The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law

Janssens, Christine

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199673032.001.0001

Cited by 69 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Much has been written and published on the topic of mutual recognition as a general concept of the European Union (Armstrong, 2002;Schmidt, 2008;Kerber, van den Bergh, 2012;Janssens, 2013). As regards criminal matters, the mechanism of mutual recognition permits decisions to move freely from one European State to another.…”

Section: Application Of Mutual Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Need to Resolve after Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Slovak Republic?

Deset

Klimek

2021

SJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is a result of the European Union’s initiatives as a consequence of the fraud against its financial interests. Many questions beg consideration at the EU level as well as at national level of all EU Member States, including the Slovak Republic. The aim of the paper is the assessment of Slovak understanding of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The article’s focus comprises five crucial issues that need to be resolved in Slovakia. The first section points out at the process of adoption and implementation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Consequently, the following section tackles with the question whether the European Public Prosecutor’s Office could be considered a law enforcement authority at national level. The third section is focused on number of the European delegated prosecutors and related competence and jurisdiction. While the fourth section is focused on the execution of evidence in criminal proceedings, the fifth section is focused on application of mutual recognition. At the outset of the contribution, the historical method of research was used, namely in regard to the genesis of the EPPO. The most frequently used method was the analytical method of research. This method was used in regard to the analyses and assessments of literary sources, legislation and implementation of electronic monitoring. Another frequently used method was the comparative method of research. Further, the synthetic method of research was used. Information gathered in order to elaborate the contribution was collected in particular through the three following gathering techniques. The first data gathering method was the review of scientific literature; the works of renowned authors was analysed. The second data gathering method was access to legislation. It should be highlighted that not only consolidated legislation was used, but also original versions were analysed, in particular in the case of historical issues. Third, research into official documents of European organisations was conducted, in particular documents of the European Union.

show abstract

Section: Application Of Mutual Recognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do We Need to Resolve after Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Slovak Republic?

Deset

Klimek

2021

SJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 This aspect of mutual trust 'on paper' is also referred to as trust in abstracto. 19 The limitation of judicial review imposed on domestic authorities because of mutual trust can result in severe tensions where these authorities have serious doubts as to a foreign counterpart's respect for the individual's fundamental rights. Fortunately, EU law does not require blind trust and a rebuttal of this trust is possible.…”

Section: Recital 5 Of the Preamble To The Fd Eaw For Further Informamentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions

Marguery

2018

Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article contends that the presumption of mutual trust between the European Union Member States is a legal fiction. In the context of transfer of a custodial sentence from one country to another based on mutual recognition and mutual trust, a failure of the latter can have detrimental effects on judicial cooperation and, especially, on the functions of punishment. In particular, mutual recognition and mutual trust create a bridge between the external limits of punishment (fundamental rights) and the internal limits to the functions of punishment (retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation). The noncompliance with individuals' fundamental rights undermines the very social functions of punishment. Such a failure can only be prevented if the Member States and the European Union endeavour to establish and maintain a truly integrated penal policy with concerns for individuals at its very core.

show abstract

“…84 Hence, Janssens rightfully states that in areas where the EU legislator has established (common minimum) definitions at EU level, the member states' margin of action will be smaller in cases where no common definitions exist and that the principle of mutual recognition will be more powerful -with more limited exception to this principle -where approximation is available. 85 Concurrently with the Melloni case, the Court also ruled the Akerberg Fransson judgment 86 in which it is stated -although not in the context of cross-border collaboration in criminal cases -that member states are bound to uphold the fundamental rights established in the Charter when their actions fall within the scope of the law of the Union. 87 It is clear that the Court ensured that both judgements were attuned to one another, on the one hand by guaranteeing that the Charter is valid whenever the law of the Union is applicable, and on the other by considering that same Charter as the ultimate upper limit as far as the human rights guarantees are concerned which needs to be respected by member states, particularly when they are confronted with an issued measure within the field of European cooperation in criminal cases.…”

Section: Fundamental Rights Between Protection and Cooperation? The Rmentioning

confidence: 99%

Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure?

Meysman¹

2016

EuCLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In its judgment of the 19 th of November 2013, Belgium's highest court, the Court of Cassation, confirmed an earlier judgment of the so-called kamer van inbeschuldigingstelling (KI) of the Court of Appeal in Ghent in response to a surrender demanded in accordance with a number of European arrest warrants issued by Spain. This surrender was brushed off the table by the KI on the basis of a motivation basedon themutual trust concerning thecompliance with fundamental rights within the context of European cooperation in criminal matters. 2 This motivation seems bound to raise eyebrows amongst those who advocate this classic tenet of cross-border cooperation.This article frames this recent judgement within a European context, and investigates whether there is indeeda European tendency to step away from blind trust in lieu of (successfully) invoking fundamental rights to refuse cooperation. The case under scrutiny already seems to be pointing in that direction as far as the member states are concerned. Moreover, it seems to be confirmed by recent statements within the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Advocates General, as well as through the new procedural wind blowing through the Union with the Procedural Roadmap. On the other hand, the ECJ shows itself more reluctant than expected, giving rise to a situation in which member states

show abstract

The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law

Cited by 69 publications

References 0 publications

What Do We Need to Resolve after Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Slovak Republic?

What Do We Need to Resolve after Establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Slovak Republic?

Towards the end of mutual trust? Prison conditions in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the transfer of prisoners framework decisions

Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About