Mutual recognition, mutual trust and fundamental rights after Lisbon

2016 ◽  
pp. 148-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valsamis Mitsilegas
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust

scholarly journals Canaries in a coal mine: Rule of law deficiencies and mutual trust

Pravni zapisi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-395
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Human Rights Regime ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The value decline in the EU has manyfold consequences. It jeopardizes the very essence of Europe as a community of values. At the same time it endangers legal principles, such as mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust presuming that all Member States are based on the rule of law and protect fundamental rights. Once trust is rebutted, Member States' judicial authorities will refuse to cooperate and recognise each other's judgments in order not to become complicit in individual rights violations and not to contradict the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This paper argues that EU law must allow for such considerations and suspend mutual recognition-based laws not only on a case-by-case basis, as it happens today in practice, but in general with regard to Member States undergoing rule of law decline, in order to uphold the EU's fundamental rights culture, and EU law's equivalency with the Convention's human rights regime.

scholarly journals Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 704-717 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Marguery
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Fiction ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

This article contends that the presumption of mutual trust between the European Union Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, a failure of the latter can have detrimental effects on judicial cooperation and, especially, on the functions of punishment. In particular, mutual recognition and mutual trust create a bridge between the external limits of punishment (fundamental rights) and the internal limits to the functions of punishment (retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation). The non-compliance with individuals’ fundamental rights undermines the very social functions of punishment. Such a failure can only be prevented if the Member States and the European Union endeavour to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy with concerns for individuals at its very core.

scholarly journals The Impact on National Sovereignty of Mutual Recognition in the AFSJ. Case-Study of the European Arrest Warrant

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-64
Author(s):  
Suzanne Andrea Bloks ◽  
Ton van den Brink
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Dynamic Perspective ◽  
The Impact

AbstractNational sovereignty has been the key consideration for basing judicial cooperation in the European Union on mutual recognition. More than one decade after the creation of the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ), this contribution assesses whether mutual recognition-based EU legislation in civil and criminal law indeed respects national sovereignty. To this end, it studies the Framework decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the EU’s flagship instrument in the AFSJ. We distinguish two elements of national sovereignty: (a) the protection of the State and its basic structures (its statehood); (b) the State’s values, principles and fundamental rights (its statehood principles), and assess the EAW from a dynamic perspective: from its initial inception, in which mutual trust primarily implied little interferences with the laws and practices of issuing states, to the current state of affairs which is marked by what could be called a ‘mutual trust supported by harmonization’- approach. Especially in the judge-driven harmonization of the EAW and the dialogue between judicial authorities we witness important (and oftentimes overlooked) elements that impact national sovereignty. At the end, the findings of the article are put in the context of the current rule of law crisis in the EU.

Mutual (Dis-)trust in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Kathrin Hamenstädt
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Vertical Dimension ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Mutual Exclusivity ◽  
Member States ◽  
Horizontal Dimension ◽  
Potential Impact ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Relationship

Mutual trust constitutes the foundation of the principle of mutual recognition, which in turn embodies a cornerstone of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). This contribution explores the development of the relationship between trust and distrust in two mutual recognition regimes of the AFSJ. It bases on the premise that trust and distrust are inextricably linked, and that their relationship should not be perceived as one of mutual exclusivity or contradiction. The analysis addresses exceptions to mutual recognition, which are often perceived as manifestations of distrust, and examines their potential impact on mutual trust. It is submitted that exceptions to mutual recognition are necessary requirements for building and maintaining trust in the AFSJ and that they constitute an adaptation of the principle of mutual recognition to the particularities of the AFSJ. Next to the horizontal dimension of trust (i.e., trust among Member States) the analysis adds a new perspective by highlighting the importance of the vertical dimension of trust.

Judicial independence as a precondition for mutual trust? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
State Compliance ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.

scholarly journals The Evolution of Relations between Russia and the Republic of Korea: to Mark the 30th Anniversary of Mutual Recognition

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
En Un Kim ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Republic Of Korea ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
Mutual Understanding ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Balanced Development ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Goals And Objectives

After the establishment of diplomatic relations, Russia and South Korea have passed a difficult way of developing mutual understanding and a certain degree of mutual trust and practical actions. Their relationships have evolved from great optimism to pragmatic and balanced development and the current state characterized in the anniversary year by the slogan “Be friends. Trust. Act”. The republic of Korea has achieved almost all the goals set during the normalization of relations and received huge profits from the cooperation with Russia. Conversely, Russia has not achieved most of the goals and objectives set 30 years ago.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document