Search results

In broad terms, there are two approaches to returning suspects and convicted persons to the other countries where they are wanted, and would prefer for obvious reasons not to go.One is what is called in the common law world 'the backing of warrants'. Here, the authorities of the jurisdiction where the person is wanted issue their normal warrant of arrest, which is sent directly to the authorities of the jurisdiction where he is, who endorse it if it appears to be in order, and give it to their policemen to execute it as if it were their own. The suspect is then 'lifted', and handed over to the authorities of the country where he is wanted with the minimum of fuss—the unspoken premise being that the authorities of the requesting jurisdiction normally act lawfully and reasonably, and their arrest warrants can be taken at face value and acted upon unless a strong reason to the contrary can be given.

The article explores the peculiarities of using the European arrest warrant as an effective instrument of international cooperation in the criminal law sphere, identifies the positive and negative aspects of applying the European warrant of arrest, investigates the legal nature of this instrument, compares the European arrest warrant and extradition. Particular attention is paid to the problematic issues of applying the European arrest warrant in the countries of the European Union and Ukraine. ; У статті досліджено особливості застосування Європейського ордеру на арешт як ефективного інструменту міжнародного співробітництва у кримінально-правовій сфері, встановлено позитивні та негативні аспекти застосування Європейського ордера на арешт, досліджено правову природу цього інструменту, зроблено порівняння Європейського ордера на арешт та екстрадиції. Особлива увага приділяється проблемним питанням застосування Європейського ордеру на арешт в країнах Європейського Союзу та України.

The paper deals with the European arrest warrant in the case law of Croatian courts and presents the principles of mutual recognition and trust, as well as the principle of the verification of double criminality which has attracted a lot of attention in professional circles in the area of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The introductory part of the paper addresses the importance of this instrument as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters between EU Member States. This is followed by an analysis of the fundamental principles, specifically the principle of mutual trust as a structural principle of EU constitutional law, its origin and context in the light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia. The central part of the paper analyses the principle of verification of double criminality and the implementation of that principle in the process of executing the European arrest warrant, and relates that principle to the mandatory and optional grounds for non-execution of the warrant. A brief overview is then provided of the execution of the warrant with reference to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, and the paper ends with an evaluation of the significance of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters as exemplified by the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The article is referred to a hard way of the European Arrest Warrant adoption, which became the first tool in the field of judicial cooperation on criminal cases having embodied the judicial decisions mutual recognition principle. The foundation of a single European Arrest Warrant with due regard to all existing problems of its appliance is a significant breakthrough in the EU states cooperation, given that it forces them to rely on each other's legislation. The European Warrant was designed to efface national boundaries in the sphere of court cooperation, to establish a "freedom of movement" and a single market of judicial decisions.