Transnational Law Enforcement in the European Union and the Ne Bis In Idem Principle

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-29
Author(s):  
Michiel Luchtman
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Transnational Law ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

scholarly journals CORRUPTION, CAPITAL ABUNDANCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: EVIDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vlatka Bilas ◽  
Mile Bošnjak ◽  
Sanja Franc
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Economic Development ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
European Union Countries ◽  
The Relationship

The aim of this paper is to establish and clarify the relationship between corruption level and development among European Union countries. Out of the estimated model in this paper one can conclude that the level of corruption can explain capital abundance differences among European Union countries. Also, explanatory power of corruption is higher in explaining economic development than in explaining capital abundance, meaning stronger relationship between corruption level and economic development than between corruption level and capital abundance. There is no doubt that reducing corruption would be beneficial for all countries. Since corruption is a wrongdoing, the rule of law enforcement is of utmost importance. However, root causes of corruption, namely the institutional and social environment: recruiting civil servants on a merit basis, salaries in public sector competitive to the ones in private sector, the role of international institutions in the fight against corruption, and some other corruption characteristics are very important to analyze in order to find effective ways to fight corruption. Further research should go into this direction.

scholarly journals Facial recognition in police hands: Assessing the ‘Clearview case’ from a European perspective

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-389
Author(s):  
Isadora Neroni Rezende
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Data Protection ◽  
Facial Recognition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies

Since 2019, over 600 law enforcement agencies across the United States have started using a groundbreaking facial recognition app designed by Clearview AI, a tech start-up which now plans to market its technology also in Europe. While the Clearview app is an expression of the wider phenomenon of the repurposing of privately held data in the law enforcement context, its use in criminal proceedings is likely to encroach on individuals’ rights in unprecedented ways. Indeed, the Clearview app goes far beyond traditional facial recognition tools. If these have been historically limited to matching government-stored images, Clearview now combines its technology with a database of over three billion images published on the Internet. Against this background, this article will review the use of this new investigative tool in light of the European Union (EU) legal framework on privacy and data protection. The proposed assessment will proceed as follows. Firstly, it will briefly assess the lawfulness of Clearview AI’s data scraping practices under the General Data Protection Regulation. Secondly, it will discuss the transfer of scraped data from the company to EU law enforcement agencies under the regime of the Directive 2016/680/EU (the Directive). Finally, it will analyse the compliance of the Clearview app with art 10 of the Police Directive, which lays down the criteria for lawful processing of biometric data. More specifically, this last analysis will focus on the strict necessity test, as defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human Rights. Following this assessment, it will be argued that the Clearview app’s use in criminal proceedings is highly problematic in light of the EU legislation on privacy and data protection.

Ne Bis Interpretatio In Idem?The Two Faces of theNe Bis In IdemPrinciple in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Rosanò
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
Regional Custom

The meaning ofidemin thene bis in idemprinciple is controversial in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In interpreting the provision of Article 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement, the court has emphasized the necessary requirement in the identity of the material acts while in antitrust law three requirements have been deemed necessary: (1) Identity of the facts, (2) unity of offender, and (3) unity of the legal interest protected. Despite the opinions of some Advocates General, the court has confirmed different interpretations of the same principle, depending on differences of the legal scope in question. A few years ago, however, the European Court of Human Rights proclaimed the criterion based on the identity of the material acts as the most suitable. This might push the Court of Justice of the European Union to correct its position in the antitrust field. Should this happen, this adjustment might serve as grounds to recognize the existence of a regional custom concerning thene bis in idemprinciple.

Europol as the Director and Coordinator of the Joint Investigation Teams

2007 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 313-328
Author(s):  
José Antonio Farah Lopes de Lima
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
National Level ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Vast Number ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Joint Investigation ◽  
European Arrest Warrant

One of the most serious problems troubling the European Union is the evolution of cross-border crimes and, in particular, international terrorism and organised crime. National law enforcement authorities cannot fight cross-border crimes efficiently if their efforts are made solely on a national level. Since the early 1990s, the (European) political authorities have become increasingly aware of this problem and have taken steps to facilitate the participation of the law enforcement and other relevant personnel from other state(s) in investigating offences. This has resulted in the adoption of a vast number of documents and new instruments (eg the European Arrest Warrant), and the creation of new agencies within the European Union, the aim of which is to facilitate cross-border activities to fight cross-border crimes.

The Past, Present and Future of the Ne Bis In Idem Dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights: The Cases of Menci, Garlsson and Di Puma

2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-84
Author(s):  
Max Vetzo
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Market Abuse ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

The cases of Menci (C-524/15), Garlsson (C-537/16) and Di Puma (C-596/16 and C-597/16) deal with the duplication of criminal and punitive administrative proceedings for the same conduct in the area of VAT and market abuse. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that this duplication of proceedings constitutes a limitation of the ne bis in idem principle of Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter). This infringement is only justified if the requirements of the limitation clause of Article 52(1) of the Charter are met. The judgments were highly anticipated as they constitute the response of the CJEU to the judgment in A and B v Norway delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in which the ECtHR lowered the level of protection afforded by the ne bis in idem principle of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention of Human Rights (A4P7 ECHR). While there are differences between the approaches taken by both courts, it appears that the reasoning of the CJEU in the judgments largely mirrors that of the ECtHR in A and B v Norway. This article frames the judgments in terms of the dialogue between the CJEU and ECtHR on the ne bis in idem principle. It does so chronologically, by focusing on the past, present and future of the ne bis in idem dialogue between both European courts.

Independence: In or Out of Europe? An Independent Scotland and the European Union

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Happold
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Union Member ◽  
Nation State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Level ◽  
Question Mark ◽  
National Governments ◽  
European Union Member States ◽  
The Eu

There is a question mark over the future of the nation-state in Europe. National monetary policy has been transferred to the European level in most European Union member States. Over the next ten years the EU will have a stronger role in defence and foreign policy, immigration and law enforcement. The very policies that supposedly define the concept of national sovereignty are no longer the exclusive domain of national governments.

scholarly journals Jurisdiction Collisions In The Criminal Proceedings Of European Union Member States

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-105
Author(s):  
Raimundas Jurka ◽  
Jolanta Zajančkauskienė
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Member States ◽  
Effective Measure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Positive Law ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem

Abstract Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document