Principle Of Mutual Recognition Research Articles

Charakterystyka instytucji europejskiego nakazu aresztowania

Rozwój integracji europejskiej wpłynął na wymiary sprawiedliwości poszczególnych państw. Wzmocnienie współpracy i ujednolicanie standardów oraz internacjonalizacja działań spowodowały powstanie procedur takich jak europejski nakaz aresztowania (dalej: ENA). Oparto go na wprowadzeniu w życie transgranicznego, uproszczonego postępowania sądowego. W jego ramach funkcjonuje system przekazywania podejrzanych i oskarżonych na potrzeby ścigania przestępstw lub wykonania wyroku pozbawienia wolności, a także zastosowania środka zabezpieczającego, polegającego na pozbawieniu wolności. Dane z opracowań Helsińskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka pokazują, że Polska w latach 2005–2013 była na pierwszym miejscu pod względem państw wydających ENA. Wydawać się może, że sytuacja ta spowodowana jest zbytnią wiarą w zasadę legalizmu, zakorzenioną w polskiej procedurze karnej. Natomiast ENA nie są kierowane do Polski często. Co ważne, europejski nakaz aresztowania wydany przez organ sądowy państwa członkowskiego jest ważny na całym terytorium Unii Europejskiej. Początki jego stosowania datuje się na 1 stycznia 2004 roku. Zastąpił on procedurę ekstradycji, która wcześniej była stosowana przez państwa zrzeszone w Unii. Wydawany jest przez organ sądowy jednego z państw członkowskich. Wniosek o aresztowanie danej osoby w innym państwie członkowskim i przekazanie tej osoby do państwa, które z wnioskiem wystąpiło, w celu ścigania lub wykonania wyroku pozbawienia wolności lub zastosowania środka zabezpieczającego, polegającego na pozbawieniu wolności. Mechanizm instrumentu ENA działa na zasadzie wzajemnego uznawania orzeczeń sądowych i jest stosowany we wszystkich państwach członkowskich. Opiera się na zasadzie bezpośredniego kontaktu między organami sądowymi. Organy korzystające z nakazu zobowiązane są do poszanowania praw procesowych podejrzanych i oskarżonych, czyli prawa do informacji, adwokata, tłumacza itp.

Transformation of the European arrest warrant in light of protection of the rights of extradited individuals

The subject of this research is the norms of international legal acts, legislations of the EU member-states, decisions of foreign national courts, as well as decisions of the European Court on Human Rights and European Court of Justice. A hypothesis is advanced that within the framework of the European arrest warrant there are new trends associated namely with the desire to strengthen the system of protection of rights of the extradited individuals, which can negatively affect functionality of the procedure as a whole. Thus, a number of cases of the national courts (for example Artur Celmer case) and Court of the European Union (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru case), as well as provisions of the constitutional courts lead to the fact that the principle of mutual recognition of court decision is used with caution. The article examines the case law of national courts of the EU member-states, as well as practice of the European Court of Justice and European arrest warrant. The author compared the decisions of the aforementioned courts for confirming the hypothesis that the protection of extradited individuals plays a significant role in the context of operation of the European arrest warrant. The intention to provide legal guarantees to individuals extradited in the context of the European arrest warrant, which loses its main influence; particularly the procedure is interrupted due to absence of guarantees of protection of rights in case of extradition, as well as raises doubt towards judicial systems and their decisions of some EU member-states brought forth by political actions of these countries. Moreover, protection of rights and guarantee of fair trial increases.

Wpływ Brexitu na współpracę sądową w sprawach karnych w Unii Europejskiej

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.

European arrest warrants and time-barred enforcement in the state of residence of the convicted person: Too much, too late!

The principle of mutual recognition is considered ‘the cornerstone of judicial cooperation’ in the European Union (hereafter EU). It requires Member States to recognise judicial decisions of other Member States, thus enabling a swift administration of justice. Within the field of criminal law, the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter CJEU) links this principle explicitly to the prevention of impunity, most clearly in the Popławski decision (following previous hints in Spajic or Petruhhin). It invokes this principle to oblige a Member State to execute a European arrest warrant (hereafter EAW) issued against one of its residents when the executing State cannot undertake to enforce the sentence itself due to, for instance, its domestic rules on limitation periods. In doing so, the Court overlooks the fact that those domestic rules may serve other fundamental interests and principles recognised by the EU and the CJEU itself, such as social rehabilitation and legal certainty. Moreover, a more balanced approach to (non-)recognition could also contribute to a swift administration of justice, namely as an incentive to the issuing State to avoid undue delays in the issuing of an EAW. Many States believe that, once a certain amount of time has elapsed since the conviction, the enforcement of a criminal sanction will become unfair or even counterproductive. The length of this period is proportionate to the seriousness of the conviction. As EU-broad harmonisation on the subject is unlikely in the short-run, mutual recognition should work both ways if the requested person has significant ties to the executing State.

Evidence Gathering in the European Union: The Transposition of Directive 2014/41/EU into French and German Legislation

<p />

International Legal Cooperation and the Principle of Reciprocity: Lessons from Extradition Law

In this work, after making a brief reference to the principle of reciprocity in general, we will refer to its application in the field of international criminal legal cooperation, specifically, its application in the extradition process. However, given that within the European Union this extradition procedure has been replaced by the European arrest warrant ("EAW"), we will end our analysis with a brief reflection on the incidence of this principle in a judicial area such as the European that is governed by the principle of mutual judicial recognition.

Twenty Years since Tampere : The Development of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

Twenty years having passed since the Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere, which proposed the principle of mutual recognition as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation within the Union, the author takes the opportunity to reflect on the main achievements in this sector before and after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. From the enthusiasm following the adoption of the European Arrest Warrant to the recently achieved European Investigation Order and the Regulation on freezing and confiscation orders, the panorama of mutual recognition still seems to be characterized by excessive fragmentation. After Tampere and following the adoption of the consecutive programmes of action of 2004 (The Hague) and 2009 (Stockholm), no really new strategic guidelines have been adopted by the heads of state and governments, notwithstanding the clear mandate assigned to them by Art. 68 TFEU. Looking forward to the new Strategic Guidelines to be adopted in March 2020, the European Council indeed seems to have for a long while abdicated from its leading role in streamlining objectives in the sector of criminal justice, an area that would enormously benefit from clear orientation guidelines for future initiatives of the new European Commission. As examples, the article proposes fostering the rationalization and simplification of the disparate instruments of cooperation and forging the future relationship between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and Eurojust, in particular concerning the possible expansion of their respective competences and scope

Quality Control of Immunological Veterinary Medicinal Products in Europe.

Medicinal products in Europe are under the strict control of many organisations headed by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM) in Strasbourg and its related General European Official Medicines Control Laboratories (OMCLs) Network (GEON). The EDQM works in cooperation with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the World Health Organisation (WHO). All of these institutions have one main goal – to protect public health in Europe and around the world. One of the more important effects of the harmonisation of pharmaceutical law in Europe was the introduction of the mutual recognition principle for the Official Control Authority Batch Release (OCABR)/Official Batch Protocol Review (OBPR) certificates in the European Union. The National Veterinary Research Institute (NVRI) in Poland is an example of an OMCL laboratory within the Veterinary Batch Release Network (VBRN) that issues the European certificates. The NVRI is actively involved in the batch release of immunological veterinary medicinal products (IVMPs), with approximately 1,800 certificates for IVMPs issued per year. It is also one of only four veterinary OMCLs that perform Post Marketing Surveillance (PMS) studies including approximately 47 IVMPs per year. All the results of the testing data are sent to the Chief Veterinary Officer, and also to the electronic Network platforms of the EDQM, which enables transparent information exchange.

BRIEF COMMENTS ON THE CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 6 OF COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION NO. 2002/584/JHA REGARDING THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT

Article 6, paragraph 1 of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA provides that the issuing judicial authority is the judicial authority of the Member State competent to issue a judicial decision in accordance with the law of that State for the purpose of surrender on the basis of the European arrest warrant to another EU Member State.The Court of Justice in Luxembourg, by its recent case-law, held that the notion of issuing judicial authority does not concern the prosecutor's offices in a Member State which are at risk of being subjected, directly or indirectly, to individual orders or instructions by the executive power in the context of adopting a decision on the issuing of the European arrest warrant. The effects of this judgment are mandatory for all Member States and require clarification from the Member States affected by the ECJ ruling regarding the nature of the European arrest warrant authority, even a possible intervention by the legislature in these EU Member States, to facilitate the settlement of cases of arrest in full agreement with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust of judgments in the European area.

THE FUTURE OF EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT IN LIGHT OF DECISION THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE CASE ARANYOSI AND CALDARARU

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.

Recognition of Professional Qualifications in the Single Market: A Recap

This paper considers the circumstance in which EU and third-country nationals may have their professional qualifications recognised under and in accordance with EU law. The analysis is structured as follows. First, it considers the principle underlying the recognition of qualifications in the single market, namely the principle of mutual recognition. It then outlines the different conceptions of mutual recognition which have been adopted for the purposes of facilitating the recognition of qualifications in the Single Market as a background to the current law, namely Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended. The Recognition Directive is then addressed and discussed in detail. It considers the effects the application of the Recognition Directive has on regulated professions and the circumstances in which third-country nationals might benefit from the terms of the Recognition Directive.

¿Cuáles son las resoluciones de «libertad vigilada» a efectos del reconocimiento mutuo? Sobre las dificultades de trasposición de la Decisión Marco 2008/947/JAI al derecho español

This article analyses the transposition into Spanish law of Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008, on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. The problems created by the lack of adaptation of the terms to the domestic law make it difficult to determine which sanctions and measures are eligible for mutual recognition, one of the factors contributing to the very low level of implementation observed in practice. With the aim of facilitating the enforcement of the sentence in the country of origin for the large number of potential beneficiaries (foreign convicted persons of EU nationality) of the mutual recognition of these measures in our country, these probation decisions need to be accurately identified, with detailed analysis of both the Framework Decision and the Spanish Law 23/2014, as well as the Government’s position regarding the transposition.

Permanência, nacionalidade e residência do procurado como causa de não execução facultativa do Mandado de Detenção Europeu: o caso português

Objetiva-se neste artigo estudar a causa de não execução facultativa do Mandado de Detenção Europeu (MDE) na hipótese de o procurado se encontrar no território do qual é nacional ou onde é residente, em especial o tratamento dado pelo Estado Português a estes casos. A pesquisa reveste-se de importância em razão de o MDE ser um instrumento surgido na esteira do mandado de detenção do Tribunal Penal Internacional, contrapondo-se às desvantagens da extradição, buscando a simplificação e a celeridade em face das dificuldades práticas da persecução penal ante a livre movimentação no território europeu de pessoas. Utilizam-se como fontes de análise as Decisões-Quadro do Conselho da União Europeia, a legislação portuguesa pertinente e a jurisprudência dos Tribunais portugueses e do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia. Serão analisados os requisitos objetivos e subjetivos, os limites da facultatividade, os contornos do compromisso assumido em decorrência da recusa, a necessidade de eventual adaptação da pena frente ao aparente conflito entre sua imutabilidade e a reserva de soberania do Estado Português, e a relação do instituto com o princípio do reconhecimento mútuo, convertido em pedra angular da cooperação judiciária, dentro do espaço único europeu de justiça, segurança e liberdade.

O modelo europeu de cooperação judiciária em matéria penal: em busca de uma efetividade baseada em confiança merecida

O modelo europeu de cooperação judiciária internacional em matéria penal, baseado em um elevado nível de confiança mútua presumida entre os Estados-Membros e no consequente princípio do reconhecimento mútuo, pretende ir além dos modelos tradicionais de cooperação, permitindo simplicidade e rapidez em uma perspectiva de “não se fazem perguntas”. O mandado de detenção europeu é emblemático dessa abordagem. No entanto, o funcionamento desse mecanismo não tem sido uma tarefa simples ou descomplicada, especialmente em relação à interação entre o reconhecimento mútuo e os direitos fundamentais. Este artigo analisa a evolução de tal interação e como os direitos fundamentais podem atuar como limites ou facilitadores do reconhecimento mútuo. Pretende-se demonstrar como os direitos e garantias individuais limitam o reconhecimento automático e a pura eficácia e, inversamente, como a harmonização dos direitos de defesa na UE pode fornecer uma base adequada para reforçar a confiança mútua e facilitar assim o reconhecimento mútuo em matéria penal. Em conclusão, será sustentado que a legislação da UE pode alcançar uma cooperação judiciária efetiva em matéria penal, passando de confiança “cega” para confiança conquistada no âmbito da justiça penal europeia.

La protección de las víctimas de violencia de género en la Unión Europea. Especial referencia al reconocimiento mutuo de medidas de protección en materia civil

Las cifras de violencia de género son sobrecogedoras. Ante esta realidad, la Unión Europea no ha permanecido impasible y, aunque no cuenta con una base legal específica para actuar en el área de la violencia de género, ello no ha sido un obstáculo para luchar contra esta lacra, en tanto que elemento necesario para promover un espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia. Con ese espíritu, en los últimos años se han adoptado instrumentos normativos para garantizar que las víctimas se puedan mover libremente en el Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia, y a hacerlo protegidas. La Directiva 2011/99/EU, sobre la Orden Europea de Protección, y el Reglamento 606/2013 relativo al reconocimiento mutuo de medidas de protección en materia civil, son muestra de ello. Ambos instrumentos, a través del principio de reconocimiento mutuo, garantizan el reconocimiento y ejecución en todo el territorio de la Unión de las medidas de protección de víctimas dictadas por un Estado miembro. Ambas normas regulan las mismas medidas y tienen prácticamente los mismos objetivos, pero con mecanismos de reconocimiento diferentes. En este trabajo examinamos el sistema de protección creado y enfocamos nuestro análisis en el Reglamento 606/2013, instrumento de cooperación judicial en materia civil y básicamente concebido como complemento de la orden europea de protección regulada por la Directiva 2011/99/EU.

Party Autonomy: Removing Obstacles to Legal Diversity in the European Market

One of the main obstacles to the internal market is legal diversity: Member States often adopt different legal standards not only within public and economic law but also with regard to private law. The traditional approach of European Institutions (harmonising legislation among Member States) was soon complemented by the principle of mutual recognition; these two methodologies embodied the European strategy for minimising the problem. However, a third European tool is becoming obvious: to give private parties the ability to choose the applicable law. This new approach enhances regulatory competition among Member States and turns unessential the unification of national rules, which suits best the proportionality principle. Party autonomy as a means for overcoming the difficulties of legal diversity is not only a reality in European statutory law – which already brought the ability for choosing the applicable law to contracts, torts, divorce, inheritance, alimony, matrimonial property – but is also highlighted in ECJ’s case-law, which declared legal diversity is not a barrier to the basic freedoms as long as parties may choose the applicable rules. The article will focus on the grounds and advantages of this method to address the issue of legal diversity, advocating its use in areas where the traditional approach is ineffective or impossible (such as some rights in rem, within the scope of the freedom of movement of capital).

CJEU case law on double criminality. The Grundza-Piotrowski paradox?

The implementation of the requirement of double criminality in the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision is one of the fields where the strength of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters is put to the test.

Judicial independence in the Member States of the Council of Europe and the EU: evaluation and action

This article analyses some of the challenges in implementing and strengthening the principle of judicial independence at European level. It first highlights the difficulties in assessing the level of compliance with the principle of judicial independence and shows the approaches taken by the Council of Europe and the European Union. Next, it discusses some of the most recent decisions of the CJEU regarding Article 47 of the Charter and argues how infringements of the rule of law can undermine the whole principle of mutual recognition. Finally, it will be advocated that the actions taken in strengthening judicial independence need the joining of efforts of the European Union and the Council of Europe.

Legal and Practical Challenges in the Application of the European Investigation Order : Summary of the Eurojust Meeting of 19–20 September 2018

After implementation of Directive 2014/41 by the EU Member States (bound by the Directive) in 2017 and the first half of 2018, the European Investigation Order (EIO) has become the core instrument for obtaining evidence located in another EU Member State. The EIO simplifies and accelerates cross-border investigations, but practical and legal challenges remain. Such challenges as well as first experiences and best practices in the application of the EIO were discussed among practitioners at a meeting organised by Eurojust in September 2018. This article summarises the main results of the meeting. Participants acknowledged the need to interpret national law in light of EU law, in line with the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust, but also underlined the challenge of constantly searching for legally sound and practically feasible solutions between different national legal systems. They agreed on the importance of an overall pragmatic and flexible approach. Views diverged on several topics (e.g. the speciality rule, costs in the context of the proportionality test), but coincided on many others. Recommendations relate inter alia to the scope of the EIO, the use of the forms, the language regime and time limits. Participants envisaged that the support of Eurojust in relation to EIOs will probably be higher, when compared to the MLA regime, as more consultations are foreseen in the EIO Directive. Whilst participants acknowledged that “direct contact” amongst judicial authorities is the core principle of the Directive, they strongly believed that, in bilateral cases, Eurojust’s bridge-making role can facilitate communication between the judicial authorities involved if one of the consultation procedures is triggered and that, moreover, in complex multilateral cases Eurojust has a unique and important coordinating role.

Restoring the EU citizenship for tax purposes

Citizenship-based taxation has become insignificant due to high mobility of individuals, which are completely detached from their polities. The lack of political, social and cultural bonds of the individual with the states has shifted the focus to the concept of tax residence. This contribution sheds light on the concept of supranational citizenship in clear opposition to the nation-state citizenship, for the purposes of legitimizing levying a tax on EU citizens. The ongoing concept of EU citizenship anchored firstly in the principle of mutual recognition and secondly in the emergence of democratic and pluralist values under the so-called “European way of life,” yields certain imbalances and asymmetries derived from a steep distinction between economically active and economically inactive EU citizens. In the author’s view, levying a tax upon EU citizens would enhance the demos and solidarity within the current withered EU integration project.