scholarly journals The Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in the European Union: Law, Policy and Practice by M. Fichera. Cambridge: Intersentia (2011) 253pp. £62.00pb ISBN 978-94-000-0172-5

2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 547-551
Author(s):  
Paul Roberts
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-26
Author(s):  
Tanja Niedernhuber

The competence for issuing a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is a hot topic at the moment. It has been the subject of four rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) alone in 2019. These are preceded by three more rulings on the same subject from 2016. All of these judgments addressed the same core question: was the issuing authority a “judicial authority” and independent enough to issue an EAW pursuant to Art. 6 (1) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (FD-EAW)? If the answer to that question is “no”, the EAW issued by the incompetent authority is not valid. This article analyses the concept of “judicial authority” in the context of the FD-EAW and the legislative change currently discussed in Germany in the light of the requirements established by the CJEU.


TEME ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Mićo Bošković ◽  
Tomislav Trajković ◽  
Gordana Nikolić

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 35-56
Author(s):  
Anastazja Gajda

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.


2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Tomuschat

Features European Arrest Warrant – Article 16(2) German Basic Law, which allows exceptionally for the extradition of German nationals, not read in the light of the European Union integration clause in Article 23(1) Basic Law – Complaint of violation of the democratic principle put in perspective – Preservation of the statehood of Germany – Lack of proportionality in and procedural defects of the implementing Act


2010 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gjermund Mathisen

AbstractFor almost half a century, the Nordic countries have had a particular system of regional extradition. That system inspired and influenced the development of the European Arrest Warrant scheme at the turn of the millennium. Now, with the former Nordic system being replaced by a “Nordic Arrest Warrant”, the Nordic countries have in turn been inspired and influenced by the European Arrest Warrant scheme. In the future, it may be that the Nordic Arrest Warrant will inspire and influence further developments of the European Arrest Warrant scheme. The present article attempts an analysis of past and future interaction between developments on the Nordic level and the European Union level in this field.


2016 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 215-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leandro MANCANO

AbstractThis article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document