Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in Europe

Similar documents
Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in Europe

DRAFT MODEL BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON DISPOSAL OF CONFISCATED PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Scope of the obligation to provide extradition

Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and the Argentine Republic

S/2003/487. Security Council. United Nations

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES JORDAN EXTRADITION TREATY WITH JORDAN TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 215. March 28, 1995, Date-Signed

ECOSOC Resolution 2005/14

Seminar 4: Collecting evidence throughout the European Union II: The European Evidence Warrant and New Instruments in this Field

Combatting Transnational Organized Crime through EXTRADITION

EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON EXTRADITION. Paris, 13.XII.1957

BILATERAL AGREEMENTS ON LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS TO WHICH MEXICO IS SIGNATORY

TRANSMITTING EXTRADITION TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF PERU, SIGNED AT LIMA ON JULY 26, 2001

C 12/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES INDIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH INDIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 97. June 25, 1997, Date-Signed

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED MEXICAN STATES MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

: Consultant for Developing Guidelines for Mutual Legal Assistance Guidelines (National Position) Project Name : UNODC Sub-Programme 2

BILATERAL EXTRADITION TREATIES BOLIVIA EXTRADITION TREATY WITH BOLIVIA TREATY DOC U.S.T. LEXIS 221. June 27, 1995, Date-Signed

The Astana declaration. of the Heads of State of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC REGARDING MUTUAL ASSISTANCE BETWEEN THEIR CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIONS

Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union - Explanatory Rep... Page 1 of 20

I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the Report of the Department of State with respect to the Treaty.

Korea, Republic of (South Korea) International Extradition Treaty with the United States

FACT SHEET THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON IMPUNITY, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS BAMAKO DECLARATION

Víctor Moreno Catena Professor of Procedural law Universidad Carlos III, Madrid

The impact of national and international debate in Albania on the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

Draft Articles on Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses 1978

Official Journal C 430

Explanatory Report to the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-Production *

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC

MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS (CDPC) Draft Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs

Upon entry into force, it will terminate and supersede the existing Extradition Treaty between the United States and Thailand.

LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF TAJIKISTAN ON THE STATE REGULATION OF EXTERNAL TRADE ACTIVITIES

MOROCCO. Decision of OJ L 70/1 of Agreement: art. 59 OJ L 70/15. Protocol No 5 OJ L 70/186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY REGD. NO.D.L /99. PART II Section 3 Sub-section (i) PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA AND MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

LAW ON FOREIGNERS CHAPTER I GENERAL PROVISIONS. Subject of the Law. Article 1

MONTEVIDEO DECLARATION

Article 1 Field of Application

Article 6. [Exercise of jurisdiction] [Preconditions to the exercise of jurisdiction]

Case 1:07-cr EGS Document 176 Filed 06/22/2009 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Statewatch Analysis. EU Reform Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON CRIME PROBLEMS (CDPC)

Criminal Law Convention on Corruption

Towards a Multilateral Treaty for Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition for Domestic Prosecution of the Most Serious International Crimes

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP

L 76/16 EN Official Journal of the European Union (Acts adopted pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union)

Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between the Member States (2001/C 332 E/18)

Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs

The Potential for United States Adoption of the Genocide Convention and the Convention against Torture

ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

INTER-AMERICAN COMMITTEE AGAINST TERRORISM (CICTE) Washington, D.C. 13 March 2013 Original: Spanish DECLARATION

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders

Austria International Extradition Treaty with the United States. Message from the President of the United States

Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union. Colloquium of Madrid June 2012.

Economic and Social Council

REGIONAL PROTOCOLS ZAMBIA HAS SIGNED

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) 9 March 2006 *

Statewatch Analysis. EU Lisbon Treaty Analysis no. 4: British and Irish opt-outs from EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) law

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN AND THE GOVERNMENT OF SPAIN REGARDING COOPERATION AND MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CUSTOMS MATTERS

Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism

Statement submitted by the Government of the United States of America *

I. INTRODUCTION. convinced of the importance of the numerous efforts being made in both regions to address the world drug problem.

SPAIN REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTIATION OF THE CONVENTION AND 1997 RECOMMENDATION

Agreement. between. the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. and. the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

L A W No.9034, dated 20 March 2003 ON THE EMIGRATION OF ALBANIAN CITIZENS FOR REASONS OF EMPLOYMENT

EUROPEAN CRIMINAL LAW

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's Efforts for Recovery of Assets

VIENNA CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF TREATIES

Explanatory Report to the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons

Translated from Spanish 7-1-SG/35

Public access to documents containing personal data after the Bavarian Lager ruling

Organization of American States OAS Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission CICAD. Multilateral Evaluation Mechanism MEM.

THE SAARC CONVENTION (SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM) ACT, 1993 NO. 36 OF 1993 [26th April, 1993

(2002/309/EC, Euratom)

Economic and Social Council

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism *

(Resolutions, recommendations and opinions) RESOLUTIONS COUNCIL

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

United Nations Standards and norms. for peacekeepers. in crime prevention and criminal justice

DISEC: The Question of Collaboration between National Crime Agencies Cambridge Model United Nations 2018

No * Poland and Romania

III ACTS ADOPTED UNDER TITLE VI OF THE EU TREATY

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

The provisions in this Treaty follow generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded by the United States.

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Brussels, 18 March /08 CORDROGUE 29 COLAT 9 AMLAT 30

POLICE COOPERATION ISSUES RELATED TO (PREPARATION TO ACCESSION) SCHENGEN OPERATIONAL CROSS BORDER CO-OPERATION BORDER POLICE DIRECTORATE

Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION

Extradition in the Framework of International Agreements

L 350/72 Official Journal of the European Union

EU update (including the Green Paper on the Presumption of Innocence) ECBA Conference, Edinburgh April 2006

Model Extradition Treaty

TREATY SERIES 2004 Nº 9. Criminal Law Convention on Corruption

MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS THE URUGUAY ROUND

Explanatory Report to the European Convention on the Abolition of Legalisation of Documents executed by Diplomatic Agents or Consular Officers

Transcription:

Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in Europe Module I.- Judicial Cooperation in criminal matters in Europe: from judicial assistance to the principle of mutual recognition Unit 1: Evolution of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters: in particular, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in Europe Author Amaya Arnaiz Serrano Lecturer of Procedural Law Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

1. Why is it more appropriate to talk about international legal cooperation than judicial cooperation at this moment in time? 1 a) Because judicial cooperation refers only to collaboration in a bilateral context. b) Because judicial cooperation refers only to collaboration based on what is known as minor assistance. c) Because strictly speaking judicial cooperation refers to cooperation aimed at favouring the judicial proceedings. d) Because judicial cooperation strictly speaking refers to cooperation in a multilateral context. 2.- In what contexts can international legal cooperation take place at present? 2 a) Solely and exclusively in criminal matters. b) Both in a criminal context and in contentious-administrative matters related to sanctioning proceedings. a) In a criminal context, in contentious-administrative matters and in internal clemency proceedings as well as in indemnification and civil actions related to a crime. b) In a criminal context and in contentious-administrative matters related to sanctioning proceedings and in all civil proceedings related to indemnification derived from a criminal act. 3.- What is the main mission of the cooperation networks? 3 a) To report the failure to apply the international legal cooperation instruments. b) To resolve the problems of interpretation and application of the international legal cooperation instruments. c) To prepare drafts for the development of new international legal cooperation instruments. d) To improve the awareness, understanding and coordination in the execution of international legal cooperation policies. 2

4.- What is the original basis for legal cooperation? 4 a) The principle of mutual recognition. b) The principle of mutual trust. c) The principle of international courtesy. d) The principle of harmonisation. 5.- What legal principle of criminal law did the international legal cooperation instruments originally affect? 5 a) The principle of legality. b) The principle of territoriality. c) The principle of ne bis in idem. d) The principle of non-retroactivity. 6.- Can a bilateral convention be used to transform or alter the cooperation provisions established for a multilateral ambit? Explain your answer 6. a) Yes, always. b) No, never. c) Yes, when the multilateral convention envisages as much. d) No, unless authorised by the body responsible for the cooperation instrument. 7.- What international instrument contains the first definition of legal cooperation? 7 a) The United Nations Charter of 1945. b) The European Extradition Convention of 1957. c) The Council of Europe Convention on judicial assistance in criminal matters of 1959. d) The United Nations Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988. 3

8.- What is the greatest achievement of the cooperation instruments developed under the Council of Europe? 8 a) Their broad subjective scope: they all have a universal vocation, allowing states that do not belong to that ambit to join. b) Their integrity: they are conventions that do not allow the signatory states to include reservations. c) Their broad objective scope; these instruments cover the majority of problems related to international legal cooperation in criminal matters. d) Their executive nature: all members undertake to directly enforce the Conventions. 9.- How can the failure to apply or incorrect interpretation of Council of Europe Conventions be reported? 9 a) Via diplomatic channels. b) The ECJ. c) No channels exist. d) Before the Council of Ministers. 10.- What instrument in the context of the European Union contains the first step in the development of judicial cooperation policies? 10 a) The Treaty of Lisbon. b) The Treaty of Schengen. c) The Treaty of Nice. d) The Treaty of Amsterdam. 4

1 The correct answer is c), as judicial cooperation originally referred exclusively to the instruments that made it possible for a state to exercise its jurisdictional power; meanwhile, at present, cooperation extends to areas that while closely related to the proceedings, fall outside what can strictly be understood as judicial cooperation, as it deals with mechanisms aimed not so much at favouring judicial proceedings (because judicial should be understood as referring to the trial or court proceedings), but also to other activities that while related, go beyond it. For this reason, cooperation increasingly tends to push towards a common approach to criminal rules both of a procedural and substantive nature. 2 The correct answer is c), because in recent years the scope of application of cooperation has been extended (when it was originally restricted to criminal infringements in principle excluding fiscal or political crimes ), to include administrative proceedings when the infringement by the administrative authority can be brought by the affected party before a court; to indemnification proceedings due to unjustified investigations or sentencing measures; to clemency proceedings and to civil actions related to criminal actions before the criminal court has issued a final judgment on the crime. 3 The correct answer is d), as the complexity that the regulatory framework of international legal cooperation has acquired nowadays has made it necessary to create different kinds of bodies and institutions responsible for facilitating it, including the cooperation networks such as the European judicial network; the Schengen consultative network; the European network of contact points in respect of persons responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and the European crime prevention network. 4 The correct answer is c) because cooperation can be said to have emerged originally as a manifestation of the most primitive international law since this collaboration in criminal matters arose as a means of enabling states to satisfy their own national interests. In an area such as criminal matters, constructed on the basis of the principle of territoriality, the appearance of cross-border disputes or proceedings with a foreign element, highlighted the inability of states to deal with these new phenomena individually. Therefore, its original basis was none other than comitas gentium ob reciprocam utilitaten (international courtesy or reciprocal use) and the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept); because ultimately what the states sought in this regard was the execution of their own law. 5 The correct answer is b), as the internationalisation of criminal conduct means that international cooperation for the suppression of crime between states is evolving, allowing it to be based in principles that objectively restrict the sovereignty of each country, thus disdaining classical national sovereignty theory, which was based on the principle of territoriality and non-intervention and favoured the impunity of international crimes. 6 The correct answer is b), because even though international legal cooperation in criminal matters has its origins in bilateral intergovernmental policies that evolved rapidly towards multilateral environments, this has in no way meant the disappearance of cooperation between two states, as generally speaking this tends to constitute an improvement on the provisions established at a regional level. For this reason international instruments usually permit enhancements by means of bilateral conventions. Thus, for example, in a multilateral environment such as that of the European Union, provisions such as the 2000 ECJACM contain clauses such as Article 1.2 which states that: «This Convention shall not affect the application of more favourable provisions in bilateral or multilateral agreements between Member States». This represents acknowledgement that on occasion the relation between two states derived from proximity or historical, political or cultural links can be sufficient to achieve better cooperation instruments. Even though globalisation has led to states fighting crime jointly, it is also true that the instruments achieved at a regional level often cannot compare with those that can be achieved by means of bilateral agreements between states that share complete trust in each other s legal systems because they have historically evolved in the same direction. 7 The correct answer is d), as the first definition contained in a treaty of what we understand as judicial assistance is in the United Nations Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 20 December 1988. Article 7 contains a thorough definition of the types of 5

cooperation, with the exception of extradition which is dealt with in Article 6. This definition, despite being quite broad in scope, has inspired multiple bilateral and regional conventions on judicial assistance in criminal matters that have seen the light of day in the years that followed its signing. 8 The correct answer is a), because the importance of these Council of Europe instruments is that while they are not universal conventions, as in principle they can only be signed by states belonging to the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers can invite third-party states, even non-european ones, to join, and this mechanism has made it possible to extend their initial scope, thus improving the effectiveness of the instruments envisaged therein. 9 The correct answer is a), because while the scope for the incorporation of third-party states to the Conventions of the Council of Europe has been the great success of its judicial cooperation system, its failing has been that of not establishing a judicial body along the lines of the ECJ, as any conflicts regarding interpretation or application have no judicial avenue of resolution, meaning that it is necessary to resort to the always complex and delicate diplomatic channels. 10 The correct answer is d), because in the scope of the European Union, we have to look for the development of judicial cooperation policies in the Treaty of Amsterdam; it is there that the construction of an area of freedom, security and justice was contemplated for the first time. This treaty represents a substantial improvement on the regulation of this field under what is known as the Third Pillar. On the one hand the objectives are set out, namely the strengthening of police and judicial cooperation with a view to avoiding impunity and public insecurity, while on the other it incorporates a new instrument, i.e. the framework decision, which can replace interstate conventions. 6