scholarly journals El legislador europeo en materia de seguridad y justicia tras el Tratado de Lisboa : avances hacia la cooperación judicial penal en la UE = The european security and justice legislator after the Lisbon Treaty : progress toward the criminal judicialcooperation in the EU

Author(s):  
Juan Fernando López Aguilar

El proceso europeo de aproximación y/o armonización legislativa en materia penal y procesal penal arrancó en tiempo reciente: de hecho, hasta hace bien poco parecía un ejercicio de voluntarista wishful thinking, en la medida en que impactaba sobre un ámbito preservado a la idea tradicional de soberanía de los Estados. La incorporación de la legislación penal y la cooperación judicial penal al ámbito definitivo de la política europea es ejemplificativa de la construcción europea en espacios históricamente monopolizados por los legisladores nacionales. En efecto, en este ámbito se han superado en poco tiempo las limitaciones de la cooperación intergubernamental en el III Pilar que emergió con la entrada en vigor del TUE de 1992, tras su conversión en Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia en el posterior Tratado de Ámsterdam de 1999. En este marco se adoptaron importantes Decisiones Marco (DM) que dieron pasos significativos en el ámbito de la cooperación judicial, mediante la implementación de medidas específicamente orientadas a la seguridad europea contra la criminalidad grave transfronteriza por la vía de la cooperación judicial en materia penal. La conversión del Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia en una genuina política europea sujeta al procedimiento legislativo ordinario (con especialidades) tras el Tratado de Lisboa de 2009, junto a la proyección de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la UE (en especial, de los principios de seguridad jurídica, de «proporcionalidad» y de «necesidad» y/o «subsidiariedad» en la articulación y aplicación de la legalidad penal) son ahora en efecto, la expresión más rotunda de la ambición política y de la dimensión constitucional de la UE. En paralelo a la entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa, el Programa de Estocolmo, adoptado en diciembre 2009, estableció la conversión del antiguo acervo del III Pilar en una nueva y genuina política europea sujeta, por tanto, en lo sucesivo, al Derecho europeo. Los desarrollos futuros de los principios de primacía, eficacia directa, interpretación uniforme, seguridad jurídica y garantía jurisdiccional de los derechos de la ciudadanía, en el marco de las legislaciones internas en los EEMM de los que siguen siendo competentes los Parlamentos nacionales, requerirán un ejercicio intensivo de clarificación judicial por vía interpretativa, y por tanto, exigirá poner particular énfasis en la formación judicial, y del conjunto de las profesiones jurídicas, en la comprensión y manejo del Derecho europeo.The European approximation and/or harmonization in both criminal matters and criminal procedure legislation got started not so long ago: As a matter of fact, until recently, it all seemed a voluntary exercise of wishful thinking, in as much as it was making on a field so far preserved within the traditional realm of States’ sovereignty. The final incorporation of criminal law and criminal judicial cooperation to the sphere of European policy is an outstanding example of the european construction towards areas and competences that had been historically monopolised by national legislators. Indeed, the limitations in this matter of the intergovernmental cooperation in the Third Pillar that emerged with the entry into force of the TEU in 1992, after its conversion into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the subsequent Treaty Amsterdam 1999, have been just recently overcome. Accordingly, some most important Framework Decisions (FD) meaning significant steps in the area of judicial cooperation were taken, through the implementation of specific measures on European security against serious cross-border crime by means of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The conversion of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice is a genuine European policy subject to the ordinary legislative procedure (with some specialties) after the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, together with the projection of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (i.e., of the principles of legal certainty, of «proportionality» and «necessity» and/or «subsidiarity» in the articulation and application of criminal law) are now, in fact, the most visible expression of the EU’s political ambition and constitutional dimension.

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.


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


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-102
Author(s):  
Maria Belén Sánchez Domingo

The new European framework for the protection of personal data on freedom, security and justice is embodied, among other instruments, in EU Directive 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regards to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for criminal law purposes. This Directive protects fundamental rights, such as the right to the protection of personal data, as well as ensuring a high level of public security by facilitating the exchange of personal data between competent authorities within the Union, with the establishment of a legal system on the transfer of personal data.


Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex

This chapter examines the European Union’s justice and home affairs (JHA), which have evolved from a peripheral aspect into a focal point of European integration and today are at the centre of politicization in the EU. It first considers the institutionalization of JHA cooperation and its gradual move towards more supranational competences before discussing political contestation as expressed in the context of Brexit and the crisis of the common asylum and Schengen systems. The development of cooperation is retraced, looking at the main actors in the JHA, the organization and capacities of EU institutions, the continuity of intergovernmentalism, the proliferation of semi-autonomous agencies and databases, and the flow of policy, taking into account asylum policy and immigration policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the challenge of implementation. The chapter shows how the gradual move of cooperation among national agencies concerned with combating crime; fighting terrorism; and managing borders, immigration, and asylum from loose intergovernmental cooperation to more supranational governance within the EU has remained contested, and argues that this contestation exemplifies the limits of political unification.


Author(s):  
Anastazja Gajda

The aim of the study is to present the proposals of legal regulations presented by the European Commission in one of the fields of Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (JHA), i.e. within the framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The European Commission’s proposals aim at strengthening of the rights of suspects/defendants in criminal proceedings in the EU. They consist of the right to a fair trial and include: strengthening of the presumption of innocence principle and the right to be present at the trial, special safeguards for children suspected or accused of a crime and the right to provisional legal aid for citizens suspected or accused of a crime. In the paper I analysed the most important provisions of the projects and showed that these proposals are intended to ensure the protection of fundamental rights within the JHA.


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.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Burchard

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.


Author(s):  
Oskar Losy

The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27
Author(s):  
Anabela Miranda Rodrigues

Taking fundamental rights into account means a limitation of repression, as an instance of the principle of proportionality or principle of necessity, of criminal intervention. The need to design European Union (EU) criminal law in compliance with the principle of proportionality is especially clear in the post-Lisbon stage, in view of the strengthening and expansion of the EU’s competence to legislate on criminal matters, enshrined in Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. This article aims at analysing the terms in which European criminal law respects the aforementioned principle of proportionality of punishment and translates an EU perspective in the field of criminal sanctions.


Author(s):  
Sandra Lavenex

This chapter examines the European Union’s justice and home affairs (JHA), which have evolved from a peripheral aspect into a focal point of European integration. It first considers the institutionalization of JHA cooperation, focusing on the Treaty of Lisbon which constitutes a milestone in the communitarization process, before discussing the main actors in the JHA. In particular, it looks at the organization and capacities of EU institutions, the continuity of intergovernmentalism, and the proliferation of semi-autonomous agencies and databases. It also explores the flow of policy, taking into account asylum policy and immigration policy, police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and the challenge of implementation. The chapter shows how cooperation among national agencies concerned with combating crime, fighting terrorism, and managing borders, immigration and asylum has gradually moved from loose intergovernmental cooperation to more supranational governance within the EU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document