así como las modalidades específicas que afectan la elaboración y aplicación de los instrumentos de cooperación judicial civil.Palabras clave: CFREU, integración de la Unión Europea, derecho internacional privado, cooperación judicial civil, protección de los derechos fundamentales.

scholarly journals Castaño avoids a clash between the ECtHR and the CJEU, but erodes Soering. Thinking human rights transnationally

2020 ◽  
pp. 203228442097974
Author(s):  
Sibel Top ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Union Member ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
European Union Member States

This article examines the changing balance established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) between human rights filters to extradition and the obligation to cooperate and how this shift of rationale brought the Court closer to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in that respect. The article argues that the ECtHR initially adopted a position whereby it prioritised human rights concerns over extraditions, but that it later nuanced that approach by establishing, in some cases, an obligation to cooperate to ensure proper respect of human rights. This refinement of its position brought the ECtHR closer to the approach adopted by the CJEU that traditionally put the obligation to cooperate above human rights concerns. In recent years, however, the CJEU also backtracked to some extent from its uncompromising attitude on the obligation to cooperate, which enabled a convergence of the rationales of the two Courts. Although this alignment of the Courts was necessary to mitigate the conflicting obligations of European Union Member States towards both Courts, this article warns against the danger of making too many human rights concessions to cooperation in criminal matters.

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document