Search results

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Factor
v. Laubenheimer and Haggard has broken new
ground with reference to the interpretation of the extradition treaties
between the United States and Great Britain, and it seems to deserve special
consideration as a contribution to the law of extradition. Factor's
extradition was requested by Great Britain on a charge of receiving certain
sums of money, aggregating £458,500, known to have been fraudulently
obtained. On the complaint of a British consul, Factor was taken into
custody in Illinois, and a United States Commissioner in Illinois issued a
warrant for his commitment pending surrender. On a return to a writ of
habeas corpus, the District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois ordered his discharge from custody, but this
order was reversed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the District Court
and the Circuit Court of Appeals seem to have regarded extradition as
possible only if the offense charged was a crime both by the law of Great
Britain and by the law of Illinois; the District Court held that receiving
money known to have been fraudulently obtained was not a crime by the law of
Illinois, but a majority of the Circuit Court of Appeals, relying chiefly on
Kelly v. Griffin, took the contrary view. On
certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the
offense charged was an extraditable crime even if it is not punishable by
the law of Illinois, the opinion being written by Justice Stone. Justice
Butler was joined in a vigorous dissenting opinion by Justices Brandeis and
Roberts.

Abstract The cross-border character of the designer drugs crimes forced the UE countries to cooperate in criminal prosecution. At first sight, in European Union law, there are proper instruments to enforce such cooperation. The Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant introduces the model of cross-border prosecution and abandons the requirement of double criminality in case of the group of the 32 crimes, listed in the Article 2 (2) of the FD EAW. The question is whether such a simple variant of EAW (without checking double criminality) may be enforced in designer drug cases. The work presents an argumentation that the normative meaning of Article 2 (2) of the FD EAW has to be established under European and international law. As long as a particular new drug is not internationally recognized as 'psychotropic substance' or 'narcotic drug', its trafficking cannot be treated as one of the 32 crimes, mentioned above.

U radu se obrađuje problematika odnosa načela uzajamnog priznavanja i povjerenja te provjere dvostruke kažnjivosti, koja zaokuplja veliku pozornost stručnih krugova u području međunarodne pravosudne suradnje sa težištem na kaznenim stvarima. U uvodnom dijelu rada prikazuje se struktura zakonske podloge Europske unije, potom se analizira načelo uzajamnog povjerenja kao strukturno načelo ustavnog prava EU, njegovo porijeklo i kontekst u svjetlu odluka Europskog suda za ljudska prava. Središnji dio rada problematizira načelo provjere dvostruke kažnjivosti s obzirom na različite oblike dvostruke kažnjivosti bez unificirane primjene tog pojma u pravosudnoj suradnji, a što kolidira sa načelom uzajamnog povjerenja te time dovodi do problema u međunarodnoj pravosudnoj suradnji. Potom se iznosi i odnos Republike Hrvatske prema načelu uzajamnog povjerenja s osvrtom na odluke Ustavnog suda RH i Vrhovnog suda RH te zaključno završna ocjena značaja načela uzajamnog priznavanja u međudržavnoj pravosudnoj suradnji u kaznenim stvarima. ; The paper elaborates the problems of the relation between the principle of mutual recognition and trust and the verification of double criminality, which attract great attention of experts in the field of international judicial cooperation with a focus on criminal matters. In the introductory part of the paper, the structure of the legal foundations of the European Union is shown, then the principle of mutual trust as a structural principle of the constitutional rights of the EU, its origin and context in the light of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The central part of the paper inquires into the problems of the principle of double criminality in regard to the various forms of double criminality with no uniform application of its term in judicial cooperation and thus collides with the principle of mutual trust in way that leads to problems in the international judicial cooperation. Afterwards, the paper outlines the relation of the Republic of Croatia towards the principle of mutual trust with regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and concludes with the final analysis of importance of the principle of mutual recognition in transnational judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

412Extradition — Double criminality test — United States requesting extradition of applicant charged with the offence of continuing criminal enterprise — Whether equivalent offence in Hong Kong — Whether double criminality test to be abandoned in favour of "conduct test" — Extradition Acts 1870-1935 (UK) — Extradition (Hong Kong) Ordinance — United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 — The law of Hong Kong

559Jurisdiction — Personal — Crimes committed by nationals abroad — Theft — Whether courts of State of defendant's nationality have jurisdiction — Condition of double criminality — Law of country of commission of offence only allowing punishment by private prosecution — Time limit for instituting proceedings in country of commission of offence having expired — Whether requirement of double criminality fulfilled — The law of Austria

Extradition — Procedure of — Issue of warrant of arrest — Extraditable crimes — Under treaty — Requirement of specification in treaty — Principle of double criminality — The law of the United States of America.Extradition — Conditions of — Extraditable crimes — Under treaty — Requirement of specification in treaty — Principle of double criminality — Procedure of extradition — Issue of warrant of arrest — The law of the United States of America.

Extradition — Extraditable crimes — Rule of double criminality — Bankruptcy offences — Whether offences under law of Canada.

Extradition — Conditions of — Double Criminality — Crimes Not Included in Extradition Treaty — Offences Committed on Territory of Extraditing State

366Extradition — Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) — Bilateral Extradition Treaty between Australia and Hungary — Treaty interpretation — Double criminality — Requirement that offence charged was crime at time of commission of offence — War crimes — Refusal of surrenderExtradition — Double criminality — Nature and scope of requirement — Temporal element — Whether acts constituting offence must have constituted the precise crime for which extradition requested at the date they took place — War crimes — Murder — Respondent accused of war crime of murdering civilian in Hungary in 1944 — Murder constituting offence under Hungarian law in 1944 — Offence of war crimes added to Hungarian law at later dateTreaties — Interpretation — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 31 and 32 — Whether declaratory of customary international law — Interpretation of treaty given effect by statute — Relevance of subsequent practice of the partiesRelationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Interpretation — Extradition treaty — Treaty given effect in Australian law by statute — Approach to treaty interpretationWar and armed conflict — War crimes — Extradition — Requirement of double criminality — War crime constituting offence of murder — The law of Australia