scholarly journals The European arrest warrant in the case law of the Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Helena Patricio
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Framework Decision ◽  
European Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Impact

A key factor in the creation of a European area of freedom, security and justice is the principle of mutual recognition, which the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002, for the first time, comprehensively implemented in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The Court of Justice of the European Union has greatly contributed to the understanding of the Framework Decision, accentuating its goals and enhancing its guiding principles, which are the mutual recognition of judgments in the different Member States of the European Union and mutual trust that should settle among them, for the creation of the said area. The West judgment of 28 June 2012, C-192/12 PPU, on urgent preliminary ruling procedure, aptly illustrates the impact of this case law, highlighting the role of this procedure, implemented on 1 March 2008.

scholarly journals Use of standard forms in EU Civil Judicial Cooperation: the case of the European Certificate of Succession = L’uso di formulari standard nella cooperazione giudiziaria civile: il caso del certificato successorio europeo

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 627
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
General Framework ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Application Form ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The present paper analyses the recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Brisch case. The reference for preliminary ruling concerns the optional or mandatory nature of the application form established by the Succession Implementing Regulation for the issue of an European Certificate of Succession. The present paper tackles the general framework, from the current CJEU’s case law on the Succession Regulation’s provisions on the ECS, to the main procedural issues. Then, an analysis of the case and of the CJEU’s reasoning is offered. The concluding remarks submit some considerations on the impact of the standard forms established by the EU Regulations within the civil judicial cooperation.Palabras clave: European Certificate of Succession, Standard Forms, Succession Regulation No 650/2012, Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014.Riassunto: Il presente contributo analizza la recente sentenza Brisch della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. La domanda di pronuncia pregiudiziale verte sulla natura del modello di domanda di emissione del certificato successorio europeo, previsto dal regolamento di esecuzione del regolamento sulle successioni transfrontaliere. Pertanto, il contributo affronta lo stato attuale della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia sul certificato successorio europeo e le regole procedimentali fondamentali per il suo ottenimento. Quindi, è analizzato il caso con particolare attenzione alla motivazione della Corte. Infine, le conclusioni presentano alcune considerazioni più generali sul valore e sugli effetti dei moduli standard, previsti nei regolamenti dell’Unione in materia di cooperazione giudiziaria civile.Parole chiave: certificato successorio europeo, moduli standard, regolamento 650/2012 sulle successioni transfrontaliere, regolamento d’esecuzione 1329/2014

Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 409-420
Author(s):  
Anna Podolska
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

scholarly journals THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IN LIGHT OF DECISION THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE ARANYOSI AND CALDARARU

TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Mićo Bošković ◽  
Tomislav Trajković ◽  
Gordana Nikolić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Dominant Form ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

For a long time, extradition has been a dominant form of international mutual legal assistance, but in many cases it has proven to be an insufficiently efficient instrument. Having that in mind, on the territory of the European Union, a European arrest warrant has been established as an institute that should contribute to the effectiveness of combating modern crime and facilitate the surrender of persons between member states in order to effectively prevent the escape of suspects or convicted persons. Regarding this, the Article will first give a brief overview of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision, which regulates the European arrest warrant, and will analyze it in order to define the strengths and weaknesses of the task itself. The subject of research in this article is primarily devoted to the analysis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the “Aranyosi and Caldararu” case. With this verdict, the European Court of Justice, derogates some of the key principles that order is based on and special attention is devoted to the devaluation of the principles of mutual trust and the principles of mutual recognition of judicial decisions among EU states, which the Council of the European Union considers as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation.

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 Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Georgian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 241-262
Author(s):  
Gaga Gabrichidze
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Association Agreement ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter scrutinizes perception of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) by the Georgian courts and the Georgian Competition Agency. With the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Georgia in 2014, the Georgian legal system undoubtedly became more closely connected with EU law. Hence, approximation commitments under the Association Agreement made the case law of the CJEU of much more relevance for the Georgian courts and administrative authorities. However, in the wake of intensification of EU–Georgia relations, the impact of CJEU case law can be identified even in the time before conclusion of the Association Agreement. Analysis shows that several factors play a role with regard to the extent and frequency of mentioning CJEU case law in the decisions of the Georgian courts and Competition Agency. Judges refer to case law of the CJEU with the aim of either strengthening their own arguments or using it as a source of interpretation. Taking into consideration the ‘European’ roots of Georgia’s competition policy, the Competition Agency regards the case law of the CJEU as having a very important interpretative value for closing ‘gaps’ in the law.

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 Art. 22(4) Brussels i regulation and its successoronly only apply to cases concerned with the actual registration or validityof the listed ip rights. Commentary on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5 october 2017, c-341/16 = Artículo 22.4 del Reglamento Bruselas I y su sucesor solo se aplican a los casos relacionados con el registro efectivo o la validez de los derechos de propiedad intelectual enumerados. Comentario de la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 5 de octubre de 2017, c-341/16

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 937
Author(s):  
Kilian Sendlmeier
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Trade Marks ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Provision

Abstract: The CJEU reaffirms its established case law on Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001) and interprets the provision narrowly. Courts in member states in which patents, trade marks, designs, or similar rights that are required to be deposited or registered, have jurisdiction only in cases that are actually concerned with the registration or validity of these IP rights. A case concerned with the potential ownership of such rights falls within the general provision of Art. 2(1) Brussels I and, therefore, is to be brought before courts in the member state where the defendant is domiciled.Keywords: Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, Brussels I Regulation (No. 44/2001), Jurisdiction under Art. 2(1) and Art. 22(4) Brussels I Regulation, jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with IP rights, registration of property of a trade markResumen: El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea mantiene su jurisprudencia establecida sobre el Art. 22.4 del Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001 de Bruselas I e interpreta este artículo en sentido estricto. Los tribunales de los Estados miembros en los que se exige el depósito o el registro de patentes, marcas, dibujos y modelos u otros derechos similares solo son competentes en los casos en que se la posible titularidad de ese derecho entra en el ámbito de la disposición general del Art. 2.1 del Reglamento Bruselas I y, por lo tanto, debe ser llevado ante los tribunales de aquel estado miembro en el que el demandado esté domiciliado.Palabras clave: Procedimiento prejudicial, Cooperación judicial en materia civil y mercantil, Reglamento (CE) n° 44/2001, Competencia judicial, Artículo 2, apartado 1, Competencia de los órganos jurisdiccionales del domicilio del demandado, Artículo 22, punto 4, Competencia exclusiva en materia detítulos de propiedad intelectual, inscripción como titular de una marca.

scholarly journals Public policy: united in diversity... within the marriage?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 1022-1031
Author(s):  
Silvia Marino
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The present paper tackles the development of the notion of public policy in the definition of the concept of marriage. It starts from brief remarks on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of the right to free movement of people and of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to private and family life. Then, it analyses the uncertainties stemming from the national divergences. Further, the impact of the Coman case on the applicability of EU measures on civil judicial cooperation and on the notion of public policy is examined. Conclusively, the paper submits some considerations on the modern function of the public policy.

Impact of Brexit on Zonal Approval Procedures and Mutual Recognition Procedures in Plant Protection Legislation

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Alexander KOOF
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Plant Protection Products ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Protection Legislation ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

On 29 March 2017, the UK made use of Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and thus initiated its withdrawal from the European Union. As a result, the UK left the European Union on 31 January 2020 (23:00 UTC). This paper provides a legal assessment of the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit) on zonal authorisation and mutual recognition procedures regarding the authorisation of plant protection products. Many legal issues are unclear in this respect due to the lack of European and national case law. The German Administrative Court of Braunschweig had to decide in an urgent procedure on the effects of Brexit with regards to the authorisation of a plant protection product in the mutual recognition procedure.

The evolving notion of mutual recognition in the CJEU’s case law on detention

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 689-703 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Caeiro ◽  
Sónia Fidalgo ◽  
João Prata Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Case Basis

This article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on detention and the possible evolution of the understanding of mutual recognition stemming therefrom. In the Lanigan, JZ, and Ognyanov decisions, the CJEU assimilated mutual recognition with the effectiveness of cooperation, which should be understood as maximum compliance with the issuing state’s interests. Arguably, this approach is detrimental to other important values, such as, for example, the rights arising from excessively long detention and a rational and meaningful approach to the enforcement of imprisonment. On the other hand, the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgment has detached mutual recognition from the exclusive protection of the issuing state and has turned it into a neutral governance principle. If mutual trust is not a given and can be assessed on a case-by-case basis through common objective parameters, the decisions deserving recognition may be uttered either by the issuing or the executing authority.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document