Search results

The author studies a legal measure, which was introduced by a type of European Union law known as Framework Decision, adopted in June 2002 by the European Union Council of Ministers. Lithuania has implemented the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant by making modifications to the national Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure. It should be noted, that the European Arrest Warrant is the first European instrument, implementing the principle of mutual recognition. The master's thesis deals with the concept and system of the European Arrest Warrant, it's historical development, examines mandatory and discretionary grounds for non execution of the European Arrest Warrant, legal procedure, requirements of the form and content of the European Arrest Warrant. The author also focuses on some obstacles and problems found at national level during implementation of the Framework Decision. Furthermore, the author analyzes the statistical rates of issuing European Arrest Warrant and the surrendered persons to Lithuania. Aditionally, the master's thesis is illustrated by practical application of the European Arrest Warrant. Finally, the author gives summarized conclusions and makes particular suggestions for improving existing legal norms, which regulate the European Arrest Warrant.

The adage is that the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is built on the principle of mutual trust: the presumption that Member States comply with fundamental rights save in exceptional circumstances. However, the very existence of the EAW rests on the proper interpretation and application of fundamental rights standards, and on sincere cooperation between judicial authorities.With that in mind, the present article gives a systemic analysis of the EAW. After outlining the key features of its functioning, the paper discusses the system of exceptions to surrender: mandatory and optional grounds for refusal in the EAW Framework Decision (FD), the fundamental rights exception, and cases of invalidity. As the EAW is based on automaticity, the exceptions define the traits of its identity. The article's conclusions reveal the importance of sincere cooperation to strengthen mutual trust, with judicial independence as an essential precondition. The article's comprehensive assessment offers an original contribution to the debate about judicial independence in EU law, the operation of the EAW and its role in the wider context of the Union as a legal order.

The article explores the ECJ case law on effective judicial protection in EAW proceedings, looking critically at the interpretation of Article 47 CFR in this context. The article reveals the approach to national procedural autonomy within the EAW case law, emerging most distinctly from the ECJ's interpretation of "judicial authority" under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The case law analysis challenges the scholarly arguments according to which the Court's interpretation of Article 47 CFR has contributed to a significant erosion of national procedural autonomy. By contrast, the article concludes that in the context of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the ECJ case law has mostly sought to mitigate the impact of Article 47 on national procedural autonomy. The Court may have done so to accommodate specific policy priorities pertaining to the nature of the EAW system (e.g. the fight against impunity) and uphold the principle of mutual trust.While showing internal incoherence in the interpretation of the notion of "judicial independence", the Court has thus far failed to provide convincing arguments to secure the right to an effective judicial remedy for requested individuals in the cases at hand.
European arrest warrant, effective judicial protection, procedural autonomy, independence of the judiciary, right to an effective remedy

National sovereignty has been the key consideration for basing judicial cooperation in the European Unionon mutual recognition. More than one decade after the creation of the Area of Freedom Security andJustice (AFSJ), this contribution assesses whether mutual recognition-based EU legislation in civil andcriminal law indeed respects national sovereignty. To this end, it studies the Framework decision onthe European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the EU's flagship instrument in the AFSJ. We distinguish twoelements of national sovereignty: (a) the protection of the State and its basic structures (itsstatehood);(b) the State's values, principles and fundamental rights (itsstatehood principles), and assess the EAW froma dynamic perspective: from its initial inception, in which mutual trust primarily implied little interfer-ences with the laws and practices of issuing states, to the current state of affairs which is marked by whatcould be called a'mutual trust supported by harmonization'- approach. Especially in the judge-drivenharmonization of the EAW and the dialogue between judicial authorities we witness important (and often-times overlooked) elements that impact national sovereignty. At the end, the findings of the article are putin the context of the current rule of law crisis in the EU.

Introduction -- Setting the scene -- The legality principle: its link to the EAW, jurisdiction and forum choices -- The FDEAW: safeguards against unforeseeable jurisdiction claims and the risk of arbitrary forum decisions? -- The Dutch legal order: the views on the two complications and their link to the EAW -- The German legal order: the views on the two complications and their link to the EAW -- The legal order of England and Wales: the views on the two complications and their link to the EAW -- The syntheses: to what extent is a triangular link between the EAW, the legality principle and the risk of unforeseeable jurisdiction claims and arbitrary forum choices recognised on the EU and national level? -- The intergovernmental perspective: an explanation for the state-focused interpretation of the legality principle and lack of attention for the problems with which EU citizens can be confronted -- Does the intergovernmental shoe still fit? The rise of an alternative perspective: transnational cooperation in a shared legal order -- A transnational legality principle and its possible effect on the EAW -- EU citizenship as a vehicle towards a transnational legality principle: two possible narratives -- Conclusions and recommendations.

Since its adoption, the Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW) is controversial, as the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) according the mutual recognition principle could be in conflict with the fundamental rights of the concerned person. It is assumed that the national authorities of member-states of the European Union (EU) comply with the right of fair trial and other fundamental rights. However, in practice this assumption does not necessary holds true. Also, the EAW system triggered debates regarding its lack of sufficient protection for human rights. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) did not seem particularly sensitive to the criticism and was more worried about the effectiveness of the EAW system as a whole, while the EU institutions were completely aware when the EAW system was created and ignored the issue of fundamental rights protection. The FDEAW contains provisions for protection of procedural rights and the right of fair trial, but EU institutions decided that not all violations on fundamental rights may justify the non-execution of EAW. The paper presents personal views regarding the EAW through the famous Aranyosi and Caldararu case that reveal an upward trend. After this judgment, the CJEU gives more significance to human rights. It explains how the CJEU constructed different FDEAW provisions and whether and to what extent national courts used the preliminary ruling procedure regarding criminal law measures vis-à-vis protection of fundamental rights.