Modern Instruments for Evidence-Gathering in Criminal Matters Across EU

2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-254
Author(s):  
Ralitsa Voynova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
European Area ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Subjects of analysis in this paper are the latest instruments for investigation and collection of evidence in criminal cases applicable to the legal cooperation between the EU Member States. Emphasis is placed on the European Investigation Order (EIO) - the newest EU measure for legal assistance in criminal matters. Based on a comparison with existing tools in the same field there are highlighted the advantages of EIO for affirmation of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in the European area of criminal justice

Caught Between National and Supranational Values: Limitations to Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters as Part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice within the European Union

2008 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-72
Author(s):  
Olivia den Hollander
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Third ◽  
The One ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

AbstractCurrently, the European Union is based on both supranational (first pillar) and international (second and third pillar) law. The third pillar signifies police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and although formally based on international law, it has been under increasing "supranational pressure" by the developments in the "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice". This Area is focused on a set of common values and principles closely tied to those of the single market and its four "freedoms". The main argument of this article is that the legal framework of the third pillar is an impediment to judicial cooperation in criminal matters in general, and to the coordination of conflicts of jurisdiction and the principle of ne bis in idem in particular. The legal framework of the third pillar finds itself in the middle of an identity crisis, since it can neither be identified as a traditional intergovernmental, nor as a supranational institutional framework. Criminal law is a politically sensitive matter, which on the one hand explains why the EU member states are reluctant to submit their powers over the issue to the European level and on the other hand, it implies that if the EU member states really want to cooperate on such an intensive level, they will have to submit some of their powers in order to strengthen EU constitutional law. The article suggests a reform of the third pillar through the method of "communitization", which is exactly what will happen in case the EU Reform Treaty will enter into force. This would offer the ingredients for a true international community in which the ambitious agenda of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice can realise its aim of a common set of values and principles which supersedes those of each of the member states individually.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction Collisions In The Criminal Proceedings Of European Union Member States

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-105
Author(s):  
Raimundas Jurka ◽  
Jolanta Zajančkauskienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Member States ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

Abstract Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

scholarly journals Prisoner Transfer Within the Irish-UK Common Travel Area (CTA) After Brexit: Human Rights Between Politics and Penal Reform

2020 ◽  
pp. 002201832097752
Author(s):  
Tim J Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Penal Reform ◽  
Long Duration ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The UK Government proposed in February 2020 that sentenced prisoner transfers with EU member states should continue after Brexit, but using a more ‘effective’ process than the existing CoE convention. The article analyses, with a particular focus on the Irish-UK CTA, the significance of continued UK human rights compliance for the achievement of this objective and the interrelationship of this issue with extradition/surrender (including the surrender of fugitive prisoners). It is concluded that Brexit has most probably raised the level of formal and institutional human rights compliance (including legal aid/assistance and the direct enforcement of prisoners’ rights in domestic courts) required from the UK for criminal justice cooperation with EU member states. Entering into such undertakings would not assist criminal impunity or the evasion of lawfully imposed penalties. Such undertakings, however, cannot help to resolve many problems inherent in prisoner transfer within the EU. The creation of a truly effective and rehabilitative transfer system would require (a) constructive UK Government participation in inter-governmental (including the UK devolved governments)/EU arrangements capable of incrementally resolving or effectively mitigating criminal justice cooperation problems and (b) acceptance at Westminster that this aspect of post-Brexit readjustment is likely to be intermittent and of long-duration.

scholarly journals The Problems of Criminal Law Harmonization in the Framework of the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 311-321 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vadim Voynikov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Main Idea ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Moment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The free movement of people across internal borders, and the high level of integration between EU member states, demands the development of cooperation in the fight against crime. That is why the EU is empowered to ensure the coordination of activities of member states in the fight against crime. This fight is one of the elements of EU policy in the areas of freedom, security and justice. One of the EU’s anti-crime activities is the harmonization of national criminal law, the main idea of which is to ensure the same level of responsibility for crimes of a cross-border dimension in all EU member states. The article analyzes the legal basis for the harmonization of criminal law within the EU, classifies these activities, shows the features of certain types (modes) of harmonization, as well as shows the place of criminal law harmonization in the EU system of combating crime. The analysis of the definition «EU criminal law» and other concepts relating to legal cooperation in criminal matters within the EU has a special place in this article. Based on an analysis of the positions of a number of researchers, the author comes to the conclusion that the concept of «EU criminal law» is an «umbrella» definition, which is understood as a set of rules relating to the harmonization of criminal law and criminal procedure law. In addition, the paper shows the features of harmonization of criminal law within the most serious types of crimes, such as terrorism, human trafficking, etc. The EU has a competence on the harmonization of national criminal law, but EU institutions are entitled to accept only framework norms that do not have a direct effect needing implementation into national law. At the moment, the EU’s primary Law contains the necessary legal framework for the harmonization of national criminal law. The analysis of this framework allows us to identify three main modes of harmonization of criminal law within the EU: functional (basic) harmonization, annex harmonization, and auxiliary harmonization.

Die Konstitutionalisierung der gegenseitigen Anerkennung

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Burchard
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The increasing level of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the field of freedom, security and justice of the EU is based on the principle of mutual recognition. Christoph Burchard examines the scope and limits of this principle from a strictly union-constitutional perspective. He points out that the mutual recognition constituted in Article 82 No.1 TFEU has the effect of merely substantiating competence and thus needs to be more firmly established by way of secondary legislation. Just as unconditional trust between Member States of the Union, unrestricted mutual recognition must not be elevated to the rank of a constitutional legal principle of the EU. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the Union as well as the federal principle (including the protection of the identity of the Member States), serve as recognition barriers for the secondary legislator as well as the secondary law users.

Fundamental Rights and the Transformation of Governance in the European Union

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 133-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivier de Schutter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Regulatory Competition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mutual Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

It has been argued in many places, and in different forms, that the establishment between the EU Member States of an internal market, and now of an area of freedom, security and justice, requires the European Union to legislate in the field of fundamental rights, either in order to avoid a form of regulatory competition between the Member States or in order to ensure mutual trust allowing for mutual cooperation between judicial, police and administrative national authorities. ‘Negative integration’, in the form of the lowering of barriers to the movement of goods, services, persons and capital, or in the form of mutual recognition of judicial decisions or exchange of information between national authorities, should thus be followed with, or compensated by, ‘positive integration’, in the form of the setting of common standards applicable throughout the EU Member States. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, moreover, provides the baseline from which to act, since it represents a set of values which all the Member States have agreed to consider as fundamental. The question (so it would seem) is now that of implementing the Charter, by using the legal bases provided for in the treaties to the fullest extent possible.

scholarly journals Order of the International Ban and Albania's Agreements with Other Countries

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 93
Author(s):  
Nikolin Hasani
Keyword(s):  
International Order ◽  
Decision Framework ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Legal Force

Higher stage of cooperation in criminal matters between European states is undisputed the adoption of the International Order of Prohibition (UEN) which was materialized by means of Decision Framework Constitution Nr.584 , dated June 13, 2002. This decision was endorsed by the EU Council and published in its official bulletin on June 18, 2002. Among the EU member states this order replaces classical Extradition procedure, except when some member states have declared that they will continue to implement the conventions of Extradition. From this moment the extradition procedures applied within the EU, are without legal force. The aim of this paper is to present a brief analyse of Albania’s agreements with other countries, pointing out specific aims of them, specific conditions of implementations according the specifical need for judicial cooperation between Albania and each of these countries

scholarly journals Short Profiles of Different European Investigation Order Domestic Regulations in the European Union

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-175
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Evidence Gathering ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.

Institute of Licensing of Economic Activities in the EU Countries: Lessons for Ukraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1839
Author(s):  
Olena R. ZELDINA ◽  
Yevheniia V. AVERIANOVA
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
Economic Activity ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Activities ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Eu

The article examines the licensing systems of economic activity, which are enshrined in the national legislation of such countries of the European Union as Germany, Great Britain and Poland. The authors identify the situation inherent in licensing systems of the above-mentioned EU member states and substantiates the expediency of using these provisions in further reforming of the licensing system of economic activity in Ukraine. The legislation of the European Union aimed at regulating the implementation of certain activities across the whole of the EU, and legislation relating to rules for the mutual recognition of permits and qualifications of specialists in EU member states was analyzed.

scholarly journals Conference European Investigation Order: Practical Dilemmas and Theoretical Considerations, Book of Extended Abstracts, 8. & 9. December 2020, online

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Stajnko ◽  
Miha Šepec ◽  
István Szijártó
Keyword(s):  
Best Practices ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Future ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The University ◽  
Theoretical Considerations ◽  
The Eu

This publication contains abstracts of contributions presented at the conference "European Investigation Order – Practical Dilemmas and Theoretical Considerations", which was held online on 8th and 9th of December 2020. Practitioners and academics from multiple EU Member States shared best practices and identified key shortcomings of the European Investigation Order. The event was executed as an integral part of the EU JUST project “European Investigation Order – Legal Analysis and Practical Dilemmas (EIP-LAPD)”, coordinated by the University of Maribor. The structure of the publication roughly follows the agenda of the conference. In the first part the future of mutual recognition and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is addressed. The second part is more closely focused at the European Investigation Order. Some theoretical dilemmas as well as practical considerations are presented. Lastly, some national reports which were drafted as a key deliverable of the EIO-LAPD project are also outlined.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document