Met dit onderzoek wordt getracht inzicht te krijgen in het evenwicht dat het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie (HvJ) heeft gevonden tussen enerzijds de bescherming van de fundamentele rechten en anderzijds een effectieve justitiële samenwerking tussen de lidstaten in het kader van het mechanisme van het Europees aanhoudingsbevel (EAB) geboden door het kaderbesluit betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel (KEAB).
Aan de ene kant heeft dit laatste tot doel een verouderd en multilateraal uitleveringsstelsel te vervangen door een eenvoudiger en doeltreffender stelsel dat gebaseerd is op de beginselen van wederzijds vertrouwen en wederzijdse erkenning. In wezen houdt het beginsel van wederzijds vertrouwen het vermoeden in dat alle lidstaten over voldoende en gelijkwaardige beschermingsnormen met betrekking tot de fundamentele rechten beschikken. Wat het beginsel van wederzijdse erkenning betreft, moeten alle lidstaten beslissingen van de autoriteiten van andere lidstaten als hun eigen beslissingen beschouwen. Samen zorgen deze beginselen ervoor dat wanneer een lidstaat een EAB uitvaardigt, hij redelijkerwijs kan verwachten dat deze door de aangezochte lidstaat wordt uitgevoerd. Met andere woorden kan de tenuitvoerlegging van een EAB alleen worden geweigerd onder bepaalde omstandigheden, die uitputtend zijn opgesomd in het EAB.
Aan de andere kant vormt de bescherming van de fundamentele rechten geen van de genoemde omstandigheden en kan daarom in beginsel geen aanleiding zijn om een EAB niet ten uitvoer te leggen. Strafrechtelijke zaken leiden echter door hun aard tot situaties waarin de grondrechten van de verdachte in gevaar zijn, met name het recht op een eerlijk proces en het recht om niet te worden gemarteld of aan onmenselijke of vernederende behandelingen te worden onderworpen. In het kader van het KEAB kunnen dergelijke schendingen zich bijvoorbeeld voordoen wanneer de uitvaardigende lidstaat, ondanks het algemene vermoeden dat alle lidstaten de grondrechten waarborgen, tekortkomingen vertoont met betrekking tot de onafhankelijkheid en de onpartijdigheid van zijn rechterlijke macht of met betrekking tot de voorwaarden van zijn gevangenissen. In dit verband heeft het HvJ onlangs bevestigd dat het recht op een eerlijk proces en het recht om niet te worden onderworpen aan foltering of onmenselijke of vernederende behandeling, onder bepaalde omstandigheden worden erkend als de grondslagen voor uitzonderingen op de uitvoering van een EAB.
Gelet op het voorgaande wordt met het onderzoek getracht te begrijpen hoe en waarom de rechtspraak van het Hof lijkt verschoven te zijn van een prioritering van doeltreffende justitiële samenwerking in strafzaken op basis van de beginselen van wederzijds vertrouwen en wederzijdse erkenning naar een standpunt dat de grondrechten beter beschermt.
Om dit te doen, wordt een diepgaande analyse gemaakt van de evolutie van de rechtspraak van het HvJ in de afgelopen vijftien jaar en meer bepaald van de arresten van de Advocaten voor de Wereld, Radu, Melloni, Aranyosi en Caldararu en LM (van het oudste naar het meest recente arrest). De eerste drie zaken, waaruit blijkt dat het HvJ vroeger de voorkeur gaf aan een doeltreffende justitiële samenwerking boven de bescherming van de grondrechten, zijn weliswaar belangrijk, maar komen in deze samenvatting niet aan de orde. In plaats daarvan zal de nadruk worden gelegd op de meer recente zaken van Aranyosi en Caldararu en LM. Het is in deze zaken dat het Hof erkend heeft dat het recht om niet aan een onmenselijke en vernederende behandeling te worden onderworpen en het recht op een eerlijk proces uitzonderingen kunnen vormen op de plicht van de uitvoerende lidstaat om met de uitvaardigende lidstaat samen te werken en het EAB uit te voeren.
Op het eerste gezicht lijkt dit een stap in de goede richting om voorrang te geven aan de bescherming van de grondrechten boven doeltreffende justitiële samenwerking. Er zijn echter twee voorbehouden. Ten eerste heeft het HvJ alleen dergelijke uitzonderingen voor de “sterkste” grondrechten aanvaard. Aan de ene kant vormt het recht op een eerlijk proces immers een "toegangsrecht" dat het mogelijk maakt zijn of haar grondrechten voor de rechter te doen gelden. Aan de andere kant is het recht om niet te worden onderworpen aan foltering of aan onmenselijke en vernederende behandelingen absoluut, wat betekent dat het nooit aan beperkingen kan worden onderworpen. Of het HvJ bereid is deze uitzonderingen uit te breiden tot andere "zwakkere" grondrechten, zoals het recht op privacy, blijft onzeker. Ten tweede zijn de uitzonderingen onderworpen aan uiterst strenge eisen, en alleen in de meest uitzonderlijke omstandigheden en wanneer al het andere heeft gefaald, zal de uitvoerende lidstaat zich erop mogen beroepen. Ook hier zal alleen de tijd leren of het HvJ deze eisen de komende jaren minder streng zal maken. Hoewel de besluiten van Aranyosi en Caldararu en LM dus een stap in de goede richting zijn voor de bescherming van de grondrechten, kan het HvJ in dat opzicht nog veel doen.
Articles 2, 3, 4, 7, 19 and 49, TEU
Articles 67, 82, 258 and 267, TFEU
Articles 4, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52 and 53, CFR
Articles 9 and 10, Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PROTOCOLS - Protocol (No. 36) on transitional provisions, 9 May 2008, 12008E/PRO/36.
Articles 34 and 35 EU
Article 249(3) EC
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 4a, 5, 8 and 15, FDEAW.
Recitals 6, 10, 12, 13, FDEAW.
Articles 3 and 6 ECHR
Recital 19 and Article 21, European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications, 7 September 2005.
Article 1(2), Council of the European Union, Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters.
Article 2, Council of the European Union, Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, 26 February 2009.
Judgment of 26 February, Melloni, C-399/11, EU:C:2013:107.
Judgment of 12 November 1969, Stauder v. City of Ulm, 29/69, EU:C:1969:57.
Judgment of 17 December 1970, Internationale Handelgesellschaft, 11/70, EU:C:1970:114.
Judgment of 14 May 1974, Nold v. Commission , 4/73, EU:C:1974:51.
Judgment of 28 October 1975, Roland Rutili v. Ministre de L’intérieur, 36/75, EU:C:1975:13.
Judgment of 9 March 1978, Simmenthal, 106/77, EU:C:1978:49.
Judgment of 20 February 1979, Cassis de Dijon, 120/78, EU:C:1979:42.
Judgment of 17 December 1981, Luxembourg v. Parliament, 30/81, EU:C:1983:32.
Judgment of 10 April 1984, Von Colson, 14/83, EU:C:1984:153.
Judgment of 23 April 1986, Les Verts v. EP, 294/83, EU:C:1986:166.
Judgment of May 1986, Johnston, 222/84, EU:C:1986:206.
Judgment of 13 July 1989, Wachauf, 5/88, EU:C:1989:321.
Judgment of 13 November 1990, Marleasing, C-106/89, EU:C:1990:395.
Judgment of 13 October 1992, Portugal and Spain v Council, Joined cases C-63/90 and C-67/90,
EU:C:1992:381.
Judgment of 29 May 1997, Kremzow v. Austria, C-299/95, EU:C:1997:254.
Judgment of 29 April 1999, CCAA, C-288/97, EU:C:1999:214.
Judgment of 7 January 2004, Delena Wells, C-201/02, EU:C:2004:12.
Judgment of 2 June 2005, Commission v. Luxembourg, C-266/03, EU:C:2005:341.
Judgment of 4 July 2005, Adelener, C-212/04, EU:C:2005:443.
Judgment of 14 July 2005, Commission v. Germany, C-433/03, EU:C:2005:462.
Judgment of 19 September 2006, Wilson, C‑506/04, EU:C:2006:587.
Judgment of 3 May 2007, Advocaten voor de Wereld, C-303/05, EU:C:2007:261, para. 29
Judgment of 17 July 2008, Kozlowski, C-66/08, EU:C:2008:437.
Judgment of 12 August 2008, Santesteban Goicoechea, C-296/08 PPU, EU:C:2008:457.
Judgment of 1 December 2008, Leymann and Pustovarov, C-388/08, EU:C:2008:669.
Judgment of 22 June 2010, Melki and Abdeli, Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10, EU:C:2010:363.
Judgment of the 21 December 2011, N.S., Joined Cases C‑411/10 and C‑493/10, EU:C:2011:865.
Judgment of 5 September 2012, Lopes da Silva, C-42/11, EU:C:2012:517.
Judgment of 6 September 2012, Trade Agency, C-619/10, EU:C:2012:531.
Judgment of 29 January 2013, Radu, C-396/11, EU:C:2013:39.
Judgment of 26 February, 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105.
Judgment of 30 April 2014, Ordre des Architectes v. État Belge, C-365/13, EU:C:2014:280.
Opinion 2/13 of 18 December 2014, Accession of the EU to the ECHR, EU:C:2014:2454.
Judgment of 16 July 2015, Lanigan, C-237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474.
Judgment of 5 April 2016, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, Joined Cases C‑404/15 and C‑659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198.
Judgment of 1 June 2016, C-241-15, Bob-Dogi, EU:C:2016:385.
Judgment of 10 November 2016, Poltorak, C-452/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:858.
Judgment of 10 November 2016, Kovalkovas, C-477/16 PPU, EU:C:2016:861.
Judgment of 16 February 2017, Margarit Panicello, C‑503/15, EU:C:2017:126.
Judgment of 28 March 2017, Rosneft, C-72/15, EU:C:2017:236.
Judgment of 29 June 2017, Poplawski, C-579/15, EU:C:2017:503.
Judgment of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v. Tribunal de Contas, C‑64/16, EU:C:2018:117.
Judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586.
Judgment of 27 May 2019, OG and PI, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, EU:C:2019:456.
Judgment of 27 May 2019, PF, C-509/18, EU:C:2019:457.
Judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, EU:C:2019:531.
ECtHR Judgment of 18 January 1978, Ireland v. UK, no. 5310/71.
ECtHR Judgment of 7 July 1989, Soering v. UK, no. 14038/88.
ECtHR Judgment of 7 June 1990, Cruz Varas and others v. Sweden, no. 15576/89.
ECtHR Judgment of 22 March 1995, Quinn v. France, no. 18580/91.
ECtHR Judgment of 21 January 2011, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, no. 30696/09.
ECtHR Judgment of 24 April 2012, Haralampiev v. Bulgaria, no. 20491/92.
ECtHR Judgment of 24 March 2015, Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, no. 11620/07.
ECtHR Judgment of 9 July 2019, Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, no. 8351/17.
Opinion of Advocate General Colomer delivered on 12 September 2006, Advocaten voor de Wereld, C-303/05, EU:C:2005:552.
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 18 October 2012, Radu, C-396/11, EU:C:2012:648.
Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs delivered on 16 March 2000, Centrosteel, C-456/98, EU:C:2000:137.
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 11 November 2004, Pupino, C-105/03, EU:C:2004:712.
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 2 October 2012, Melloni, C-399/11, EU:C:2012:600.
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 15 December 2015, Kossowski, C-486/14, EU:C:2015:812.
Opinion of Advocate General Øe delivered on 18 May 2017, Associação, C-64/16, EU:C:2017:395.
Opinion of Advocate General Bot, delivered on 6 February 2018, Lada, C-390/16, EU:C:2018:65.
Addo (M. K.) and Grief (N.), “Does Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Enshrine Absolute Rights?”, European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9(3), Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 510 to 524.
Ball (R.), The Legitimacy of the European Union through Legal Rationality – Free Movement of Third Country Nationals, Routledge, 15 October 2013, pp. 253 and 254.
Battjes (H.), Brouwer (E.), de Morree (P.) and Ouwerkerk (J.), The Principle of Mutual Trust in European Asylum, Migration, and Criminal law – Reconciling Trust and Fundamental Rights, FORUM – Institute for Multicultural Affairs, December 2011, pp. 38 to 39.
Bay Larsen (L.), “Afterword(s) on Mutual Recognition and the Proteciton of Fundamental Rights Revisited – Following the Judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru”, The Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future, C. Brière and A. Weyembergh (eds.), Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 pp. 433 to 442.
Bay Larsen (L.), “Some Reflections on Mutual Recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh, P. Cardonnel, A. Rosas and N. Wahl (eds.), Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2012, pp. 123 to 124.
Beck (G.), “The Lisbon Judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the Primacy of EU Law and the Problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: A Conflict between Right and Right in Which There is No Praetor”, European Law Journal, Vol. 17(4), Oxford University Press, July 2011, pp. 470 to 494.
Besselink (L. F.M.), “Analysis and Reflections – The Parameters of Constitutional Conflict after Melloni”, European Law Review, Vol. 39(4), Sweet & Maxwell, 2014, pp. 531 and 552.
Borgers (M. J.) “Mutual Recognition and the European Court of Justice: The Meaning of Consistent and Autonomous and Uniform Interpretation of Union Law for the Development of the Principle of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters”, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 18(1), Brill Nijhoff, Netherlands, 2010, pp. 99 to 114.
Borgers (M. J.), “Implementing Framework Decisions”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 44(5), Kluwer Law International, 2014, p. 1361 to 1386.
Borgers (M. J.), Case note: Hof van Justitie EG (Advocaten voor de Wereld), No. 619, May 03, 2007, pp. 3 to 5.
Bovend’Eerdt (K.), “Case Note – The Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: A New Limit to the Mutual trust Presumption in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice?”, Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, Ubiquity Press, 2016, pp. 112 to 121.
Bribosia (E.) and Weyembergh (A.), “Arrêt ‘Aranyosi et Căldăraru’: Imposition de Certaines Limites à la Confiance Mutuelle dans la Coopération Judiciaire Pénale”, Journal de Droit Européen, n°230, Bruylant, 2016, pp. 225 to 227.
Brouwer (E.), “Mutual Trust and Human Rights in the AFSJ: In Search of Guidelines for National Courts”, European Papers, Vol. 1(3), 2016, pp. 893 to 920.
Brouwer (E.), “Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation: Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof”, Utrecht Law Review, Vol. 9(1), Ubiquity Press, 2013, pp. 135 to 147.
Cambien (N.), “Mutual Recognition and Mutual Trust in the Internal Market”, European Papers, Vol. 2(1), 2017, pp. 93 to 116.
Canor (I.), “My brother’s keeper? horizontal Solange: ‘an ever closer distrust among the peoples of Europe’”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 50(2), Kluwer Law International, 2013, pp. 383 to 421.
Cariat (N.), La Charte des Droits Fondamentaux et l’Equilibre Constitutionenel entre l’Union Européenne et les Etats Membres, Bruylant, 2016, pp. 93 to 106.
Claes (M.) and Bonelli (M.), “Judicial serendipity: how Portuguese judges came to the rescue of the Polish Judiciary – ECJ 27 February 2018, Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 14, Cambridge University Press, 2018, p. 622 to 643.
Constantinesco (V.), “La Conciliation Entre la Primauté du Droit de L’union Européenne et l’Identité Nationale des Etats Membres”, Common European Legal Thinking – Essays in Honour of Albrecht Weber, H.-J. Blanke, P. C. Villalón, T. Klein and J. Ziller (eds.), Springer International Publishing, 2015, p. 103 to 114.
Craig (P.) and De Búrca (G.), EU law: text, cases and materials, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. 382, 383, 386, 388 to 390, 394 to 400
Cremona (M.), “Structural Principles and their Role in EU External Relations Law”, Structural Principles in EU External Relations Law, M. Cremona (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2018, pp. 3 to 30.
de Witte (B.), “Article 53 – Level of Protection”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward, (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, pp. 1523 to 1538.
de Witte (B.), “Legal Instruments and Law-Making in the Lisbon Treaty”, The Lisbon Treaty – EU Constitutionalism without a Constitutional Treaty, S. Griller and J. Ziller (eds.), Springer, 2008, pp. 79 to 108.
Dorociak (M.) and Lewandowski (W.), “A Check Move for the Principle of Mutual Trust from Dublin: The Celmer Case”, European Papers, Vol. 3(2), 2018, pp. 857 to 873.
Douglas-Scott (S.), “The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights after Lisbon”, The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU after Lisbon, S. de Vries, U. Bernitz and S. Weatherill (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2013, pp. 153 to 179.
Douglas-Scott (S.), “The EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Lack of Fundamental Rights, Mutual Trust and Democracy?”, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, Vol. 11, pp. pp. 53 to 85.
Douglas-Scott (S.), “The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 11(4), Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 645 to 682.
Eeckhout (P.), “Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR and Judicial Dialogue: Autonomy or Autarky”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 38(4), Fordham University School of Law, 2015, pp. 953 to 992.
Ferraro (F.) and Carmona (J.), “Fundamental Rights in the European Union – The Role of the Charter after the Lisbon Treaty”, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, March 2015, pp. 4 and 5.
Fichero (M.) and Pollicino (O.), “The Dialectics Between Constitutional Identity and Common Constitutional Traditions: Which Language for Cooperative Constitutionalism in Europe?”, German Law Journal, Vol. 20, Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 1097 to 1118.
Fletcher (M.), “Extending ‘Indirect Effect’ to the Third Pillar: The Significance of Pupino?”, European Law Review, Vol. 30(6), Sweet & Maxwell, 2005, pp. 862 to 877.
Fletcher (M.), “Impact of the Pupino Decision on EU Law”, The Court of Justice and European Criminal Law – Leading Cases in a Contextual Analysis, V. Mitsilegas, A. di Martino and L. Mancano (eds.),Hart Publishing, 2019, p. 67 to 82.
Fontanelli (F.) “The Court Goes ‘All-in’”, The ECJ Under Siege – New Constitutional Challenges for the ECJ, G. Martinico and F. Fontanelli (eds.), The Icfai University Press, 2009, pp. 31 to 61.
Gerapetritis (G.), New Economic Constitutionalism in Europe, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2019, pp. 139 to 142.
Gerards (J.), “How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights”, International Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 11(2), 2013, Oxford University Press, pp. 466 to 490.
Geyer (F.), “European Arrest Warrant: Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad: Cour of Justice of the European Communities, Judgment of 3 May 2007, Case C-303/05”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 4(1), Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp. 149 to 161.
Giannakoula (A.) “Framework Decisions under the Lisbon Treaty: Current Status and Open Issues”, European Criminal Law Review, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 2017, pp. 275 and 288.
Gree (S.), Gerards (J.) and Slowe (R.), Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the European Union – Achievements, Trends and Challenges, Cambridge University Press, 29 March 2018, pp. 300 to 307.
Haket (S.), “Coherence in the Application of the Duty of Conforming Interpretation in EU Law”, Review of European Administrative Law, Vol. 8(2), Paris Legal Publishers, 2015, pp. 215 to 246.
Halberstam (D.), “‘It’s the Autonomy, Stupid!’ A Modest Defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU Accession to the ECHR, and the Way Forward”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16(1), German Law Journal GbR, 2015, pp. 105 to 146.
Heid (D. A.), “Before and After the Treaty of Lisbon: The Legal Framework of Police Cooperation in the EU Compared”, Police Cooperation in the European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon – Opportunities and Limitations, H. Aden (ed.), Nomos, 2015, pp. 65 to 80.
Heimrich (C.), “European arrest warrants and the independence of the issuing judicial authority – How much independence is required? – Case note on joined cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU OG and PI”, New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 10(4), SAGE Publications, 2019, pp. 389 to 398.
Herlin-Karnell (E.), “Constitutional Principles in the EU Area of Freedom, Security an Justice”, EU Security and Justice Law: After Lisbon and Stockholm, D. Acosta and C. Murphy (eds.), Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2014, pp. 2 to 6.
Herlin-Karnell (E.), “In the Wake of Pupino: Advocaten voor de Wereld and Dell'Orto”, German Law Journal, Vol. 8(12), Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 1147 to 1160.
Hillion (C.), “Overseeing the rule of law in the European Union – Legal mandate and means”, European Policy Analysis, Vol. 1, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, 2016, pp. 1 to 16.
Hillion (C.), “The Copenhagen Criteria and their Progeny”, EU Enlargement: A Legal Approach, C. Hillion (ed.), Hart Publishing, 2004, pp. 1 to 22.
IPereira de Sousa (I.), “The Rule of Law Crisis in the European Union: From Portugal to Poland (and Beyond)”, Teisė, Vol. 114, Vilnius University Press, 2020, pp. 144 to 153.
Isiksel (T.), “European Exceptionalism and the EU’s Accession to the ECHR”, The European Journal of International Law, Vol. 27(3), Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 565 to 589.
Janse (R.), “Is the European Commission a credible guardian of the values? A revisionist account of the Copenhagen political criteria during the Big Bang enlargement”, International Review of Constitutiona Law, Vol. 17(1), Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 43 to 65.
Kent (P.), Law of the European Union, Pearson Education, 2008, pp. 107 to 109.
Klamert (M.) and Kochenov (D.), “Article 2 TEU”, The Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, M. Kellerbauer, M. Klamert and J. Tompkin (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2019, pp. 22 to 30.
Klamert (M.), “The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law”, Oxford Studies in European Law, P. Craig and G. De Búrca (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 31 to 33.
Klimas (T.) and Vaiciukaite (J.), “The Law of Recitals in European Community Legislation”, ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 15(1), 2008, pp. 61 to 93.
Klimek (L.), European Arrest Warrant, Springer, 2015, p. 222 to 224.
Klimek (L.), Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in European Criminal Law, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2017, pp. 128 and 129.
Kochenov (D.), “Busting the Myths Nuclear: A Commentary on Article 7 TEU”, EUI Working Paper, no. 10, European University Institute, 2017, pp. 1 to 13
Kochenov (D.), “The Acquis and Its Principles: the Enforcement of the ‘Law’ versus the Enforcement of ‘Values’ in the European Union”, The Enforcement of EU Law and Values: Ensuring Member States’ Compliance, A. Jakab and D. Kochenov (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 9 to 27.
Koops (C. E.), Contemplating Compliance: European Compliance Mechanisms in International Perspective, pp. 89 and 90.
Korenica (I.) and Doli (D.), “No More Unconditional ‘Mutual Trust’ Between the Member States: An Analysis of the Landmark Decision of the CJEU in Aranyosi and Caldararu”, European Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 21, Sweet & Maxwell, 2016, pp. 542 to 555.
Kowalik-Bańczyk (K.), “Procedural Autonomy of Member States and the EU Rights of Defence in Antitrust Proceedings”, Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies, Vol. 5(6), Centre of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies – University of Warsaw, 2012, pp. 215 to 234.
Krajewski (M.), “Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses: The Court of Justice and Athena’s Dilemma”, European Papers, Vol. 3(1), 2018, p. 395 to 407.
Krajewski (M.), “Who is Afraid of the European Council? The Court of Justice’s Cautious Approach to the Independence of Domestice Judges – ECJ 25 July 2018, Case C-216/18 PPU, The Ministr for Justice and Equality v. LM”, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 14(4), Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 792 to 813.
Krenn (C.), “Autonomy and Effectiveness as Common Concerns: A Path to ECHR Accession After Opinion 2/13”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16(1), Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 147 to 167.
Lazowski (A.), “Stepping into Uncharted Waters No More: The Court of Justice and EU Criminal Law”, The Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future, C. Brière and A. Weyembergh (eds.), Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017, pp. 111 to 140.
Lazowski (A.), “The Sky is Not the Limit: Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition après Aranyosi and Căldăraru”, Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, Vol. 14(1), University of Zagreb, 2018, pp. 1 to 30.
Lebeck (C.), “Sliding Towards Supranationalism? The Constitutional Status of EU Framework Decisions after Pupino”, German Law Journal, Vol. 8(5), Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 501 to 533
Leczykiewicz (D.), “Effectiveness of EU Law Before National Courts”, The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, A. Amull and D. Chalmers (eds.), OUP Oxford, 2015, pp. 212 to 248.
Lenaerts (K.), “Interlocking legal orders in the European Union and comparative law”, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 52(4), Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 873 to 903.
Lenaerts (K.), “La vie après l’avis: Exploring the principle of mutual (yet not blind) trust”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 54, Kluwer Law International, 2017, pp. 805 to 840.
Lenaerts (K.), “The Court of Justice of the European Union as a Guardian of the Authority of EU Law: A Networking Exercise “, The Authority of EU Law – Do We Still Believe in It?, W. Heusel and J.-P. Rageade (eds.), Springer, 2019, pp. 21 to 30.
Long (D.), “Guide to Jurisprudence on torture and Ill-Treatment: Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights”, Association for the Prevention of Torture, Vol. 1, 2002, pp. 13 to 20.
Mader (O.), “Enforcement of EU Values as a Political Endeavour: Constitutional Pluralism and Value Homogeneity in Times of Persistent Challenges to the Rule of Law”, Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, Vol. 11, Springer, 2019, pp. 133 to 170.
Mancano (L.), “Judicial Harmonisation through Autonomous Concepts of European Union Law. The Example of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision”, European Law Review, Vol. 43(1), Sweet & Maxwell, 2018, pp. 69 to 88.
Mancano (L.), The European Union and the Deprivation of Liberty – A Legislative and Judicial Analysis from the Perspective of the Individual, Hart Publishing, 2019, pp. 110 to 112.
Mancano (L.); “Mutual recognition in criminal matters, deprivation of liberty and the principle of proportionality”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 25(6), 2019, pp. 718 to 732.
Marguery (T.), “Rebuttal of Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters”, European Papers, Vol. 1(3), 2016, p. 943 to 964.
Marin (L.), “’Only You’: The Emergence of a Temperate Mutual Trust in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and Its Underpinning in the European Composite Constitutional Order”, European Papers, Vol. 2(1), 2017, pp. 141 to 157.
Marin (L.), “Effective and Legitimate? Learning from the Lessons of 10 Years of Practice with the European Arrest Warrant”, New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 5(3), 2014, pp. 326 to 347.
Mavronicola (N.), “Crime, Punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and Prospects of Applying and Absolute Right in a Penal Context”, Human Rights Law Review, Vol. 15(4), Oxford University Press, December 2015, pp. 721 to 743.
Miettinin (S.), Criminal Law and Policy in the European Union, Routledge, 2013, pp. 90 to 92.
Mitsilegas (V.), “Managing Legal Diversity in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice: The Role of Autonomous Concepts”, R. Colson and S. Field (eds), EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity. Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice, Cambridge University Press, 2016, p. 127.
Mitsilegas (V.), “The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU”, Common Law Market Review, Vol. 43, Kluwer Law International, 2006, pp. 1277 to 1311.
Mitsilegas (V.), EU Criminal Law after Lisbon: Rights, Trust and the Transformation of Justice in Europe, Hart Publishing, 2016, pp. 5 to 11.
Mitsilegas (V.), EU Criminal Law, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2009, pp. 26 and 27.
Nowak (M.) and Charbord (A.), “Article 4 – Prohibition of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, pp. 61 to 100.
Peers (S.) and Prechal (S.), “Article 52 – Scope and Interpretation of Rights and Principles”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, pp. 1455 to 1522.
Peers (S.), “The EU’s Accession to the ECHR: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare”, German Law Journal, Vol. 16, pp. 213 to 222.
Peristeridou (C.), The Principle of Legality in European Criminal Law, Intersentia, 2015, p. 178.
Pollicino (O.), “European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: a Case Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to Strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems”, German Law Journal, Vol. 9(10), pp. 1313 to 1355.
Prechal (S.), “Mutual Trust Before the Court of Justice of the European Union”, European Papers, Vol. 2(1), 2017, pp. 75 to 92.
Ruiz Tarrías (S.), “La decisión marco sobre la orden europea de detención y entrega reinterpretada por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea”, Anuario Iberoamericano de Justicia Constitucional, Vol. 23(2), Dialnet, 2019, pp. 459 to 490.
Sanger (A.), “Force of Circumstance: The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights”, Democracy and Security, Vol. 6(1), Routledge, 2010, pp. 17 to 51.
Sarmiento (D.), “Un paso más en la constitucionalización del tercer pilar de la Unión Europea. La sentencia Maria Pupino y el efecto directo de las decisiones marco”, Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales, No. 10, Dialnet, 2005, pp. 6 to 17.
Sayers (D.), “Article 48 – Presumption of Innocence and Right of Defence (Criminal Law)”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward, (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, pp. 1303 to 1350.
Sommerman (K.-P.), “The Objectives of the European Union”, The Treaty on European Union (TEU): A Commentary, H-J. Blanke and S. Mangiamelli (eds.), Springer, 2013, pp. 157 to 183.
Uría Gavilán (E), La Adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, J.M. Bosch Editor, 2018, pp. 365 to 374.
van Ballegooij (W.), The Nature of Mutual Recognition in European Law – Re-examining the Notion from an Individual Rights Perspective With a View to Its Further Development in the Criminal Justice Area, Intersentia, 2015, pp. 136 to 147.
van der Mei (A. P.), “The European Arrest Warrant: Recend developments in the case law of the Court of Justice”, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 24(6), SAGE Publications, 2017, pp. 882 to 904.
Van Elsuwege (P.), “The Duty of Sincere Cooperation and its Implications for Autonomous Member State Action in the Field of External Relations”, Between Compliance and Particularism – Member States Interests and European Law, M. Varju (eds.), Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Switzerland, 2019, pp. 283 and 298.
Van Meerbeeck (J.), “The Principle of Legal Certainty in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice: From Certainty to Trust”, European Law Review, Vol. 41(41), Sweet & Maxwell, 2015, pp. 275 to 288.
Wagner (W.), “Negative and Positive Integration in EU Criminal Law Co-operation”, European Integration online Papers, Vol. 15(6), 2011, pp. 15 to 17.
Ward (A.), “Article 51 – Field of Application”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, p. 1413 to 1454.
Ward (A.), “Article 47 – Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward, (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, pp. 1197 and 1276.
Willems (A.), “Mutual Trust as a Term of Art in EU Criminal Law: Revealing its Hybrid Character”, European Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 9(1), European University Institute, 2016, pp. 211 to 249.
Willems (A.), “The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal”, German Law Journal (20), Cambridge University Press, 2019, pp. 468 to 495.
Wilscher (D.), “Article 6 – Right to Liberty and Security”, The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A Commentary, S. Peers, T. Hervey, J. Kenner and A. Ward, (eds.), Hart Publishing, 2014, p. 121 to 152.
Wischmeyer (T.) “Generating Trust Through Law? Judicial Cooperation in the European Union and the ‘Principle of Mutual trust’”, German Law Journal, Vol. 17(3), Cambridge University Press, 2016, pp. 399 to 382.
A. Mohay (A.), “Plot twist? Case C-128/18 Dorobantu: detention conditions and the applicability of the ECHR in the EU legal order”, EU Law Analysis, 28 October 2019, http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2019/10/plot-twist-case-c-12818-dorobantu.html, (accessed on 25 April 2020).
Braum (S.), The Carles Puigdemont case: European criminal law in a crisis of confidence, https://www.theeconomyjournal.eu/texto-diario/mostrar/1219252/the-carles-puigdemont-case-european-criminal-law-in-crisis-of-confidence, (accessed on Friday 8 March 2020).
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, A new EU Framework to strengthen the Rule of Law, COM(2014)158 final, 11 march 2014.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the Regions, Strengthening the rule of law within the Union – A blueprint for action, COM(2019)343 final, 17 July 2019.
Council of Europe – European Court of Human Rights, Factsheet – Case-law concerning the European Union, February 2020, pp. 10 and 11.
Council of Europe – European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights – Right to a fair trial (criminal limb), 31 December 2019, pp. 17 to 94.
Council of the European Union, Presidency Conclusions – Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 October 1999.
de Boer (N), Uniformity of deference to national constitutional traditions in the protection of fundamental rights? Opinion of AG Bot in case C-399/11 Melloni, 25 October 2012, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2012/10/25/uniformity-or-deference-to-national-constitutional-traditions-in-the-protection-of-fundamental-rights-case-c-39911-melloni-opinion-ag-bot/, (accessed on 19 March 2020).
Editorial Comments, “Safeguarding EU values in the Member States – Is something finally happening?”, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 52, Kluwer Law International, 2015, pp. 619 to 628.
Eurojust, Case law by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant, 15 March 2020, pp. 3 to 7.
Eurojust, Case Law by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the European Arrest Warrant, October 2018, pp. 5 and 7.
European Commission, Commission Notice – Handbook on how to Issue and Execute a European Arrest Warrant, C(2017) 6389 final, 28 September 2018, p. 39.
European Parliament Research Service, An EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of la wand fundamental rights – Annex, 2016, pp. 26 and 27.
European Parliament, Fact Sheet – The Protection of Fundament Rights in the EU fact sheet, 2020, pp. 1 and 2.
European Parliament, Press Release – Rule of Law in Poland and Hungary has Worsened, 16 January 2020, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20200109IPR69907/rule-of-law-in-poland-and-hungary-has-worsened, (accessed on Monday 4 March 2020).
European Parliament, The triangular relationship between fundamental rights, democracy and the Rule of Law, 2013, p. 33.
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ C 303, 14. December 2007, pp. 33 and 34
Franssen (V.), “Melloni as a wake-up call – setting limits to higher national standards of fundamental rights’ protection, European Law Blog”, 10 March 2014, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2014/03/10/melloni-as-a-wake-up-call-setting-limits-to-higher-national-standards-of-fundamental-rights-protection/, (accessed on 22 March 2020).
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_arrest_warrant-90-en.do, (accessed on 21 April 2020).
Karapatakis (A.), “Case C-182/18 Dorobantu – The Aftermath of Aranyosi and Căldăraru, European Law Blog, 28 October 2019, https://europeanlawblog.eu/2019/10/28/case-c-128-18-dorobantu-the-aftermath-of-aranyosi-and-caldararu/, (accessed on 25 April 2020).