Surrender vs. Extradition: A Comparison Focused on Innovations of European Arrest Warrant

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libor Klimek

Abstract The European Union was aware of unwanted side-effect of the free movement of persons which has been the equally free movement criminals. With regards to Tampere European Council conclusions the traditional extradition procedures were replaced by the surrender procedure within Member States of the European Union. Th e article answers the question how the surrender procedure differs from classic extradition. It deals with the comparison of the surrender procedure and the extradition mechanism focused on innovations of the European arrest warrant. It points out at necessity of simpler and faster procedure in the EU. Further, it focuses on the comparison of the legal basis of both procedures and on procedural issues.

Author(s):  
Angelo Marletta

The European Union (EU), as unprecedented institutional and polity project, is responsible for the fulfilment of a set of policy goals that go beyond the mere sum of the interests of its Member States. The establishment of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to . . . the prevention and combating of crime’ is probably one of the most demanding goals of the integration process, whose fulfilment requires commitment to coherent action on several levels: vertically, between the EU and the Member States, through incorporating the implementation of the Treaty objectives in the development of their respective criminal policies, and horizontally, between the Member States themselves, by developing mutual trust.


2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 69-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Artur Gruszczak

This article takes up in the form of an interdisciplinary legal and political analysis the issue of the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into European Union law and the national legal systems of the EU member states in the light of the concept of a hybrid system of territorial governance. Accordingly, the Schengen acquis stimulated the process of intersecting the interests of internal security and the protection of Member States’ borders with the supranational ideological imperative with regard to the principle of free movement of persons. The argument developed in this article is that the incorporation of the Schengen acquis into EU law consolidated hybridity of the legal and institutional construction of the EU after the Amsterdam Treaty as a result of the contradiction between the logic of political bargain at the intergovernmental level and the vertical spillover generated at the supranational level in the institutional and decision-making dimensions. The conclusions point to the emergence, as a result of “schengenisation”, of the area of freedom, security and justice in the EU, in which the principle of free movement of people brought about diversification of the states’ adaptation mechanisms in relation to the ideologically determined project of transformation of the system of management of the territory and borders within the European Union.


Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the EU Citizenship Directive. The European Union Directive 2004/38 or the EU Citizenship Directive gives effect to the right which EU law provides to all EU citizens and their family members of any nationality to move, reside, and exercise economic activities if they so choose on the territory of any EU Member State. The right to move and reside anywhere in the EU is a right which is accorded to Union citizens by virtue of Articles 20(2)(a) and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and enshrined in Article 45 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. The right of free movement of persons in their capacities as workers, self-employed persons, or service providers straddles two of the four fundamental freedoms of the European Union—free movement of persons and services.


Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.


2007 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mackarel

This article explains how the European Arrest Warrant forms part of the response to the modern needs of the European Union in dealing with transnational crime and considers the experience of the UK in implementing and using the warrant. The warrant is the first manifestation of the EU policy of mutual recognition in relation to cooperation in criminal matters and in questioning how effectively the UK has put the warrant into operation under the Extradition Act 2003, the article compares the analyses of the European Commission, Eurojust and the House of Lords. Finally, the approach to interpretation taken by the courts to cases coming before them concerning the warrant under the 2003 Act is examined.


2020 ◽  
pp. 352-383
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars

This chapter traces how the free movement of persons developed, culminating into a constitutional identity for EU nationals that extends rights to economically inactive free movers as well. EU citizenship was formally established in 1992, and can be used as a marker to separate two distinct eras of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on free movement of persons. The chapter then considers the personal and material scope of EU citizenship, and looks at CJEU case law on the free movement of EU citizens between 1992 and 2004. It also assesses the impact of the Citizenship Directive in 2004, as well as the impact of Brexit on EU citizenship. The controversy surrounding the development of ‘citizenship rights’ is of particular interest given the Brexit referendum; limitless immigration from the EU was found to be one of the primary reasons why the UK voted to leave the EU.


2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jules Lonbay

As mentioned in the previous note1 the Amsterdam Treaty significantly alters the treaty structure as regards the free movement of persons. The EC treaty now has, as one of its formal activities as set out in article 3(1)(d), “measures concerning the entry and movement of persons as provided for in Title IV”. The creation of a new Title IV in the EC Treaty on establishing an area of freedom, security and justice moves a corpus of subject matter2 from the inter-governmental pillar on Justice and Home Affairs to the Treaty of Rome. The aim clearly set out is to establish, within five years, all the measures necessary to create “an area without frontiers” in accordance with Article 143 together with “flanking measures with respect to external board of controls of asylum and immigration” as well as “measures to prevent and combat crime in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 (e) of the Treaty on European Union”.4 Co-operation between the Member States is also to be strengthened and encouraged5 as well as measures in the field of police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters though the latter is in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the European Union.6


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
Willem Maas

Abstract This article surveys some general lessons to be drawn from the tension between the promise of citizenship to deliver equality and the particularistic drive to maintain diversity. Democratic states tend to guarantee free movement within their territory to all citizens, as a core right of citizenship. Similarly, the European Union guarantees (as the core right of EU citizenship) the right to live and the right to work anywhere within EU territory to EU citizens and members of their families. Such rights reflect the project of equality and undifferentiated individual rights for all who have the status of citizen. But they are not uncontested. Within the EU, several member states propose to reintroduce border controls and to restrict access for EU citizens who claim social assistance. Similar tensions and attempts to discourage freedom of movement also exist in other political systems, and the article gives examples from the United States and Canada. Within democratic states, particularly federal ones and others where decentralized jurisdictions are responsible for social welfare provision, it thus appears that some citizens can be more equal than others. Principles such as benefit portability, prohibition of residence requirements for access to programs or rights, and mutual recognition of qualifications and credentials facilitate the free flow of people within states and reflect the attempt to eliminate internal borders. Within the growing field of migration studies, most research focuses on international migration, movement between states, involving international borders. But migration across jurisdictional boundaries within states is at least as important as international migration. Within the European Union, free movement often means changing residence across jurisdictional boundaries within a political system with a common citizenship, even though EU citizenship is not traditional national citizenship. The EU is thus a good test of the tension between the equality promised by common citizenship and the diversity institutionalized by borders.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document