scholarly journals The Preconditions for the Admission of the Preventive Measure Based on an European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Institution ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

In addition to the mandatory “grounds for refusing to execute an European arrest warrant, the legislator” also provided for some optional grounds on the basis of which the competent judicial bodies “of the executing Member State may refuse to execute an European arrest warrant”. These provisions give the courts of the executing Member State the right to invoke or not to invoke them and, implicitly, the right to execute or not to execute an European arrest warrant. In our view, the refusal to execute the warrant must be complemented by the establishment “of direct links between the judicial authorities of the two Member States”, with regard to adopting a solution to the situation. In this context, given the complexity of the cases, the specific circumstances of the crimes, as well as other elements, the two judicial authorities involved will have to ascertain the incidence of another European institution, namely the transfer of proceedings in criminal matters.

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 Letter of Rights for Persons Arrested on the Basis of a European Arrest Warrant: A Novelty Under the Directive 2012/13/Eu

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Libor Klimek
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Fundamental Knowledge ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The paper deals with a Letter of rights for persons arrested on the basis of a European arrest warrant, a novelty introduced by the Directive 2012/13/ EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings. The Directive stipulates that Member States of the EU shall ensure that persons who are arrested for the purpose of the execution of an European arrest warrant are provided promptly with appropriate Letter of rights containing information on their rights according to the law implementing the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant in the executing Member State. The paper is divided into three sections. First section presents fundamental knowledge on starting points of the letter of rights. Further, second section analyses its legal basis, i.e. Directive 2012/13/EU. The last third section introduces an indicative model of letter of rights.

scholarly journals Directive 2013/48/EU and the Requested Person’s Right to Appoint a Lawyer in the Issuing Member State in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-33
Author(s):  
Vincent Glerum
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dual Representation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
Limited Role ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

Directive 2013/48/EU gives persons who are subject to European arrest warrant proceedings the right to “dual representation”: not only the right of access to a lawyer in the executing Member State but also the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State, whose limited role it is to provide information and advice to the lawyer in the executing Member State with a view to the effective exercise of the requested person’s rights under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State is supposed to contribute to facilitating judicial cooperation. This article takes a closer look at that right and tries to establish whether – and, if so, to what extent – that right does indeed facilitate judicial cooperation. 

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.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Right of Exit and Entry

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Member States ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the right of exit and entry provided for in the citizens’ Directive. Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2004/38 affirm the right of Union citizens and members of their family to leave their Member State of origin and to enter any other Member State of their choosing. As such, these Articles constitute a ‘gateway’ for the exercise of rights of residence and rights of permanent residence provided for in the Directive. In addition to affirming the right of free movement, Articles 4 and 5 specify the administrative documentation and procedures governing travel between Member States. However, there have been significant failures to transpose these provisions correctly, with some Member States imposing exit controls on their own citizens, while some Member States blatantly ignore the clear legal requirements of the Directive.

7. The Direct Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 208-248
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Regulation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Interim Measures

This chapter considers the actions commenced before the Court of Justice. These include actions by the European Commission and other member states against a member state (Articles 258–60 TFEU); judicial review of acts of the institutions (Article 263 TFEU); the action against the institutions for a failure to act (Article 265 TFEU); actions for damages (Articles 268 and 340 TFEU); and the right to plead the illegality of an EU regulation (Article 277 TFEU). The chapter also considers interim measures under Articles 278 and 279 TFEU and enforcement actions arising from the Commission enforcement of EU competition law against individuals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document