Fulfillment of the Conditions of Law no. 302/2004 on the European Arrest Warrant

In the Romanian and European doctrine, taking into account the definition given by the European legislator in the normative act itself, the Framework “Decision no. 2002/584/JHA, the European arrest warrant was defined in a similar manner as the legislator did”. Thus, one jurisprudential decision states that: “from a legal point of view, the European arrest warrant is defined as a court decision issued by the competent judicial authority of an EU Member State, in order for another state to arrest and hand over a person who is wanted in order to stand for prosecution, trial or the execution of a custodial sentence or a security measure” (European Court of Justice, 2016).

Two worlds colliding: Offenders’ rehabilitation and victims’ protection through mutual recognition of probation measures

Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA explicitly combines offenders’ rehabilitation with other purposes, such as the improvement of the protection of victims. This article provides one of the first analysis of the aim of ‘victim protection’ in the Framework Decision and of its limited usefulness. The relationship between victims’ right after sentencing and the transfer of probation measures reveals a contradictory system unable to coordinate victims’ protection and compensation and offenders’ social rehabilitation.

In absentia trials and standards relating to the summoning to trial of the accused person in EU Law, including reflections on the conformity of Portuguese criminal procedural law with the former

In the light of the right to a fair trial and the possibility of in absentia trials, the main purpose of this article is to discuss the meaning of the concept of “having been informed, in due time, of the trial,” under Article 8(2a) of Directive (EU) 2016/343, read in parallel with Article 4a(1) (a) (i) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. When thus read and taking into account the legislative history of the Directive, it seems that a different standard is foreseen for the summoning of the accused person for trial under each of the referred legal instruments. I then test the Portuguese standards for summoning the accused person for trial and trials in absentia under each of the possible standards.

Effective Communication Approaches for Decision Analytics

Analysts ignore the context that shapes and constrains communication at their peril. The rhetorical context in which analytics is enacted influences the communicative approach. In this chapter, two dominate elements are considered: 1) analytic complexity and 2) rhetorical context. Along this analytic-rhetorical spectrum, a four-square matrix is developed using these elements to describe distinct environments in which analytics is enacted. While each of the four positions are addressed for inclusion in this chapter, the focus is narrowed to an exposition of strategies for effectively communicating insights within the realm of decision analytics. Marked by a more basic analytic framework, decision analytics aims to support successful consumption and utilization at senior levels of organizations. Decision analytics differ from other types of analytics since they support the process of making decisions versus providing information. This chapter focuses on how analysts can use decision analytics to effectively communicate analytic results and insights to senior leaders of organizations.

Grenzen der gegenseitigen Anerkennung bei der Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls

Individual circumstances can limit the scope of mutual recognition in surrender procedures and lead to non-execution of a European arrest warrant. The study focuses on the limits to mutual recognition, apart from standardised grounds for refusal, that result from the Framework Decision being embedded in the primary law of the European Union. Because grounds for refusal are vitally important for the protection of (Union) fundamental rights in surrender procedures, the study develops a guideline for steps to be considered by the executing judicial authority when deciding upon surrender.

The principle of ne bis in idem in the context of European arrest warrant: A view of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice

In this paper, we analyze the most significant ruligs of the Court of Justice of the Europian Union regarding the interpretation of the provisions of the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant which established the principle of ne bis in idem as one of the grounds for both mandatory and optional non-execution of the extradition request issued to the judicial authority of the executing Member State. Although the European arrest warrant is one of the most important mechanisms of cooperation in criminal matters between Member States, the provisions of the Framework decision that established the European arrest warrant as part of the EU law do not define precisely enough some of the key aspects of its implementation, leaving plenty of space for different interpretations and actions of national authorities, which in turn contributes to legal uncertainty and unequal application of the EU law within Member States. In this context, the European Court of Justice made some of the key points in the 2010 Mantello case and 2018 AY case, and primarily focused on issues related to the ''same act'' category as one of the key criteria for applying the ne bis in idem principle in transnational context. The inductive-deductive method and content analysis were used in the analysis of the cases mentioned above.

OBLIGATIONS FOR BULGARIA ARISING FROMFRAMEWORK DECISION 2003/568/JHA ON COMBATING CORRUPTION IN THE PRIVATE SECTORAND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION

Corruption is usually defined as a destructive evil that hinders the economic development of democracy. There are many countries in the world where corruption is widespread. Member States attach particular importance to the fight against corruption, and the main EU legislation on the fight against corruption in the private sector is Framework Decision 2003/568 /JHA of 22 July 2003.

Directive 2013/48/EU and the Requested Person’s Right to Appoint a Lawyer in the Issuing Member State in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings

Directive 2013/48/EU gives persons who are subject to European arrest warrant proceedings the right to “dual representation”: not only the right of access to a lawyer in the executing Member State but also the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State, whose limited role it is to provide information and advice to the lawyer in the executing Member State with a view to the effective exercise of the requested person’s rights under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State is supposed to contribute to facilitating judicial cooperation. This article takes a closer look at that right and tries to establish whether – and, if so, to what extent – that right does indeed facilitate judicial cooperation.

Implementation of UN and EU recommendations on criminalization of organized crimes

Article presents comparative analysis of features and characteristics of organized criminal associations recommended for further criminalization by provisions of Palermo Convention and Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA. Certain peculiarities of the abovementioned provisions implementation in more than 50 states (Asia, America and Europe) have been outlined. We expressed and proved the hypothesis stating that criminalization of actions performed by the members of organized groups and criminal organizations by different states separately is partly explained with consideration of different international legal acts by national legislators: Palermo Convention and Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA. On the basis of analysis of key global models used to criminalize the socially dangerous actions with aim to counteract the organized crimes (collusion, participation, entrepreneurship, marking/registration) we justified the following opinion: 1) within the limits of criminal associations countering collusion and participation models are considered to be the most efficient; 2) use of entrepreneurship model allows to justify the need for establishment of responsibility for legal entities involved in criminal associations functioning or utilization of relevant criminal measures; 3) registration/marking model may be efficient for counteracting the extended terrorist organizations.

Briefly Noted

On October 15, 2019, a Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its judgment in case C-128/18 Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantu, a case concerning the interpretation of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of June 13, 2002, on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of February 26, 2009. Article 4 of the Charter provides for the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and, under Article. Article 4 of the Charter is to have the same meaning and scope as Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case involved the issuance of an arrest warrant for Mr. Dorobantu by a Romanian judicial authority to German authorities, as Mr. Dorobantu resided in Hamburg. Prior to executing the warrant, the German court referred a number of questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling concerning material conditions of detention and how to assess whether such conditions comply with EU fundamental rights guarantees. The CJEU ruled effectively that requested judicial authorities must suspend execution of an arrest warrant until they have been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate whether or not the fundamental rights of the person in question are in actual danger of being infringed.