Domesticating the European Arrest Warrant: European Criminal Law between Fragmentation and Acculturation

2016 ◽  
pp. 199-220
Author(s):  
Renaud Colson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Criminal Law

scholarly journals The Carles Puigdemont Case: Europe's Criminal Law in the Crisis of Confidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 1349-1358
Author(s):  
Stefan Braum
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
European Criminal Law

AbstractThe case of Carles Puigdemont underlines that European criminal law is in a crisis of confidence. The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein has rejected a Spanish European arrest warrant for the criminal offence of rebellion because it lacks double criminality. It applied German law de lege artis without, however, questioning the European legal framework. The case would have provided an opportunity to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in order to further specify the European law criteria of double criminality. This would have been the adequate legal response to a politically explosive case. In the end, the Spanish judiciary sees itself disavowed and the system of the European arrest warrant called into question.

Opting in and Opting Out: Doing the Hokey Cokey with EU Policing and Judicial Cooperation

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (6) ◽  
pp. 543-561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole McCartney
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Vehicle Registration ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Dna Profiles

Policing and judicial cooperation across international borders is now an expectation, and within the EU, is often mandated, but the desirability of criminal justice cooperation between EU Member States and the UK is now debated. This article examines recent UK political interventions in the field of EU criminal law. This has focused upon the so-called ‘block opt-out’ decision whereupon the UK government has to choose whether to ‘opt out’ en masse of all unamended policing and criminal law instruments entered into prior to the 2009 Lisbon Treaty (under Article 10(1) of Protocol 36). The article will look in particular at two EU instruments central to the ongoing and future development of EU policing and judicial cooperation: the European Arrest Warrant and the exchange of forensic DNA profiles, fingerprints and vehicle registration details under the Prüm Treaty. While the UK government is asserting (at the time of writing) that it is to opt back ‘in’ to the European Arrest Warrant, it is refraining from opting back in (so remaining ‘out’) of the Prüm Treaty. Examining the rationales for the use of the opt-out, and the decisions in respect of each of these instruments, the article will ask whether the choice to ‘opt out’ can be reconciled with the aspiration of securing an EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, and whether it is appropriate that the UK should be doing the ‘hokey cokey’ with EU policing and judicial cooperation.

Is the Development of a Common Substantive Criminal Law for Europe Possible? Some Preliminary Reflections

2005 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Ambos
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Road ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Special Part ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Legal Concepts ◽  
European Criminal Law ◽  
The Eu

The road to a common European Criminal Law, notwithstanding the political tendency towards the further ‘Europeanisation’ of our laws against the background of multiple threats by transnational crime, is littered with obstacles and difficulties. An analysis of some basic questions of the General and Special Part of the criminal laws of some European Criminal Justice systems confirms that some comparative groundwork is necessary before substantive harmonisation of European criminal laws is feasible. Legal concepts and methods as well as offences show considerable differences. As to the General Part, differences range from the construction of crime to the role of justification and excuse in negating, mitigating or excusing responsibility and the various understandings of the parties to a crime. As to the Special Part, a rather superficial comparison of the offences of murder/manslaughter and theft reveals different approaches across the different systems. As for the new EU-offences contained in the European Arrest Warrant and the Constitution, it is improbable that they exist in all EU member States in the form presented by the EU instruments. From all this follows that a European Criminal Law cannot be introduced overnight ignoring these technical and other (socio-cultural) differences.

scholarly journals The Curious Case of Carles Puigdemont—The European Arrest Warrant as an Inadequate Means with Regard to Political Offenses

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-275
Author(s):  
Julia König ◽  
Paulina Meichelbeck ◽  
Miriam Puchta
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
The Political ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Political Conflicts ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Constitutional Identity

AbstractIn 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.

Hard Way from Extradition to European Arrest Warrant

2010 ◽  
pp. 22-31
Author(s):  
O. Potyomkina
Keyword(s):  
Mutual Recognition ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Arrest Warrant ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Existing Problems ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
European Arrest Warrant ◽  
National Boundaries ◽  
The Eu

The article is referred to a hard way of the European Arrest Warrant adoption, which became the first tool in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal cases having embodied the judicial decisions mutual recognition principle. The foundation of a single European Arrest Warrant with due regard to all existing problems of its appliance is a significant breakthrough in the EU states cooperation, given that it forces them to rely on each other's legislation. The European Warrant was designed to efface national boundaries in the sphere of court cooperation, to establish a "freedom of movement" and a single market of judicial decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document