Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the European Union

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.

Download Full-text

The Limitations of the Harmonisation of Criminal Law in the European Union Protected by Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu

European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice ◽

10.1163/15718174-02604003 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 315-334

Author(s):

Kaie Rosin ◽

Markus Kärner

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Criminal Justice ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Justice System ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Minimum Standards ◽

Legislative Procedure ◽

Definition Of ◽

Criminal Matters

Articles 82(3) and 83(3) tfeu give Member States the possibility to suspend the legislative procedure of eu criminal law. Article 82(3) allows that kind of emergency brake mechanism for the process of adopting minimum standards for harmonising rules of criminal procedure enhancing judicial cooperation in criminal matters and Article 83(3) for establishing minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions. A Member State can only use the emergency brake clause when the proposal for the directive would affect the fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system. This prerequisite deserves a closer analysis, therefore the aim of this article is to interpret the meaning of tfeu articles 82(3) and 83(3) to better understand the limitations of the harmonisation of criminal law in the European Union.

Download Full-text

Chinese Curses, Lawyers’ Dreams, Political Nightmares and New Dawns: Interesting Times for the UK’s Relationship with the EU

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.5235/152888713809813602 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 15 ◽

pp. 83-99 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nicholas Forwood

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Member State ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Opt Out ◽

Scottish Independence ◽

The Uk ◽

Criminal Matters ◽

The Eu ◽

End Results

AbstractThis chapter aims to explore some challenges that are likely to arise in the context of the UK’s present and future relationships with the EU. Three aspects come under scrutiny, namely the global opt-out available for the UK in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the contemplated 2017 referendum on whether the UK should remain an EU Member State. The chapter stresses not only the importance of restoring objectivity in the debates surrounding these issues, but also the necessity of taking due account of the uncertainties that these processes unavoidably entail as to their end results for both the UK and Scotland.

Download Full-text

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

International Community Law Review ◽

10.1163/187197408x278260 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

THE NON BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CASE LAW OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION - CONSISTENCY OR INCONSISTENCY?

Agora International Journal of Juridical Sciences ◽

10.15837/aijjs.v12i1.3413 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Chinese Curses, Lawyers’ Dreams, Political Nightmares and New Dawns: Interesting Times for the UK’s Relationship with the EU

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.1017/s1528887000003013 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 15 ◽

pp. 83-99

Author(s):

Nicholas Forwood

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Member State ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Opt Out ◽

Scottish Independence ◽

The Uk ◽

Criminal Matters ◽

The Eu ◽

End Results

Abstract This chapter aims to explore some challenges that are likely to arise in the context of the UK’s present and future relationships with the EU. Three aspects come under scrutiny, namely the global opt-out available for the UK in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)), the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence and the contemplated 2017 referendum on whether the UK should remain an EU Member State. The chapter stresses not only the importance of restoring objectivity in the debates surrounding these issues, but also the necessity of taking due account of the uncertainties that these processes unavoidably entail as to their end results for both the UK and Scotland.

Download Full-text

The position of youth justice in EU criminal law: No game for kids

New Journal of European Criminal Law ◽

10.1177/2032284420911093 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 11 (2) ◽

pp. 135-160

Author(s):

Jantien Leenknecht ◽

Johan Put

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Juvenile Offenders ◽

Criminal Law ◽

Criminal Responsibility ◽

The European Union ◽

Youth Justice ◽

Criminal Proceedings ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Criminal Matters ◽

The Eu

In criminal matters, the European Union (EU) managed to establish several mechanisms to strengthen and facilitate judicial cooperation over the years but does not clearly nor uniformly define the concepts of ‘criminal matters’, ‘criminal proceedings’, ‘criminal responsibility’ and so on in any of the cooperation instruments themselves. It is however important to know as to what the EU understands by the notion ‘criminal’ because Member States have developed specific rules in response to delinquent behaviour of minors, which are somewhat different from ‘general’ criminal law. The question arises whether the existing cooperation mechanisms only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. This article therefore aims to find out whether a consistent and shared view exists on the meaning of the concept ‘criminal’ and to subsequently clarify to what extent the existing EU instruments in criminal matters also apply to juvenile offenders.

Download Full-text

Wpływ Brexitu na współpracę sądową w sprawach karnych w Unii Europejskiej

Przegląd europejski ◽

10.31971/1641-2478pe.1.20.3 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 35-56

Author(s):

Anastazja Gajda

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

United Kingdom ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Arrest Warrant ◽

Unique Position ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

Criminal Matters

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is one of the main challenges for the continued functioning of the European judicial area in criminal matters. In this article, special attention will be paid to selected aspects of ensuring further judicial cooperation in criminal matters after Brexit. This primarily concerns the possibility of further participation of the United Kingdom in specific organs supporting this cooperation (Eurojust and Europol) and the the application of legal instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, with reference to the flagship legal instrument, i.e. the European arrest warrant. It also presents a unique position of the United Kingdom in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice EU, which that state is guaranteed under the provisions of Treaties.

Download Full-text

The Principle of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters: a New Model of Judicial Cooperation Within the European Union

European Criminal Law Review ◽

10.5235/219174412804816390 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 2 (3) ◽

pp. 236-251 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Guillemine Taupiac-Nouvel

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

New Model ◽

Criminal Matters

Download Full-text

The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform Interpretation

Leiden Journal of International Law ◽

10.1017/s0922156512000520 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

pp. 955-977 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text