Search

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1271-1288 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. – II. La confiance mutuelle face aux violations des valeurs européennes. – II.1. La mise en place de la confiance mutuelle dans la coopération judiciaire pénale comme base constitutionnelle de la reconnaissance mutuelle. – II.2. L’exception d’ordre public à la reconnaissance mutuelle: entre ordre public national et ordre public européen. – III. La valeur commune d’État de droit fondement de la confiance mutuelle et moteur d’une (nouvelle) justice pénale européenne. – III.1. La notion d’autorité judiciaire dans le cadre du MAE. – III.2. L’exigence d’une protection juridictionnelle effective. – IV. Remarques conclusives. | (Abstract) This Article discusses the impact of the Court of Justice’s case law on EU criminal justice through the prism of mutual trust and mutual recognition. EU criminal justice is one of the fields of EU law that rapidly develops. Such developments can only happen within a context of mutual trust between EU Member States and, more particularly between national judicial authorities. In this respect, it is essential that these authorities abide by the common values upon which the EU is founded. Although these values are not clearly defined in the Treaty, the Article reveals how the Court of Justice actually shapes cooperation in criminal matters. Two distinct (r)evolutions are taking place. Firstly, in exceptional circumstances, the Court of Justice allows judicial authorities to refuse the execution of foreign decisions that seriously undermine a fundamental right which, for its part, gives expression to a common value. The exceptional circumstances doctrine operates like a judicial sanction against States which do not respect the EU values. Secondly, a quieter revolution is underway through the application to criminal matters of the doctrine of autonomous concepts of Union law. While defining essential concepts of criminal justice, the Court of Justice also defines certain common values. The message here is preventive. If a Member State wishes to benefit from effective judicial cooperation, it must make sure that its criminal justice system respects EU values. If a criminal justice system remains an instrument of the nation State necessary for the protection of domestic values, as soon as it enters the European sphere national values, however, it must align with European values.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(3), 861-864 | Article | (Abstract) Throughout the years the principle of mutual recognition and the underlying principle of mutual trust have greatly contributed to the EU integration process. The recent migration and terrorist crises that have stroke the Union and its Member States with full force have placed the individual and the respect for fundamental rights in the centre of the discussion concerning the meaning and scope of mutual recognition and mutual trust. This special issue revisits mutual recognition and mutual trust, and discuss the principles from various perspectives.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2016 1(3), 943-963 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. The conditionality of mutual trust in EU criminal law. - II.1. From presumption to conditionality. - II.2. The fundamental right's condition for mutual trust in criminal matters. - II.3. Condition without control? - III. "Trust is good, control is better": the judicial refutability of mutual trust. - IV. Avotiņš v. Aranyosi: clash of titans? - V. Conclusions. | (Abstract) The CJEU has recently found that mutual trust in the European Union is one of the principles relating to the constitutional structure of the Union. The principle is of fundamental importance in the construction of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) that includes judicial cooperation in criminal matters based on mutual recognition of judicial decisions. This contribution tries to clarify what the meaning and scope of mutual trust in criminal matters is. It discusses the following questions: What are the conditions for mutual trust to exist? What are the consequences of a lack of trust on judicial cooperation? It also puts the principle into the broader perspective of the European Convention on Human Rights system.

In the case Wolzenburg, the principle of non-discrimination of European Union citizens is applied to the European arrest warrant. The implementation of the European arrest warrant by the Member States cannot escape a control of proportional- ity made by the Court. Member States may impose a period of residence of five years to foreign Europeans citizens in order for them to rely on an optional ground for non-execution of a European arrest warrant (Article 4(6) of the Framework Deci- sion on the European arrest warrant). Home nationals are not obliged to comply with a residence requirement. It is possible for Member States to justify an exception to the principle of non-discrimination of European citizens with a legitimate inter- est. The chances of social reintegration of a person convicted constitute such an interest. The national measure resulting in a difference of treatment must be proportional to that interest.