scholarly journals THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AS A NORMATIVE BACKDROP TO POTENTIAL EUROPEAN INTEGRATION IN THE SPHERE OF CRIMINAL LAW

2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-148
Author(s):  
Gerard Conway

At a European inter-state level, both the Council of Europe and the European Union (EU) have developed cooperation in criminal matters between European jurisdictions. Although the EU represents a deeper form of integration and cooperation in legal terms than does the Council of Europe, the EU also has to date preferred a looser ‘intergovernmental’ means of cooperation in police and criminal matters, as compared to the degree of integration of the common market. This reluctance to integrate, to a greater degree, national systems of criminal law is reflected in the relatively limited nature of the pre-existing Council of Europe framework of instruments in the field. This article seeks to illustrate this point through an assessment of three of the most relevant Council of Europe instruments – the European Convention of Human Rights, the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and the Convention on Extradition – in the light of recent EU developments.

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiya Kotlyarenko ◽  
◽  
Nataliia Pavlovska ◽  
Eugenia Svoboda ◽  
Anatolii Symchuk ◽  
...  

International standards exist in any field of legal regulation however, they are mostly identified with standards that regulate the technical sphere, since they are the most common ones. Nonetheless, today it is hard to imagine any area of public life withno generally recognized international standards. European legal standards are formed within the framework of the two most regional international associations –the Council of Europe and the European Union. The Council of Europe sets, first of all, standards in the humanitarian sphere: human rights, environment protection, and constitutional law, which is determined by the goals and purpose of its functioning. The European Union (hereinafter referred to as the EU) using directives, regulations, and other legal acts sets standards for most areas of the EU population's life. It should be noted it is during the development of 'standardization' in the European law that specific development of public relations in the EU takes place. Defining the EU legal standardas a separate category of norms of the European law, it is noteworthy that this term is used in a broad sense as a 'legal standard' and incorporates such elements as the general principles of the EU law and the 'common values' of the EU –they relate to people, environment, economic issues, and so on. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 is a classic example of their implementation. In a narrow sense, this term has a specific meaning and does not coincidewith the concept of 'legal standard', e.g. these are standards in the technical field that are adopted by the European Committee for Standardization, that is, in its content, it is a technical publication that is used as a norm, rule, guide or definition.Therefore, they relate to products, services, or systems and are the basis for convergence and interaction within the growing market of various business sectors. Today, in international law de facto there is a system of standards that regulate various aspects of international relations.


2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 145
Author(s):  
Verena Murshetz

Recent developments regarding criminal matters within the European Union (EU) show a trend towards a supranational criminal competence, which could be realised before the entry into force of the European Constitution whose future is uncertain. The strongest indicators in this development are two judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), one that extends the powers of the European Community (EC) over the protection of the environment through criminal sanctions  and the other applying the principle of conforming interpretation to framework decisions . This trend is questionable though, as the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) does not confer a criminal competence upon the EC. The third pillar containing criminal matters is intergovernmental in nature. This article critically discusses the recent trend and presents arguments against an implied supranational criminal law within the EU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-160
Author(s):  
Jantien Leenknecht ◽  
Johan Put

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.


ERA Forum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-464
Author(s):  
Boudewijn de Jonge

AbstractMost forms of international cooperation in criminal matters have now been regulated to some extent by European Union legislation. One classical form of cooperation has been so far largely immune from influence by the EU legislator, however. This is the area of transfer of proceedings. This article provides an overview of the current situation and argues that new life should be blown into earlier initiatives to improve this form of cooperation. Harmonisation in this area will prove an important step to facilitate the proper administration of justice in the common Area of Freedom, Justice and Security that the European Union is set to realise.


2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
ULRICH WAGRANDL

Abstract:Ordinarily, militant democracy is about restricting the rights of those who threaten to overthrow the very democracy that guarantees these rights. Hence, militant democracy permits the defence of democracy by disarming its opponents. Turkey’s recent constitutional reform, which arguably is a move away from liberal democracy, forces militant democracy to face up to its transnational application. Can we use militant democracy’s tools to defend not our own, but another democracy? Maybe we can and even should. This article examines the two transnational manifestations of militant democracy. The first is ‘transnational democracy gone militant’, epitomised by the European Union (EU)’s power to enforce liberal democratic standards in its Member States. The second is ‘militant democracy gone transnational’. This manifestation permits treating people rallying in the EU to attack democracy abroad in the same manner in which we are permitted to treat opponents of ‘our own’ democracy. As long as we are dealing with members of the Council of Europe (CoE), the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) gives us the instruments we need. Generally, militant democracy is a militant liberal democracy, which is not neutral towards itself, but is also an opponent of every system that is antithetical to it.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-175
Author(s):  
Georgia Papucharova

Abstract Тhe regulatory fragmentation and the excessive administrative formalities in the area of international legal assistance in investigation have created the need for a unitary mechanism. This article is focused on the relatively new instrument for international judicial cooperation in criminal matters – The European Investigation Order (EIO). Specifically, it examines the reflection of Directive 2014/41/EU in several Member States of the EU and provides an overview of the separate national systems. The analysis contained in this paper seeks to identify the issuing, the receiving and the executing authorities in each of the considered countries. Main aspects of the EIO’s regulation such as, for an example, its form and content, its transmission, proportionality assessment, deadlines and refusal grounds are seen from the perspective of different national legislations. Although the present study is not intended to be exhaustive, it could clarify to some extent whether an“one-size-fits all” solution in the area of evidence-gathering is an appropriate approach. Special attention is paid to the protection of the right to defence provided by the examined domestic regulations concerning the EIO.


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-159
Author(s):  
Gerard Conway

Formal legal cooperation in matters relating to prisoners has existed at European level for over 50 years. With the development of an European Union (EU) competence in criminal law from the Treaty of Maastricht 1992 onwards, now both the Council of Europe and the EU have adopted legal instruments in this sphere. This paper analsyses the scope and rationale of transnational European cooperation relating to prisoners. It first outlines Council of Europe instruments, including the relevance of the European Convention of Human Rights, conventions specifically on prisoners, and soft law. It then examines the more recent EU instruments, following which the relevance of constitutional principles and the prospects and potential difficulties of European cooperation are analysed. It concludes that cooperation can best succeed through a specification of minimum standards and greater coordination between Council of Europe and EU action, along with greater recognition of its specifically penal context.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1017-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurens van Puyenbroeck ◽  
Gert Vermeulen

A critical observer would not deny that the practice of European Union (‘EU’) policy making in the field of criminal law in the past decade since the implementation of the Tampere Programme has been mainly repressive and prosecution-oriented.1 The idea of introducing a set of common (minimum) rules, guaranteeing the rights of defence at a EU-wide level, has not been accorded the same attention as the introduction of instruments aimed at improving the effectiveness of crime-fighting. What does this mean for the future of EU criminal policy? Will the EU succeed in the coming years in developing an area where freedom, security and justice are truly balanced? According to several authors, to date the EU has evolved in the opposite direction. As one observer put it:[I]f Procedural Criminal Law arises from the application of Constitutional Law, or indeed if it may be described as “a seismograph of the constitutional system of a State”, then as a consequence the Procedural Criminal Law of the European Union shows the extent of the Democratic Rule of Law, of the existence of a true “Rechtsstaat”, within an integrated Europe. This situation may be qualified as lamentable, as the main plank of the EU's criminal justice policy relates to the simplification and the speeding up of police and judicial cooperation—articles 30 and 31 of the Treaty of the EU—but without at the same time setting an acceptable standard for fundamental rights throughout a united Europe.2


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document