Search

The European Union (EU) increasingly develops and implements policies infused with salient and sometimes conflicting values – for instance, in migration and criminal law cooperation. However, policy implementation studies have not frequently considered how such complex value trade-offs may affect practical implementation within Member States. This article therefore quantitatively and temporally examines the practical implementation of an EU flagship criminal law measure: the simplified extradition system known as the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Using data on EAWs decided upon by the Dutch Amsterdam District Court, we test the impact of value trade-offs by examining whether (newly introduced) safeguards for the protection of requested persons adversely affect system efficiency (measured through case turnover times). The results suggest that the design of legal tests and adjustments made to the EAW system over time through the Court of Justice of the European Union affect the balance between fundamental rights protection and efficiency in the practical implementation of the EAW. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The judgment gives the opportunity to focus on the ne bis in idem principle as established at the European Union level. Accordingly, after an analysis of the facts of the case and of the judgment of the Italian Supreme Court, some inquiries on the nature of the principle will pave the way for a critical assessment of the decision's legal reasoning, notwithstanding the correctness of the final outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors advocate operational improvement of the European Arrest Warrant system. When applying the judicial cooperation instruments concerning criminal matters, more attention should be devoted to the requirements of proportionality, effective judicial protection, and coherence. The power to issue an EAW should be more circumscribed whereas executing authorities should be allowed more flexibility in the decision making process as far as the execution of an EAW is concerned. The authors conclude by sketching amendments to the legal and practical framework and the efforts required to implement them as well as by addressing the issue of political feasibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on detention pending surrender, i.e. detention of the requested person in the executing Member State on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It defines the scope of application of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights to such detention and analyses the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on time limits of keeping the requested person in detention in the executing MS as well as on the notion of "the executing judicial authority" entitled to decide on detention pending surrender. Both issues are explored with reference to national law and practice of the Netherlands and Poland. The article provides the answer to the question whether national provisions which limit the duration of detention pending surrender properly reflect the normative content of the framework decision on the EAW. The answer to this question is given with due regard to the standard of protection of the requested person stemming from Article 5 § 1 ECHR and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the analyses focus on Dutch and Polish provisions concerning the authority entitled to decide on detention pending surrender and their compliance with the CJEU's jurisprudence on the notion of "the executing judicial authority." Recognising that detention is the basic measure for ensuring the effectiveness of surrender, we try to define the limits of its use in the EAW procedure, stemming from the requirements of protection of human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The cross-border character of the designer drugs crimes forced the UE countries to cooperate in criminal prosecution. At first sight, in European Union law, there are proper instruments to enforce such cooperation. The Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant introduces the model of cross-border prosecution and abandons the requirement of double criminality in case of the group of the 32 crimes, listed in the Article 2 (2) of the FD EAW. The question is whether such a simple variant of EAW (without checking double criminality) may be enforced in designer drug cases. The work presents an argumentation that the normative meaning of Article 2 (2) of the FD EAW has to be established under European and international law. As long as a particular new drug is not internationally recognized as 'psychotropic substance' or 'narcotic drug', its trafficking cannot be treated as one of the 32 crimes, mentioned above. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The entry into force of Law No 306/20221 for amending and supplementing Law No 302/2004, on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, brings more clarity to the legal regime of the most controversial preventive measure ordered in criminal proceedings with an element of foreignness. The Law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters was successively amended in 2006, 2008, 2013, 2017 and 2021, in order to ensure the transposition into national law of the most important Framework Decisions adopted at European Union level. Although the last amendment to harmonise national legislation was made by Law No 51/20212, the European Commission drew the attention of the Romanian Government to some legal texts of Framework Decision 2002/584/JAI on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States of the European Union, which were not fully or correctly transposed. The changes concerned the unconstitutionality issues raised at the level of provisional arrest and surrender of the person deprived of liberty to the authorities of the requesting State. In addition, the amending law helps to alleviate the controversies encountered in the practice of judicial bodies concerning issues relating to the duration and changes that may occur during the execution of the custodial measure of provisional detention. In this article we aim to analyse the legal regime of provisional detention, in the context of the changes that have occurred in this area, seeking to clarify the most controversial issues raised in the practice of judicial bodies. This study also aims to establish the compatibility between the legal rules laid down in the special law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and those laid down in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in relation to the institution of preventive measures. The research hypotheses will focus in particular on determining the duration of the deprivation of liberty of persons against whom extradition proceedings and the execution of a European arrest warrant are being carried out, as well as determining, in the light of the relationship established between the provisional arrest measure and the other preventive measures, the possibility of replacing, maintaining, revoking and terminating the measure by operation of law. In addition, the study aims to set out the hypotheses which might be encountered in the practice of judicial bodies, given the underlying legislative inconsistencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Europeanisation process for criminal law still faces many challenges today. The first of them is the concept of state sovereignty in the matter of criminal jurisdiction. The European arrest warrant (EAW) exemplifies the successful Europeanisation of criminal legal procedure. The EAW has introduced a new principle of so - called, surrendering, to another Member State of the European Union, for criminal prosecution. Unlike extradition proceedings, the whole process of surrendering a citizen pursuant to an EAW rests solely with the courts. No review by an executive body is required, as it is presumed that, if surrendered to another Member State, the surrendered person's rights - in particular, their right to a fair trial will not be jeopardised. The EAW, with its attending surrender mechanism, is thus a signifier of mutual trust between Member States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ankara Review of European Studies (ARES) / Ankara Avrupa Çalışmaları Dergisi (AAÇD) is the property of Ankara University European Union Research Centre and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the framework of the procedure for the execution of the European arrest warrant, as a form of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, it is necessary to take preventive measures of deprivation of liberty against the person requested by the issuing State. In order not to infringe the right to liberty and security of the requested person, deprivation of liberty through these measures must be carried out in strict compliance with the legal requirements set out in both international documents and domestic legislation of the Member States of the European Union. Compliance with the law can be ensured, however, only by developing clear, predictable legal rules that, as far as possible, do not give rise to different interpretations in judicial practice. From this perspective, starting from the finding of the nonunitary interpretation and application of some provisions of the Romanian special law on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters (Law no. 302/2004, republished), this study addresses the issue of the legal nature of custodial measures ordered prior to the resolution of the request for the execution of a European arrest warrant, respectively prior to the surrender based on a European arrest warrant, ending with a concrete proposal of law ferenda on completing these provisions in order to ensure a unification of judicial practice in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union is one of the main challenges for the continued functioning of the European judicial area in criminal matters. In this article, special attention will be paid to selected aspects of ensuring further judicial cooperation in criminal matters after Brexit. This primarily concerns the possibility of further participation of the United Kingdom in specific organs supporting this cooperation (Eurojust and Europol) and the the application of legal instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition of judgments, with reference to the flagship legal instrument, i.e. the European arrest warrant. It also presents a unique position of the United Kingdom in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice EU, which that state is guaranteed under the provisions of Treaties.

The European Union's political and economic integration project has always raised questions about its legitimacy, effectiveness, and shared values. While effectiveness may be considered as a yardstick to justify actions, it also opens up a larger debate on whether effectiveness alone is sufficient to ensure legitimacy or whether something else is needed in the long run. In the field of European criminal law, such a discussion assumes particular relevance, since the use of force has always been a core competence of nation-states. The paper explores traditional justifying methods for the use of criminal sanctions relied upon by the nation-state in the EU supranational context. By looking at the so-called utilitarian and deontological methods, where the legitimising factor is respectively the efficacy of an action or the 'rightness' of the incrimination, it devotes its efforts to understanding which form of legitimacy the European Union should adopt in view of further integration. Drawing from this analysis, it explores the application of the European Arrest Warrant. The latter relies on the principle of Mutual Recognition. Although the underlying rationale of Mutual Recognition is aimed at effectiveness, this cannot work without 'mutual trust' between MS. Mutual trust, however, presupposes a shared understanding of values, so a paradox arises. Efficiency cannot be fully achieved in this area without a common basis of values. The paper finally explores the case of Carles Puigdemont as an emblematic example of how, in the criminal law domain, probably a mixed approach to legitimacy is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast to traditional extradition law, the political offense exemption has been abolished within the framework of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Notwithstanding its overall success, the EAW does not constitute an adequate instrument with regard to political offenses. In light of the recent case of the former Catalan President, Carles Puigdemont, the abolition has proven to be too hasty and the justificatory force behind the principles of mutual trust and recognition is, with respect hereto, rather limited. The damage caused to these principles by upholding the exemption would be negligible, given the small number of cases—Puigdemont being the first political offender requested under the aegis of the EAW. However, the potential benefits are substantial, given that the exemption provides for a higher level of human rights protection—analogous to the values of European Union (EU). Solely relying on the double criminality requirement in order to properly take into account the specificities of the Member States' legal systems essentially positions the judges at the forefront of where mutual trust and constitutional identity collide. Moreover, the exemption prevents states from intervening in other states' internal political conflicts, through the medium of criminal law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Toruńskie Studia Polsko-Włoskie / Studi Polacco-Italiani di Toruń is the property of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Faculty of Law & Administration and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Právník is the property of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of State & Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper analyzes the principle of mutual recognition as a method of legal integration specific to EU law but also, in the form of Full Faith and Credit and Extradition Clauses, in the U.S. Constitution and law. The article presents a brief historical perspective on this principle, of its roots in Anglo-Saxon law and its direct continuity in U.S. law, but also of taking over, through legal hybridization, in combination with the harmonization method, in EU law. The work analyses: the function of legal integration of the principle, as an essential component of both American federalism and the EU legal order, its fundamental characteristics and its conditions of application and the topic of Interstate Extradition Clause versus European Arrest Warrant. The Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution, federal laws, uniform laws, the case-law of the U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. courts, altogether with the EU fundamental treaties, the legal acts of the European Union and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of European Union were considered. Numerous similarities have emerged from the comparative analysis, but also some differences, coming from the different paradigms of American federalism and, respectively, of the EU legal order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Przegląd Europejski is the property of University of Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

International cooperation on criminal justice requires mutual trust: a belief that the partner's legal system functions adequately and adheres to fundamental norms. The European Union builds its judicial-cooperation efforts on a presumption of mutual trust: EU members are assumed to trust each other's justice system since they share a commitment to human rights and the rule of law. Skeptics argue, however, that such trust does not really exist given the wide variation in legal standards and practices across Europe. Yet such skepticism has not been supported by systematic evidence. This article seeks to offer such evidence and to quantify the impact of the lack of mutual trust. It does so by examining the record of British and Irish participation in the European Arrest Warrant: a fast-track process of surrender of fugitives between Member States. We find that judicial authorities in Britain and Ireland deviate from the mutual-trust presumption: they accord a more favorable treatment to Member States with a stronger rule of law or a better human-rights record - and this considerably affects the rate of surrenders. This finding offers important implications for the EU's justice policy and for understanding cooperation against crime more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a long time, extradition has been a dominant form of international mutual legal assistance, but in many cases it has proven to be an insufficiently efficient instrument. Having that in mind, on the territory of the European Union, a European arrest warrant has been established as an institute that should contribute to the effectiveness of combating modern crime and facilitate the surrender of persons between member states in order to effectively prevent the escape of suspects or convicted persons. Regarding this, the Article will first give a brief overview of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision, which regulates the European arrest warrant, and will analyze it in order to define the strengths and weaknesses of the task itself. The subject of research in this article is primarily devoted to the analysis of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the “Aranyosi and Caldararu” case. With this verdict, the European Court of Justice, derogates some of the key principles that order is based on and special attention is devoted to the devaluation of the principles of mutual trust and the principles of mutual recognition of judicial decisions among EU states, which the Council of the European Union considers as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principle of mutual trust forms the basis of principle of mutual recognition which has been recognised as the cornerstone of the area of freedom, security and justice. Essentially, the principle of mutual trust requires that any European Union (EU) Member State should assume that other Member States observe especially the fundamental rights recognized by EU law. Hence, the principle of mutual trust is indeed a presumption. Then, does this principle establish an absolute presumption (i), or a rebuttable presumption (ii)? Considering the historical development process, the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union seem to have evolved from the first condition to the second condition. Via the example of European Arrest Warrant which is the first use of principle of mutual recognition and hence mutual trust, this Article aims to present this evolution regarding the principle of mutual trust in conjunction with its reasons and consequences, and to draw some conclusions regarding the future, particularly about whether this evolution has been over or not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right of a person charged with a criminal offence to appear and take part in a hearing is enshrined in the right to a fair trial in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. A trial in absentia is allowed only exceptionally, and in the member states of the European Union it is traditionally regulated under very different legal regimes. This has been an obstacle to the full implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of final judicial decisions and therefore to efficient judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In order to provide clear common grounds allowing the execution of a European arrest warrant even when the person subject to it was absent at the trial, Framework Decision 2009/299/ JHA, amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, defined the conditions under which a decision rendered at such a trial may be used as a ground to refuse the execution of a European arrest warrant. These conditions are the subject of this paper. Besides theoretical and normative analysis, the research includes the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, balancing between the efficiency of judicial cooperation and respect for fundamental human rights, as well as defining the notion of "the trial resulting in the decision" and specifying when the person was "summoned in person", or "by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial", since the right to take part in the trial may be waived. The research also includes an analysis of Croatian legislation and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia in the same matter and an assessment of the implementation of European legal standards in Croatian law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on a dysfunction detected during the surrender of a pursued person under the European Convention on Extradition, the European Union instituted a new procedure that is the European arrestwarrant. Because initially the provisions of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA did not provide clear legal rules regarding which procedure to follow if the wanted person was not present at the trial, this situation was observed also by the European Court of Human Rights, it was amended and supplemented accordinglyby adopting the Framework Decision 2009/299/JAI. The evaluation of the provisions of both acts highlights the existence of some incomplete legal rules, which in time they will cause some dysfunctions regarding the issuing and the enforcement of a European arrest warrant. We also consider modifying and expanding thelegal rules relating to mandatory and optional reasons for the refusal of enforcement of a European arrest warrant, and the inclusion of educational deprivation of liberty measures in the category of the reasons that justify the request of the execution of a European arrest warrant. The originality of the work results from the analysis of the recent changes of the European legislative framework document and the critical opinions expressed about some stipulations, which in our opinion are incomplete. The paper can be useful not only for the Romanian legislator, but also for the European one, from the perspective of modifying the concerned legalacts and also the doctrine. It has a major importance in this domain for ensuring an area of freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

The European arrest warrant is the most important form of judicial cooperation in penal matters within the European Union, which is based on the mutual recognition of criminal judgments. The Europeanlegislative act that governs the institution is the Framework Decision no. 2002/584/JHA of 13 July 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, amended and supplemented by the Council Framework Decision of 2009/299/JAI February 26, 2009. Although the first piece of the European legislative act has been transposed into our legislation by the Law no. 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, with subsequent amendments, the modifying normativeact has not been transposed into national law. The research conducted on the depositions of special law and of the European legislative act, and especially on their implications in the internal and European judiciary practice, demonstrates the existence of some incomplete stipulations, secures the workability of the issuing,transmission and identification, pursuing and handing over the persons wanted by the Romanian judicial authorities in the Member States. A very special situation which is determined by the omission of national and EU legislator, in order to include the category of the persons submitted to the handing over and the minors against whom it was applied an educational and a deprivation of liberty measure, a situation which leads directly to the non execution of such sanctions of the minors. The originality of the work consists of the critical observation and also the proposals of lege ferenda which covers both the Romanian special law and also the European legislative act. At the same time the critical observations are useful not only for Romanian legislator who intends to supplement and modify the special law, but also for our doctrine.

The need for elimination between Member States of the European Union of the formal extradition procedure for all people trying to evade justice after having been definitive convicted and the accelerated extradition procedures concerning persons suspected of having committed a crime in any of the Member States of the European Union, has imposed the adoption by the European Union Council of the Framework Decision no. 2002/584 / JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. The paper examines the general aspects of the European arrest warrant, from definition to the content and form. Furthermore it shows the conditions for the execution of a European arrest warrant and the special conditions, the guarantees that the issuing State of the European arrest warrant must give. Mandatory and optional grounds for refusal to execute the European arrest warrant are also presented. In the second part of the paper relevant cases from jurisprudence are presented. One case would be the situation of the Romanian citizen who disagrees with the execution of the sentence in the sentencing State. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes, on the one hand, the existing casuistry in relation to the applicability and functionality of the criminal procedural law in the everyday practice in international judicial cooperation, casuistry which concerns the territoriality principle as a fundamental principle, as well as the implications of this principle with respect to the crime phenomenon which requires the states' vigilance tofight against crime, this being possible under lawful conditions only by establishing certain jurisdiction rules (quod competit cuique) imperious both at internal and European level, and the exceptions from the territoriality principle of the criminal procedural law, and, on the other hand, theoretical and practical aspects related to the application of Law no. 302/2004, as subsequently amended, and the methods of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The examining of this issue is required given the importance of the notion analyzed in the light of the functioning of the criminal proceedings mechanism, and given the progress of the Romanian law system, characterized by relevant regulations, which tend to integrate the Romanian legislation into the legislative system of the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Strategic Universe Journal / Univers Strategic is the property of Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University, Institute for Security Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Internal Security is the property of Police Academy in Szczytno and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)