Editorial. The Court of Justice of the eu and the New Lisbon Treaty Environment Five Years On
|
|
- Amos Knight
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 european journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 23 (2015) 1-10 brill.com/eccl Editorial The Court of Justice of the eu and the New Lisbon Treaty Environment Five Years On Estella Baker Faculty of Business and Law, Leicester De Montfort Law School, The Gateway, De Montfort University, Leicester le1 9bh, UK 1 Introduction At the time of writing an important milestone in the implementation of the Treaty of Lisbon has just been passed. On 1 December 2014, five years after the Treaty entered into force, the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) assumed its full jurisdiction over what remains of the so-called third pillar acquis. The acquis consists of the 133 measures that remain in force and which were adopted on the basis of Title VI of the pre-lisbon Treaty on European Union (teu) that conferred competence upon the Union in the field of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Rather than taking the Court into wholly uncharted territory, the reform constitutes an incremental change. This is because the Court already had some jurisdiction over the third pillar and it enjoys its full jurisdiction over criminal law measures that have been adopted under the post-lisbon treaty settlement automatically. Nevertheless, the latest extension to its remit provides an opportune moment at which to examine some of the implications of the Court s expanded criminal justice role. In order to do so, it is helpful to begin briefly by recapping the Lisbon reforms in so far as they are relevant. koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2015 doi /
2 2 Baker 2 Criminal Justice, the cjeu and the Lisbon Reforms Under the treaties as they stood before the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force the Union s criminal law competence was split awkwardly between two regulatory environments. Under the third pillar competence was explicit, but it was fundamentally of intergovernmental character, meaning that its exercise remained substantially under the control of the Member States. Additionally, though, the Union enjoyed some implied competence under the first pillar. Limited in scope1 and governed by the European Community Treaty (ect), this was supranational in character. Measures based in the ect were thus supreme over the internal laws of the Member States and capable of having direct effect. Accordingly, first pillar competence entailed a more intense pooling of sovereignty than was the case under the third pillar. Reflecting the distinction, the Union institutions had lesser involvement in third pillar affairs than those falling under the ect. As far as actions before the cjeu were concerned, the principal differences were as follows: Judicial review: Compared with the position under the first pillar, the right of judicial review under the third pillar was significantly restricted, both in terms of the range of instruments to which it applied and the class of applicants that was eligible to bring an action. Infringement proceedings: Under the first pillar the European Commission (and Member States) could bring infringement proceedings against Member States for their alleged failures to implement Community law. No such jurisdiction existed under the third pillar. Preliminary rulings: Under the first pillar all courts and tribunals in Member States had the right, and in some cases the duty, to make references to the cjeu for preliminary rulings on the correct interpretation of Community law. Under the third pillar access to the Court was available only to the courts of Member States that explicitly opted in to the Court s preliminary rulings jurisdiction, and not all of them did. A primary goal of the Lisbon reforms is to dissolve the boundary between the former first and third pillars, so that the subject matter of the third pillar becomes absorbed into the supranational core of the Union. To that end, when 1 Case C-176/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of Ministers of the European Union ( Environmental Offences ) [2005] ECR I-7879; Case C-440/05 Commission of the European Communities v Council of Ministers of the European Union ( Ship Source ) [2007] ECR I-9097.
3 Editorial 3 the Treaty entered into force in 2009, Title VI of the pre-lisbon teu was replaced by revised provisions that form part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (afsj) Title of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (tfeu). This meant that the third pillar became redundant as a basis for fresh legislative activity. Instead, criminal law measures that have been adopted since 1 December 2009 are based in the afsj Title. It confers supranational powers upon the Union and full jurisdiction over resulting instruments upon the cjeu. In the light of these changes an obvious question arose as to the fate of the third pillar acquis. The most straightforward option might have been simply to confer it with supranational character at the point that the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force. Rather than doing so, however, it became the subject of relatively complex transitional arrangements that are set out in Protocol 36 to the Treaties. The Protocol provides, in Article 9, that all measures that are based in Title VI of the pre-lisbon teu retain their original legal character until they are repealed, annulled or amended in implementation of the Treaties. In other words, in principle at least, only through deliberate legislative action can their intergovernmental quality be disturbed.2 Notwithstanding that relative caution however, Article 10 of the Protocol then provides for the assumption by the cjeu and the Commission of their full powers with respect to the remaining body of third pillar law. The latter change, though, was not to take effect immediately, but only at the end of a five year transitional period. This explains why 1 December 2014 was a significant date. In an effort to make Articles 9 and 10 cohere, Declaration 50 to the treaties recorded the aspiration that as much as possible of the third pillar acquis should be replaced during the transitional period with supranational measures based in the afsj Title of the tfeu.3 Crucially though, no deadline was prescribed for completing the process and, in practice, progress was modest.4 2 But see Case C-399/11 Stefan Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, not yet reported, judgment of 26 February 2013, paragraphs 58 59, where the cjeu applied the principle of primacy to the framework decision that establishes the eaw. 3 oj 2010 C 83/ Examples of replacement instruments include: Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims (oj 2011 L 101/01); Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (oj 2011 L 335/1); Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime (oj 2012 L 315/57).
4 4 Baker Furthermore, this is a state of affairs that is unlikely to change radically in the foreseeable future. One reason is simply the volume of measures that remain to be updated. The current total is 133, a far larger number than has been tackled so far. Bearing in mind the complexity of the Union s legislative process5 and that the programme to Lisbonise these older measures must be managed alongside fresh initiatives, it is inevitable that it will take time to complete the former task. But this is not the only factor at work. Replacement entails the need for renegotiation and some of the surviving instruments are liable to prove troublesome in that regard. The outstanding example is the framework decision that established the European arrest warrant (eaw).6 Arguably, the eaw constitutes the Union s flagship achievement in the criminal justice field. Yet it hardly needs pointing out that, ten years on, its existence and operation remain hotly contentious in many quarters. Consequently, there is a risk that opponents would seek to use the opportunity afforded by renegotiation to dilute its effectiveness, or undo it altogether. The upshot would be a new instrument with greater normative strength, but at the expense of a content that was materially watered down. Notwithstanding its imperfections, the eaw system is working on the basis of its existing legal footing and there is no absolute legal or political need to tamper with the framework decision. Pragmatism dictates, therefore, that it should be left alone. Likewise, any other third pillar instruments that raise similar difficulties. In view of these considerations the suggestion that 1 December 2014 should be regarded as a milestone can be understood more fully. It is not simply that the Court finally acquired the deferred extension to its jurisdiction on that date, but that the vestiges of the third pillar acquis are likely to endure for an indeterminate period. What consequences can be expected to result from the newly established state of affairs? 3 The Caseload of the cjeu It is predictable that demands upon the cjeu will increase as a result of its extended jurisdiction over the third pillar. One potential cause though can be eliminated immediately. Where actions for judicial review of the legality of a third pillar measure are concerned, the reality is that nothing has changed at 5 The ordinary legislative procedure, which involves co-decision by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, applies to relevant post-lisbon measures: Article 294 tfeu. 6 Council framework decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (oj 2002 L190/01).
5 Editorial 5 all. This is because of the specification in the treaties that such actions must be instituted within two months of a measure s publication. Plainly, that time limit long since expired for all of the remaining third pillar instruments. It follows that the projected increase in the Court s business will occur as a result of infringement proceedings and requests for preliminary rulings. Regarding the former, the Commission has been unable to initiate such proceedings with respect to third pillar law up until now. This was much to its chagrin. Member States track records in implementing third pillar measures have been notoriously poor, notwithstanding that their adoption had required the unanimous decision of the Council of Ministers. Bad for the rule of law and detrimental to any prospect of putting a tangible afsj in place, it is a good thing that this enforcement deficit has been rectified. Moreover, even before the transitional period came to an end, the Commission reported that the prospective threat of proceedings was providing an incentive to Member States belatedly to comply with their obligations.7 That being so, it may be that only a numerically small number of relevant cases materialise before the Court in due course. There are other factors too that would tend towards that outcome. One is that the infringement procedure includes a period of negotiation between the Commission and the Member State prior to a matter being put before the Court.8 This encourages settlement without resort to litigation. Another is that at least some of the third pillar legislation may be drafted in terms that calls its justiciability into doubt. More will be said on this subject below. Turning to preliminary rulings, the updated position does not look quite so dramatically different from the former one at first sight. This is because 17 of the Member States had already opted in to the Court s jurisdiction prior to the Lisbon Treaty s entry into force.9 Even though that was already more than half of them, there is good reason to expect that it is the need to deal with requests for preliminary rulings that will constitute the lion s share of the anticipated increase in third pillar business before the Court. There are a variety of contributory reasons. Surely the most fundamental is the growth in the number of courts and tribunals that can now make 7 Presentation by the Commission to its Expert Group on eu Criminal Policy, Brussels, 12th March Article 258 tfeu. 9 Information concerning the declarations by the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania and the Republic of Slovenia on their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on the acts referred to in Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union (oj 2008 C 69/01).
6 6 Baker references. This is not merely a matter of adding in more Member States, but of their identity as well. The newcomers to the Court s jurisdiction include Poland and the uk, two of the largest Member States. Added to that, although Spain, a third of the large Member States, had previously opted in, it had only done so partially. That is to say, it was only those of its courts and tribunals against whose decision there was no domestic judicial remedy that had been empowered to make references. That restriction has now been removed. The number of references from the uk will be constrained by the fact that it is bound only by 35 of the remaining third pillar measures.10 Nevertheless, purely by dint of their size, the full participation of these three Member States is likely to generate a disproportionate boost in workload for the Court. The second reason to expect an increase in the Court s case load relates back to what has been said about implementation. A Member State s failure to implement a (potentially) relevant provision of Union law does not render a national court incapable of making a reference with respect to it. Indeed, it may supply the reason for doing so, a proposition which the Court s controversial ruling in Pupino11 demonstrates holds good for third pillar law. Equally, the purported implementation of a measure does not necessarily negate the need for national courts to make references to the cjeu. In fact, a greater number of references may occur once relevant domestic measures are in place than if they are absent. This is a point that appears to be substantiated by experience with the eaw for instance, in relation to which the Court has been asked to provide a significant number of preliminary rulings. It would appear to follow, therefore, that a consequence of Member States greater adherence to the third pillar acquis, and its consequent transformation into law in action, will be to act as a second catalyst for an increased flow of references to the cjeu. Compounding both of the effects that have just been noted is a third material factor, in the form of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. When the Lisbon Treaty entered into force, the Charter became justiciable.12 Even before access 10 This is a consequence of the Protocol 36 opt out (discussed in the E. Baker, Editorial: The United Kingdom and its Protocol 36 Opt-Out: Is Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters within the eu Losing Momentum? 21 European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (2013) pp ). Having exercised it, the uk Government has been successful in its negotiations to opt back in to 35 of the surviving measures that comprise the third pillar acquis. 11 Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2005] ECR I Article 6(1) teu.
7 Editorial 7 to the Court s preliminary rulings jurisdiction was extended, this appeared to be stimulating a fresh wave of references in which national courts asked about the impact of Charter provisions upon the application of third pillar law.13 Such cases are only likely to grow in number now. Finally, account must be taken of the expedited ppu procedure. It applies where a reference is made in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a Member State with regard to a person in custody.14 In such instances the Court goes into emergency mode, enabling it to provide a ruling in under three months. This is commendably fast in comparison with the more usual 22 months or so that it takes to deliver an ordinary preliminary ruling. But it is strikingly so when compared with the span of years that it can take to extract a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The provisions of the Charter, as well as the general doctrine of fundamental rights protection under Union law, are strongly rooted in the guarantees that are afforded by the echr. If the availability of the ppu procedure is considered in that context, it will be seen that it is liable to act as a magnet in attracting business to the cjeu in qualifying cases (those that fall within the scope of the eu treaties and which relate to a person in custody) where an alleged breach of fundamental rights has occurred. 4 Other Consequences Leaving aside the impact on the Court s workload, the extension to its jurisdiction will have other important consequences, and in fact is already doing so. It is not possible to do more than provide a flavour of them here. Returning first to the matter of infringement proceedings, of at least as much fascination as the reaction of the Member States to the Court s acquisition of jurisdiction is that of the Commission. During the transitional phase it has initiated a series of studies of the implementation of third pillar instruments by the Member States and also of particular aspects of their criminal justice systems. These would appear to have twin motivations. The first is simply to enable the Commission to develop expertise and understanding which can be deployed when drawing up proposals for fresh legislation. The second is to gather intelligence that may be of use in due course in guiding decisions to initiate infringement proceedings. 13 See, for example, Case C-129/14 PPU Zoran Spasic, judgment of 27 May 2014, not yet reported, in the context of Article 54 cisa. 14 Article 267 tfeu.
8 8 Baker One of the issues that this brings to the fore is the relationship between legislative drafting and questions of justiciability. At the time that the third pillar instruments were negotiated it was not a concern that the Commission might one day need to be able to rely upon their terms in order to establish an infringement by a Member State. Now, of course, the Commission is contemplating that very prospect and must also prepare for it, as far as it is able, where the new directives based in the afsj Title are concerned. This state of affairs raises what in the criminal justice context is a novel practical problem. For it to be possible to establish that a Member State has infringed its obligations, it must also be possible to establish that those obligations are defined in terms that are sufficiently clear and certain for the Court to be able fairly to identify their content and scope. It is by no means obvious that the provisions of third pillar legislation always satisfy this requirement, including some that adopt what have become standard templates in drafting. To give one example, it is commonplace for instruments to state that Member States must establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for violations of Union-law inspired criminal offences. Quite what an effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanction is, however, and/or how its existence might be proved or disproved before the Court, is a moot point. If enforcement is ever to graduate beyond the crude matter of whether a given Member State provides for any relevant sanctions at all then these questions require a convincing answer. Alternatively, the time may be ripe for the Commission to develop a fresh approach to the way in which it drafts the sanction requirements in its proposals for new legislation. Regarded in this light, the reforms that have been made to the Court s jurisdiction are liable to prove generally beneficial in terms of their impact on legality. Turning to preliminary rulings, the Court already has experience in handling these kinds of cases, as a result of which a significant body of relevant case law has built up. Nevertheless, there is reason to expect the new regime to herald important changes. Most obviously, the Court s rulings to date are heavily concentrated in a relatively small number of areas, which include interpretation of the ne bis in idem provisions of the Schengen Convention;15 interpretation of the eaw; and the rights of victims under the now replaced framework decision.16 The third pillar acquis though is more varied in its 15 Articles cisa. 16 Council framework decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82/01).
9 Editorial 9 subject matter than this list betrays. With its more comprehensive implementation by the Member States it can be expected that its variety will come to be reflected in the Court s rulings. A more challenging question is whether the complexion of the Court s case law is liable to change in any material respect now that the bar on references being sent from certain Member States has been lifted. In particular, where matters of criminal law and justice are concerned, there is a major fault line between the Member States. Whereas the majority adopt the inquisitorial model of criminal proceedings, a small minority of common law countries; namely Cyprus, Ireland, Malta and the uk, operate the adversarial model instead. None of the latter group was represented among the 17 Member States that elected to opt in to the Court s preliminary rulings jurisdiction at the earlier stage. Necessarily, therefore, all of the references that the Court has been asked to rule on so far have arisen from civil law jurisdictions. It has become a familiar feature of the legislative process that the common law Member States allege that instruments are drafted with the inquisitorial system in mind, overlooking important tenets of the adversarial system. If any such friction has been incorporated into the surviving third pillar instruments, might its manifestation be detected in due course in references that are sent to the Court? 5 Conclusion In the available space it has been possible to do little more than touch the surface of the many interesting issues that are bound to arise now that the cjeu has greater jurisdiction over matters of criminal law and justice. The focus here has been the recent extension to its role with respect to the third pillar. Consequently, broader issues that relate to the developing substance of the Union s criminal law, and to its evolving relationship with the institution of Union citizenship and the project to construct the Union as an afsj, have been left unexplored. Thanks to the Lisbon reforms, the Court has been placed in its strongest position yet to affect these important matters and to influence the development and practice of criminal justice more generally. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that part of the third pillar acquis is rooted in the Schengen Conventions, and that the Schengen zone extends to four countries that are not members of the eu. Therefore, that influence extends, not just across the Union s territories, but beyond them. While it is true that the Court s reach is simultaneously tempered by virtue of the opt in and opt out arrangements that
10 10 Baker have been negotiated by a small minority of Member States,17 the exceptions that they create to the normal application of its rulings will make relatively minor inroads into their overall impact. Accordingly, if there had been any remaining scepticism about the importance of the Court to criminal justice in Europe, there certainly should not be now. 17 Namely, Denmark, Ireland and the uk. These arrangements have not been discussed here, other than incidentally.
11 Copyright of European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law & Criminal Justice is the property of Martinus Nijhoff and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.
Statewatch Analysis. EU Lisbon Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law
Statewatch Analysis EU Lisbon Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law Prepared by Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex Version 4: 3 November 2009
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
1.5.2014 L 130/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE 2014/41/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters THE EUROPEAN
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 02.05.2006 COM(2006) 187 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Based on Article 10 of the Council Framework Decision
More informationMutual Trust Blind Trust or General Trust with Exceptions? The CJEU Hears Key Cases on the European Arrest Warrant 1
Mutual Trust Blind Trust or General Trust with Exceptions? The CJEU Hears Key Cases on the European Arrest Warrant 1 Henning Bang Fuglsang Madsen Sørensen Associate Professor, Department of Law, University
More informationAnalysis. The UK opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs law: the other Member States finally lose patience
Analysis The UK opt-out from Justice and Home Affairs law: the other Member States finally lose patience Steve Peers Professor of Law, University of Essex 26 March 2014 Introduction The UK government has
More informationConsidering the Impact of a UK Opt Out of Pre Lisbon Treaty Policing and Criminal Law Measures 1. Purpose of Paper
1. Purpose of Paper 1.1 This paper is intended to brief ACPO Cabinet re the potential impacts on policing of the UK exercising rights under the Lisbon Treaty to opt out of pre Lisbon Treaty EU policing
More informationStatewatch Analysis. The Third Pillar acquis after the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force
Statewatch Analysis The Third Pillar acquis after the Treaty of Lisbon enters into force Professor Steve Peers University of Essex Second version: 1 December 2009 Introduction The entry into force of the
More informationFundamental rights as general principles of law Eg Case 11/70 [1970] ECR 1125, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft.
1 Session 1: THE ROLE OF THE CHARTER WITHIN THE EU LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS RELEVANCE FOR THE NATIONAL LEGAL ORDER A. INTRODUCTION Important references in EU law to fundamental rights are the following:
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.10.2017 COM(2017) 607 final 2017/0266 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Additional Protocol supplementing
More informationStatewatch Analysis. EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law
Statewatch Analysis EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law Prepared by Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex Version 2: 26 October 2007
More informationEUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 5 March 2014 (OR. en) 2012/0036 (COD) PE-CONS 121/13 DROIPEN 156 COPEN 229 CODEC 2833
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 5 March 2014 (OR. en) 2012/0036 (COD) PE-CONS 121/13 DROIP 156 COP 229 CODEC 2833 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: DIRECTIVE OF THE
More informationeuropean journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 25 (2017) 1-10 Editorial
european journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 25 (2017) 1-10 brill.com/eccl Editorial All bout the Money? On the Division of Costs in the Context of eu Criminal Justice Cooperation and the
More informationEuropean Criminal Law: Impact on National Defence Practice.
European Criminal Law: Impact on National Defence Practice. Competences of the EU, Instruments, Institutions, Developments ALDIS ALLIKS Attorney at Law, Senior Associate Law Firm VARUL (Riga, Latvia) EU
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT. Annex to the
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 28.6.2006 SEC(2006) 81 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Annex to the COMMUNICATION DE LA COMMISSION AU CONSEIL ET AU PARLEMENT EUROPÉEN Renforcer la liberté,
More informationDelegations will find the text of this Resolution in annex II and are invited to present their comments at the COPEN meeting of 28 May 2014.
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 20 May 2014 9968/14 COPEN 153 EUROJUST 99 EJN 57 NOTE from: to: Subject: Presidency Delegations Issues of proportionality and fundamental rights in the context of
More informationList of topics for papers
General information List of topics for papers The paper has to consist of 5 000-6 000 words (including footnotes). Please consider the formatting requirements. The deadline for submission will generally
More informationProposed Framework Decision on European arrest warrants
Statewatch post 11.9.01 analyses: No 3 Proposed Framework Decision on European arrest warrants Analysis by Steve Peers, Reader in Law, Essex University How will the EU s new proposal on arrest warrants
More informationEU update (including the Green Paper on the Presumption of Innocence) ECBA Conference, Edinburgh April 2006
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE GENERAL JUSTICE, FREEDOM AND SECURITY Directorate D Internal security and criminal justice Unit D/3 Criminal justice Brussels, 21 April 2006 EU update (including the Green
More informationIII. (Preparatory acts) COUNCIL
12.9.2009 Official Journal of the European Union C 219/7 III (Preparatory acts) COUNCIL Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 26 February 2015 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 26 February 2015 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2013/0409 (COD) 6603/15 DROIPEN 20 COPEN 62 CODEC 257 NOTE From: Presidency To: Council No. prev. doc.: 6327/15
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.9.2017 SWD(2017) 320 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant
More informationTEXTS ADOPTED Provisional edition
European Parliament 2014-2019 TEXTS ADOPTED Provisional edition P8_TA-PROV(2018)0339 Countering money laundering by criminal law ***I European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 September 2018 on
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 6.11.2007 COM(2007) 681 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION based on Article 11 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism {SEC(2007)
More information(Non) Ne bis in idem. European Jurisdictional Conflicts Transfer of Proceedings
(Non) Ne bis in idem European Jurisdictional Conflicts Transfer of Proceedings Copyright Schomburg 2012 Overview Evolution of this principle ne bis in idem: From obstacle to extradition to individual fundamental
More informationTHE EU SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION AFTER THE TREATY OF LISBON: A FIRST EVALUATION *
1 THE EU SYSTEM OF JUDICIAL PROTECTION AFTER THE TREATY OF LISBON: A FIRST EVALUATION * Vassilios Skouris Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen, Allow me first of all to express my grateful
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
EN EN EN EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 11.4.2011 COM(2011) 175 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL On the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision
More informationEuropean Criminal Justice Post-Lisbon: An Irish Perspective. May 2012, The Institute of International and European Affairs.
The Institute of International and European Affairs 8 North Great Georges Street, Dublin 1, Ireland Tel: (353) 1-874 6756 Fax: (353) 1-878 6880 www.iiea.com e-mail: reception@iiea.com European Criminal
More informationJAI.1 EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 8 November 2018 (OR. en) 2016/0407 (COD) PE-CONS 34/18 SIRIS 69 MIGR 91 SCHENGEN 28 COMIX 333 CODEC 1123 JAI 829
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 8 November 2018 (OR. en) 2016/0407 (COD) PE-CONS 34/18 SIRIS 69 MIGR 91 SCHG 28 COMIX 333 CODEC 1123 JAI 829 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 5.2.2014 COM(2014) 57 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA,
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.12.2018 COM(2018) 858 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament
More informationNe bis in idem. From obstacle to extradition to fundamental right not to be prosecuted twice within the EU
Ne bis in idem Old principles in new clothes From obstacle to extradition to fundamental right not to be prosecuted twice within the EU European Jurisdictional Conflicts Transfer of Proceedings I The Sources
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 30 May 2017 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 May 2017 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 2016/0414 (COD) 9718/17 NOTE From: To: Presidency Council No. prev. doc.: 9280/17 No. Cion doc.: 15782/16 Subject:
More informationA Guide to The European Arrest Warrant October 2012
A Guide to The European Arrest Warrant October 2012 About Fair Trials International Fair Trials International (FTI) is a non-governmental organisation that works for fair trials according to internationally
More informationReport of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Luxembourg, May 1995)
Report of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Luxembourg, May 1995) Caption: In May 1995, the Court of Justice of the European Communities publishes a report on several aspects of the application
More informationYour questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union. the EFTA Court. the European Court of Human Rights
Your questions about: the Court of Justice of the European Union the EFTA Court the European Court of Human Rights the International Court of Justice the International Criminal Court CJEU COURT OF JUSTICE
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 77(2)(a) thereof,
28.11.2018 L 303/39 REGULATION (EU) 2018/1806 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 14 November 2018 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in possession of visas when crossing the
More informationEuropean Commission, Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU.
15 March 2018 TF50 (2018) 33/2 Commission to UK Subject: Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy
More informationStatewatch briefing on the European Evidence Warrant to the European Parliament
Statewatch briefing on the European Evidence Warrant to the European Parliament Introduction The Commission s proposal for a Framework Decision on a European evidence warrant, first introduced in November
More informationRecent Developments in EU Public Law. Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014
Recent Developments in EU Public Law Scottish Public Law Group Annual Summer Conference 9 June 2014 Presentation overview 1. Application and Interpretation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights When
More informationEDPS Opinion on the proposal for a recast of Brussels IIa Regulation
Opinion 01/2018 EDPS Opinion on the proposal for a recast of Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters
More informationIntroduction to the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC
WORKSHOP ON EU LEGISLATION PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CRIMINAL LAW European Commission, European Parliament, http://my.opera.com/ Introduction to the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC 1 Environmental
More informationSeminar 4: Collecting evidence throughout the European Union II: The European Evidence Warrant and New Instruments in this Field
With financial support from the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union Seminar 4: Collecting evidence throughout the European Union II: The European Evidence Warrant and New Instruments in this
More informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 27.11.2013 COM(2013) 824 final 2013/0409 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons
More information(Non) Ne bis in idem. European Jurisdictional Conflicts Transfer of Proceedings
(Non) Ne bis in idem European Jurisdictional Conflicts Transfer of Proceedings 1 National ne bis in idem Art. 14 (7) ICCPR No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which
More informationEU Charter of Rights and ECHR: The Right to a Fair Trial. Professor Steve Peers School of Law, University of Essex
EU Charter of Rights and ECHR: The Right to a Fair Trial Professor Steve Peers School of Law, University of Essex ECHR Article 6(1) 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
More informationIssues arising from mutual recognition of judicial decisions in Europe
Issues arising from mutual recognition of judicial decisions in Europe Introduction Mutual Recognition The creation of an area of free movement, largely without border controls, in the European Union since
More informationMARIA DIANA IONESCU Faculty of Law, University Babeş-Bolyai Cluj-Napoca, Romania
ISSUES RELATED TO THE TRANSPOSITION INTO THE ROMANIAN LAW OF THE FRAMEWORK DECISION 2002/584/JHA ON THE EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT AND THE SURRENDER PROCEDURES BETWEEN MEMBER STATES MARIA DIANA IONESCU Faculty
More informationIntroduction. amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (OJ L 341 of 24 December 2015, p.
Court of Justice of the European Union Report submitted pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 21.3.2018 COM(2018) 168 final 2018/0078 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION authorising the Commission to approve, on behalf of the Union, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly
More informationJudgments Of the Supreme Court
Home Sitemap Printable Version Français Deutsch Contact Us Gaeilge Search Judgments by Year Advanced Search Latest Judgments Important Judgments Article 26 References Judgments Of the Supreme Court About
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 94/375
28.3.2014 Official Journal of the European Union L 94/375 DIRECTIVE 2014/36/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 February 2014 on the conditions of entry and stay of third-country nationals
More informationEUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: WILL IT HAPPEN?
Speech given by Barry Donoghue, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, at the Law Society Annual Conference, Budapest 28 March 2008 EUROPEAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: WILL IT HAPPEN? Article 69E of the Lisbon
More informationCouncil of the European Union Brussels, 12 July 2016 (OR. en)
Council of the European Union Brussels, 2 July 206 (OR. en) Interinstitutional File: 206/026 (NLE) 8523/6 LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMTS Subject: JAI 34 USA 23 DATAPROTECT 43 RELEX 334 COUNCIL DECISION
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union. (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES
4.11.2016 L 297/1 I (Legislative acts) DIRECTIVES DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/1919 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings
More informationData protection and privacy aspects of cross-border access to electronic evidence
Statement of the Article 29 Working Party Brussels, 29 November 2017 Data protection and privacy aspects of cross-border access to electronic evidence On 8th June 2017, the European Commission issued a
More informationJulia Victoria Pörschke
European Criminal Law: Impact on National Defence Practice. Competences of the EU, Instruments, Institutions, Developments Julia Victoria Pörschke European Criminal Law European Criminal Law is a branch
More informationHaving regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 16 thereof,
Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Union and Australia on the processing and transfer of Passenger
More informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, XXX COM(2013) 822/2 Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings
More informationDECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.7.2012 COM(2012) 407 final 2012/0199 (COD) Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCILestablishing a Union action for the European Capitals of
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION
EN EN EN COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Proposal for a Brussels, 25.3.2009 COM(2009) 136 final 2009/0050 (CNS) COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings,
More informationProposal for a COUNCIL DECISION
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 14.2.2018 COM(2018) 71 final 2018/0032 (NLE) Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of an Agreement between the European Union
More informationTHE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (2008/C 115/01) EN Official Journal of the European Union C 115/1
Official Journal C 115 of the European Union English edition Information and Notices Volume 51 9 May 2008 2008/C 115/01 Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning
More informationPREAMBLE THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM, THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA, THE CZECH REPUBLIC, THE KINGDOM OF DENMARK, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, THE REPUBLIC O
Disclaimer: Please note that the present documents are only made available for information purposes and do not represent the final version of the Association Agreement. The texts which have been initialled
More informationCommon ground in European Dismissal Law
Keynote Paper on the occasion of the 4 th Annual Legal Seminar European Labour Law Network 24 + 25 November 2011 Protection Against Dismissal in Europe Basic Features and Current Trends Common ground in
More informationCommittee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. on the Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union ( ) (2011/2069(INI))
EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2009-2014 Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs 11.7.2012 2011/2069(INI) DRAFT REPORT on the Situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2010-2011) (2011/2069(INI))
More informationHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ( 1 ),
L 150/168 Official Journal of the European Union 20.5.2014 REGULATION (EU) No 516/2014 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 April 2014 establishing the Asylum, Migration and Integration
More informationProposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 18.7.2014 COM(2014) 476 final 2014/0218 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road
More informationIntroduction to the Environmental Crime Directive 2008/99/EC
COOPERATION WITH NATIONAL JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN THE PROTECTION FIELD OF OF EU ENVIRONMENTAL THROUGH LAW CRIMINAL LAW PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT THROUGH CRIMINAL LAW European Commission, European Parliament,
More informationSpecial Eurobarometer 440. Report. Europeans, Agriculture and the CAP
Survey requested by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development and co-ordinated by the Directorate-General for Communication This document does not represent the
More informationOPINION OF THE EUROPOL, EUROJUST, SCHENGEN AND CUSTOMS JOINT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES
OPINION OF THE EUROPOL, EUROJUST, SCHENGEN AND CUSTOMS JOINT SUPERVISORY AUTHORITIES presented to the HOUSE OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EUROPEAN UNION SUB-COMMITTEE F for their inquiry into EU counter-terrorism
More informationCOMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES. Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 9.2.2007 COM(2007) 51 final 2007/0022 (COD) Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the protection of the environment
More informationProposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States (2001/C 332 E/18)
27.11.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities C 332 E/305 Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States (2001/C
More informationEuropean Commission, Task Force for the Preparation and Conduct of the Negotiations with the United Kingdom under Article 50 TEU.
19 March 2018 TF50 (2018) 35 Commission to EU27 Subject: Origin: Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union
L 13/44 (Acts adopted pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union) COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2004/68/JHA of 22 December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography
More informationPE-CONS 71/1/15 REV 1 EN
EUROPEAN UNION THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMT THE COUNCIL Brussels, 27 April 2016 (OR. en) 2011/0023 (COD) LEX 1670 PE-CONS 71/1/15 REV 1 GVAL 81 AVIATION 164 DATAPROTECT 233 FOPOL 417 CODEC 1698 DIRECTIVE OF THE
More informationBrexit Essentials: Dispute resolution clauses
Brexit Essentials: Dispute resolution clauses In this briefing, we consider the potential impact of Brexit on contractual dispute resolution clauses. EU law underpins these clauses. When that law ceases
More informationCouncil Decision of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (2011/167/EU)
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 23 June 2011 Interinstitutional File: 2011/0093 (COD) 2011/0094 (CNS) 11328/11 PI 67 CODEC 995 NOTE from: Presidency to: Council No. prev. doc.: 10573/11 PI 52 CODEC
More informationTHE HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 2017/781 P. JOLYON MAUGHAM, STEVEN AGNEW JONATHAN BARTLEY and KEITH TAYLOR -AND- IRELAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BETWEEN: THE HIGH COURT RECORD NUMBER 2017/781 P JOLYON MAUGHAM, STEVEN AGNEW JONATHAN BARTLEY and KEITH TAYLOR -AND- IRELAND and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT STATEMENT OF CLAIM Delivered
More informationEDPS Opinion 7/2018. on the Proposal for a Regulation strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and other documents
EDPS Opinion 7/2018 on the Proposal for a Regulation strengthening the security of identity cards of Union citizens and other documents 10 August 2018 1 Page The European Data Protection Supervisor ( EDPS
More informationTHE RECAST EWC DIRECTIVE
THE RECAST EWC DIRECTIVE EWC regulations : three legal documents the directives 1994/45 and 2009/38 transposition into national legislation your agreement 2 2009/38? agreements signed after 5.06.2011 non-modified
More informationInfringement Proceedings & References to the Court of Justice of the EU. Adam Weiss The AIRE Centre
Infringement Proceedings & References to the Court of Justice of the EU Adam Weiss The AIRE Centre 1 Objective Empower you to make complaints to the European Commission which are likely to lead to infringement
More informationFaculty of Law Lund University. JUFN03 Enforcement of EU Law Written exam
Faculty of Law Lund University JUFN03 Enforcement of EU Law Written exam Question 1 a) Describe and discuss how the ECJ has defined its own jurisdiction when deciding whether to accept a reference for
More informationROLE OF NATIONALITY AND RESIDENCE IN EU JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
UNIVERSITY OF TARTU FACULTY OF LAW Chair of International Law and European Law Ele-Marit Eomois ROLE OF NATIONALITY AND RESIDENCE IN EU JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS Master thesis Supervisor:
More informationDouble Jeopardy and EU Law: Time for a Change? Steve Peers*
Double Jeopardy and EU Law: Time for a Change? Steve Peers* A. Introduction No-one should be tried twice for the same offence. This principle, known as the double jeopardy or ne bis in idem rule, has been
More informationHaving regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee ( 1 ),
L 327/20 Official Journal of the European Union 9.12.2017 REGULATION (EU) 2017/2226 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 30 November 2017 establishing an Entry/Exit System (EES) to register
More informationTHE EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; AN INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENT IN THE FIELD OF ASYLUM
THE EU CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS; AN INDISPENSABLE INSTRUMENT IN THE FIELD OF ASYLUM January 2017 INTRODUCTION The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU was first drawn up in 1999-2000 with the original
More informationJustice Committee. Brexit and policing and criminal justice. Written submission from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
Justice Committee Brexit and policing and criminal justice Written submission from Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service 1. Constitutional and legal context The Lord Advocate is head of the system
More informationTHE TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION IN THE UK
Briefing Paper 4.4 THE TREATY ESTABLISHING A CONSTITUTION FOR EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION IN THE UK Summary 1. The UK s circumstances are very different from those of our EU partners.
More informationScottish Universities Legal Network on Europe
Scottish Universities Legal Network on Europe Asylum Law Written by Sarah Craig, University of Glasgow Contact Sarah.craig@glasgow.ac.uk With comments from Nina Miller Westoby, University of Glasgow Maria
More informationCOU CIL OF THE EUROPEA U IO. Brussels, 11 December /12 Interinstitutional File: 2012/0036 (COD) DROIPE 185 COPE 272 CODEC 2918
COU CIL OF THE EUROPEA U IO Brussels, 11 December 2012 17287/12 Interinstitutional File: 2012/0036 (COD) DROIPE 185 COPE 272 CODEC 2918 OUTCOME OF PROCEEDI GS Of: Council (Justice and Home Affairs) On:
More informationREPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 23.2.2012 COM(2012) 71 final REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Directive
More informationGerard René de Groot and Maarten Vink (Maastricht University), and Iseult Honohan (University College Dublin)
EUDO CITIZENSHIP Policy Brief No. 3 Loss of Citizenship Gerard René de Groot and Maarten Vink (Maastricht University), and Iseult Honohan (University College Dublin) The loss of citizenship receives less
More informationProposal to protect the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting
EUROPEAN COMMISSION MEMO Strasbourg, 5 February 2013 Proposal to protect the euro and other currencies against counterfeiting Questions and Answers: Why do we need to protect the euro and other currencies?
More informationTransitional Measures concerning the Schengen acquis for the states of the last accession: the cases of Bulgaria and Romania.
Transitional Measures concerning the Schengen acquis for the states of the last accession: the cases of Bulgaria and Romania. The enlargement of 2007 brought two new eastern countries into the European
More informationCOMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.9.2017 SWD(2017) 319 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European arrest warrant
More informationThe EU Charter, Environmental Protection, and Judicial Remedies
7 December 2016 The EU Charter, Environmental Protection, and Judicial Remedies Dr Angela Ward Référendaire, Court of Justice of the EU Visiting Professor; Birkbeck College, University of London The first
More informationThe Power of the European Community to Impose Criminal Penalties
EIPASCOPE 2005/3 The Power of the European Community to Impose Criminal Penalties By José F. Castillo García, Lecturer European Centre for Judges and Lawyers, EIPA-Antenna Luxembourg* This article analyses
More informationLead Department Ref. Date of Publication Decision Ministry of 14722/09 20/10/2009 Did not opt in: Link to Written Ministerial Statement
JHA (Title V) opt-in and Schengen opt-out decisions taken between 1 December 2009 and the present (decisions taken by the previous Government are in italics). Only final decisions on UK participation are
More informationSpeech before LIBE Committee
SPEECH/10/235 Cecilia Malmström Member of the European Commission responsible for Home Affairs Speech before LIBE Committee The Committee on Civil liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) of the European
More informationSpeech to the Supreme Court of The Netherlands 18 November 2016
Speech to the Supreme Court of The Netherlands 18 November 2016 President Feteris, Members of the Supreme Court, I would like first of all to thank you for the invitation to come and meet with you during
More information