Torpedoing v. Carpet Bombing: Mutual Trust and the Rule of Law

The aim of this paper is to assess the most recent developments in the arising threats to the rule of law, in particular from the viewpoint of their impact on the judicial cooperation in light of the principle of mutual trust in the European Union. The paper analyses the development of this principle, the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the issue, and its views on recent challenges to the rule of law as a fundamental value of the EU, along with positions of other judicial bodies. The assessment then seeks to establish the impact the arising threats to rule of law in the EU, including judicial independence, may exert on the future application of the principle of mutual trust amongst judicial authorities of the Member States, and outline the implications arising therefrom.

12. The institutions of Justice and Home Affairs:

This chapter analyses the institutions of EU member state cooperation on issues such as asylum, refugee protection, migration, border controls, police cooperation, and judicial cooperation. Once seen as the prerogative of member states and as defining features of states’ identities as sovereign, complex incremental institutional change established new ways of working on internal security issues and reconfigured the strategic setting from which these issues are viewed. The recent history of these developments provides insight into the EU’s institutional and organizational development, while also demonstrating how, why, and with what effects these issues have become politicized in EU member states. The politicization of migration and asylum, in particular, complements this chapter’s focus on institutional developments by identifying the source of key pressures and strains to which these institutions have been exposed. The most recent COVID-19 pandemic restricting the free movement of people across Europe, the 2020 fire that broke out at the Moria refugee camp at Lesbos, and the European Commission’s ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ of September 2020 raised serious questions about the content and viability of key components of the EU’s approach to security and human rights. From being a policy arena that was not even mentioned in the Treaty of Rome or Single European Act (SEA), internal security within an ‘area of freedom, security, and justice’ (AFSJ) is now a key EU priority. This chapter pinpoints key developments, specifies institutional roles, and explores the relationships over time between changing conceptualizations of security and institutional developments.

Statute of limitations under the penal law of Bulgaria

Ukraine carries out intensive judicial cooperation in criminal matters with other European countries. A typical impediment to granting Ukrainian requests for such cooperation (e.g. extradition from another country, taking over Ukrainian criminal proceedings by the requested foreign country, recognition and enforcement of Ukrainian criminal judgments abroad) is the expiry of the time limitation period [lapse of time] not only under the Ukrainian law but also under the law of the foreign country that Ukraine requests for cooperation. The problem is that the criminal statute of limitations of most European countries is significantly different from the Ukrainian one. In view thereof, Ukrainian criminal lawyers are interested in having some general knowledge of the statute of limitations of other European countries, esp. such as Bulgaria. On the one hand, this foreign country has always been a steady partner of Ukraine in international judicial cooperation. On the other hand, the Bulgarian statute of limitations constitutes a good example of the different type of legal framework for lapse of time that requesting Ukrainian authorities shall necessarily consider. All penal laws of the contemporary Bulgarian state contained some statute of limitations. These laws are the 1896 Penal Law (repealed), the 1951 Penal Law upgraded to the 1956 Penal Code, after the full codification of this branch of law in Bulgaria (also repealed), and the existing Penal Code of 1968. The criminal statute of limitations outlines periods when competent state authorities have been inactive. The expiry of these periods (the lapse of time under law) extinguishes the immediate legal consequences of crimes or the punishments imposed by the court for them. In Bulgaria, the statute of limitations consists of substantive penal law provisions. This is a legislative recognition of its substantive nature. The concept that the criminal statute of limitation is a procedural legal institution has been overcome in Bulgarian theory, law and judicial practice. The statute of limitations produces procedural consequences also but they derive from its direct substantive law results as secondary effects. As in most other countries, the penal law of Bulgaria prescribes two types of limitation periods. The first one runs after the commission of the offence. It is also called 'limitation of the offence'; its expiry entails the extinction of the offender’s criminal liability preventing both the imposition of punishment on him/her and his/her conviction status as well. The second type of limitation period occurs after the imposition of an executable punishment. It is also called 'limitation of the punishment'; its expiry entails the extinction of the punishment imposed only. It does not eliminate the fact that the offender has been convicted. Under the Bulgarian Penal Code, each of the two types of statute of limitations includes not only general time limitations but also absolute ones as well. The former is applicable when the competent state authorities have not undertaken required activities whereas the latter applies only if the competent state authorities have failed to achieve a required result, namely: the imposition of punishment on the offender or the execution of his/her punishment.

POSTAVLjANjE EU STANDARDA DIGITALNE TRANSFORMACIJE PRAVOSUĐA SA POSEBNIM OSVRTOM NA KRIVIČNO PRAVOSUĐE

The planned goals and standards of the EU's digital transformation in the current decade are comprehensive and imply a major technological transformation accompanied by a profound cultural change, which should confirm and further improve the fundamental values of the European space. The digital transformation of the EU judiciary implies a structural reform of national judicial systems in order to increase their capacities to work on the Internet while respecting all legal guarantees, as well as to improve cross-border judicial cooperation of competent authorities at the Union level. The paper presents the basic characteristics of the planned European digital transformation until 2030, with special emphasis on the advantages and possible problems of digitalization of criminal justice, both in cross-border cooperation and in the application of digital tools in criminal proceedings. The paper aims to point out the process of setting EU standards in the field of digitalization, knowledge of which is very important for the development of the domestic judicial system, since it is not only about meeting European standards in concrete area, but timely inclusion in the current (fourth) industrial revolution.

Judicial Cooperation with Foreign Authorities in Criminal Matters in Albania

The Code of Criminal Procedure is the basic law that regulates jurisdictional relations with foreign authorities in criminal matters in Albania. This Code defines the instruments of judicial cooperation, the manner and procedure of how judicial cooperation is carried out and what are the authorities for the implementation of judicial cooperation. According article 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is guaranteed the compliance of international agreements, principles and norms of international law, accepted by the Albanian state, in accordance with the constitutional principle stipulated by Article 116 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania. This paper will analyze extradition as a traditional means of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, legal provisions, domestic judicial practice, but also the latest extradition agreement concluded between Albania and the United States of America. Received: 27 September 2021 / Accepted: 29 October 2021 / Published: 5 November 2021

Public policy: united in diversity... within the marriage?

The present paper tackles the development of the notion of public policy in the definition of the concept of marriage. It starts from brief remarks on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of the right to free movement of people and of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to private and family life. Then, it analyses the uncertainties stemming from the national divergences. Further, the impact of the Coman case on the applicability of EU measures on civil judicial cooperation and on the notion of public policy is examined. Conclusively, the paper submits some considerations on the modern function of the public policy.

What law should apply then? The implications of the successful invocation of the public policy defence in EU private international law in family matters

The EU legislation in the area of private international law addresses explicitly the “negative” aspect of public policy, i.e. the non-application of the otherwise applicable law on the ground that it is at variance with the fundamental values of the forum. By contrast, the legislative measures adopted so far remain silent as to the law or rules that one should apply as a result of the successful invocation of the public policy defence. The paper aims, first, to assess the approach whereby the latter issue should be decided in accordance with the private international law rules of the forum. Secondly, the paper contends that an autonomous solution to the issue of the subsidiarily applicable law should mirror the goals pursued by the EU legislator – namely autonomy, flexibility, proximity and foreseeability –, and enshrined in the already adopted instruments dealing with the conflict of laws, rather than following the more widely known and endorsed approaches either not ensuring foreseeability and legal certainty, or leading to the immediate application of the lex fori. The focus will be on conflict-of-law rules in family matters, although similar patterns can be exported to other areas of the judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters.

Data Protection in Law Enforcement and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters

The redesign of data protection in the police and judicial area is intended to create uniformity at the European level for the citizens of EU Member States. This scientific article analyses the subject of data protection in law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The focus is primarily on the existing provisions and the latest developments of the EU with regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The international level with regard to data protection in the police and judicial area and possible changes due to the developments in data protection under European law are also examined in more detail.