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

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 Right to Liberty in European Union Law and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

Cambridge yearbook of European legal studies ◽

10.1017/cel.2016.8 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. 215-238 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Leandro MANCANO

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

Eu Law ◽

The European Union ◽

European Union Law ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

European Arrest Warrant ◽

Current Content ◽

The Right ◽

Criminal Matters

AbstractThis article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.

Download Full-text

Is mutual recognition a viable general path for cooperation?

New Journal of European Criminal Law ◽

10.1177/2032284419836516 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 (1) ◽

pp. 44-56 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Helmut Satzger

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

European Integration ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

The European Union ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

The Law ◽

Ordre Public ◽

Criminal Matters ◽

Judicial Assistance ◽

The Eu

In 1999, mutual recognition was declared to be the cornerstone of judicial cooperation not only, but also in criminal matters within the European Union (EU). Often this method seems to be regarded as a result of the close European integration and thus an invention of the EU. This article tries to show that even in traditional judicial assistance cases a similar trend could be witnessed and that mutual recognition is also applied – to a more or less intensive degree – in other regions and also in other areas of the law. In the author’s view, mutual recognition is a dynamic concept; its potential degree of realization depends on a number of contextual preconditions. As a result of the comparative view, he maintains that an ‘ordre public-proviso’ is a necessary ‘outlet’ and not at all outdated, especially in the context of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU.

Download Full-text

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

New Journal of European Criminal Law ◽

10.1177/2032284421995933 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 203228442199593

Author(s):

Wolfgang Schomburg ◽

Anna Oehmichen ◽

Katrin Kayß

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Human Rights ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

The European Union ◽

Cooperation Agreement ◽

Judicial Cooperation ◽

Human Rights Protection ◽

Criminal Matters ◽

The Eu

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

Does the Slovak Republic Fulfil European Requirements on Recognition of Foreign Decisions on Custodial Sentences?

International and Comparative Law Review ◽

10.2478/iclr-2020-0025 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (2) ◽

pp. 215-230

Author(s):

Libor Klimek

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Slovak Republic ◽

Mutual Recognition ◽

Relevant Literature ◽

Case Law ◽

Historical Background ◽

The European Union ◽

Legal Practice ◽

National Implementation ◽

Criminal Matters

Summary Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters permits decisions to move from one European State to another. It is a key element for the development of judicial co-operation in criminal matters in the European Union. Its implementation, including recognition of judgments on custodial sentences, was one of the main areas of European Union activity regarding criminal justice. The Slovak Republic has implemented European requirements. The question which begs consideration is whether Slovak national law fulfils such requirements and if they are applicable in Slovak legal practice. The assessment of national implementation of European requirements on recognition of judgments on custodial sentences and its applicability in Slovak legal practice is therefore needed. The paper analyses relevant literature, legislation, case-law and related official documents of the European Union. Moreover, it compares Slovak national law with European requirements. At the outset it briefly assets historical background of the mechanism. In principle, the system works, but there is the possibility for its enhancement..

Download Full-text

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

TEME ◽

10.22190/teme190131038b ◽

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.

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