The boundaries between the EU and Member States competences in criminal matters: reflections on post-Lisbon developments

2020 ◽  
pp. 56-81
Author(s):  
Kerttuli Lingenfelter
Keyword(s):  
Member States ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

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.

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.

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

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.

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 East Meets West

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Leonor C. Aguinaldo
Keyword(s):  
International Cooperation ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Regional Organizations ◽  
Member States ◽  
Mutual Legal Assistance ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

The first and only book of its kind, this book tackles how mutual legal assistance in criminal matters can develop within and between the ASEAN and the EU. Through this book the reader can gain knowledge on international cooperation in criminal matters, especially on mutual legal assistance, in the ASEAN and the EU, including its member states such as the Philippines, Malaysia, the UK, and Germany. This includes discussions on the regional organizations’ historical and socio-political underpinnings, each one’s existing mutual legal assistance mechanisms, and other considerations to further develop mutual legal assistance within and between the ASEAN and the EU.

Directive 2008/99/EC of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law: A new start for criminal law in the European Community?

elni Review ◽  
2009 ◽  
pp. 22-27
Author(s):  
Armelle Gouritin ◽  
Paul De Hert
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
General Rule ◽  
State Level ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Institutional Conflict ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Lengthy Process

Setting the framework for the protection of the environment through criminal law at the EC level ultimately leads to the adoption of Directive 2008/99/EC of 19 November 2008 on the protection of the environment through criminal law. The Directive establishes a minimum set of conducts that should be considered criminal offences throughout the EU when unlawful and committed intentionally (or with at least serious negligence). Inciting, aiding and abetting of such conducts will equally be considered a criminal offence. Directive 2008/99/EC must be implemented by Member States by 26 December 2010. Its adoption has been a debated and lengthy process. These debates occurred at the EU level (institutional conflict) and member state level, and were reflected into the legal scholars work. These debates concerned not as much the specific content of the Directive, but the institutional framework and in particular the use made of criminal law provisions in a first pillar legal instrument, as opposed to the normal use for these purposes of instruments provided for in the third pillar of the EU (police and judicial cooperation on criminal matters). The Directive, therefore, seemingly deviates from the general rule that “neither criminal law nor the rules of criminal procedure fall within the Community’s competence”. The Directive follows a Court of Justice’s decision of 13 September 2005 (Case C176/03) to annul an EU Framework Decision on the protection of the environment on the grounds that it had been adopted on an erroneous legal basis. In its decision the Court upheld the Commission's submission, holding that the Commission may take measures in relation to the Member States' criminal law where the application of criminal penalties is an essential measure for combating serious environmental offences. Hence, a Directive, a first pillar instrument, including criminal law provisions could be adopted. This article discusses the Directive’s institutional background and looks at the criminal law provisions in the Directive. It ends with a critical note on the presumed impact of the Directive.

scholarly journals Prosecuting political dissent: Discussing the relevance of the political offence exception in EU extradition law in light of the Catalan independence crisis

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110047
Author(s):  
Sibel Top
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The Political ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Political Dissent ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

Most extradition treaties contain a political offence exception clause, which precludes extradition from taking place when the concerned crime is considered to be political by the requested state. This clause has been abolished within the European Union (EU), where mutual trust prevails among Member States, allegedly rendering such safeguards obsolete. This article, however, seeks to question the commonly agreed outdatedness of the political offence exception clause within the EU framework, looking at the context of its abolition, the role Spanish authorities played in it at the time of its abolition, the way they have handled the Catalan crisis since 2017 and the exportation of the latter at the EU level. It argues that the situation in which Catalan exiles are today casts doubt over the obsolescence of safeguards such as the political offence exception and further contends that human and political rights safeguard mechanisms should not be perceived as hampering mutual trust and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document