Advanced

Free Movement of Judicial Decisions. Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition on the European Arrest Warrant

Fransson, Lina (2006)
Department of Law
Abstract
This thesis touches upon the principle of mutual recognition and the conditions for its application on the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant. Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member , OJ L 190, 18/07/2002, P 001-0020. This Framework decision was the first third pillar instrument based upon this principle. The European arrest warrant was introduced as a new and efficient alternative to the old classic system of extradition of suspects between Member States. The principle of mutual recognition was introduced for the first time at the Tampere Council in 1999, where it was stated that this principle shall be one of the cornerstones of the judicial... (More)
This thesis touches upon the principle of mutual recognition and the conditions for its application on the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant. Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member , OJ L 190, 18/07/2002, P 001-0020. This Framework decision was the first third pillar instrument based upon this principle. The European arrest warrant was introduced as a new and efficient alternative to the old classic system of extradition of suspects between Member States. The principle of mutual recognition was introduced for the first time at the Tampere Council in 1999, where it was stated that this principle shall be one of the cornerstones of the judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters within the EU. Tampere European Council Presidency Conclusions, 15 and 16 October 1999 para 33. Hence, this was the starting point for a new approach in the combat against criminals. Several Framework decisions has been adopted based upon this principle and there are proposals that will most likely be adopted in the near future. The Framework decision on the European arrest warrant was however the first to be adopted and implemented in the Member States national laws. The application of the principle on the European arrest warrant implies that judicial authorities in one Member State can send an arrest warrant (in form of a judicial decision), with the aim to have a wanted person prosecuted or to have a sentence or a detention order against a wanted person carried out by another Member State. The European arrest warrant must automatically be recognised and executed by the receiving Member State. The most striking feature of the European arrest warrant is the abolition of the principle of dual criminality for 32 offences. This implies that an arrest warrant based on any of these listed crimes must be automatically recognised by each Member State, even if it does not constitute a crime under the executing state's criminal law. The principle of mutual recognition derives from the Cassis de Dijon Case 120/78, Rewe - Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Brantweinn [1979] ECR 649 (Cassis de Dijon). judgement, where the ECJ held that Member States must mutually recognise each others legal systems, even though they are different, in order to facilitate the free movement of goods. The principle was extended to other legal areas within the first pillar such as&semic free movement of workers, freedom to provide services and freedom to establishment. The principle was implemented in the legislation covering the mentioned areas. The legislation in the different legal areas had however been subject to previous harmonization of the Member States' national laws, which facilitated the mutual trust for each others legal systems. The condition for the application of the principle of mutual recognition on first pillar law are therefore&semic comparability of the national laws. However, criminal law has not been harmonized in the Union. This means that the condition for the application of the principle on the European arrest warrant do not follow the model for its application in the first pillar. The application of the principle of mutual recognition has, nevertheless, created an efficient free movement of judicial decisions in the EU. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Fransson, Lina
supervisor
organization
year
type
H1 - Master's Degree (One Year)
subject
keywords
European Affairs
language
English
id
1555089
date added to LUP
2010-03-08 15:22:56
date last changed
2010-03-08 15:22:56
@misc{1555089,
  abstract     = {This thesis touches upon the principle of mutual recognition and the conditions for its application on the Framework decision on the European arrest warrant. Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member , OJ L 190, 18/07/2002, P 001-0020. This Framework decision was the first third pillar instrument based upon this principle. The European arrest warrant was introduced as a new and efficient alternative to the old classic system of extradition of suspects between Member States. The principle of mutual recognition was introduced for the first time at the Tampere Council in 1999, where it was stated that this principle shall be one of the cornerstones of the judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters within the EU. Tampere European Council Presidency Conclusions, 15 and 16 October 1999 para 33. Hence, this was the starting point for a new approach in the combat against criminals. Several Framework decisions has been adopted based upon this principle and there are proposals that will most likely be adopted in the near future. The Framework decision on the European arrest warrant was however the first to be adopted and implemented in the Member States national laws. The application of the principle on the European arrest warrant implies that judicial authorities in one Member State can send an arrest warrant (in form of a judicial decision), with the aim to have a wanted person prosecuted or to have a sentence or a detention order against a wanted person carried out by another Member State. The European arrest warrant must automatically be recognised and executed by the receiving Member State. The most striking feature of the European arrest warrant is the abolition of the principle of dual criminality for 32 offences. This implies that an arrest warrant based on any of these listed crimes must be automatically recognised by each Member State, even if it does not constitute a crime under the executing state's criminal law. The principle of mutual recognition derives from the Cassis de Dijon Case 120/78, Rewe - Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Brantweinn [1979] ECR 649 (Cassis de Dijon). judgement, where the ECJ held that Member States must mutually recognise each others legal systems, even though they are different, in order to facilitate the free movement of goods. The principle was extended to other legal areas within the first pillar such as&semic free movement of workers, freedom to provide services and freedom to establishment. The principle was implemented in the legislation covering the mentioned areas. The legislation in the different legal areas had however been subject to previous harmonization of the Member States' national laws, which facilitated the mutual trust for each others legal systems. The condition for the application of the principle of mutual recognition on first pillar law are therefore&semic comparability of the national laws. However, criminal law has not been harmonized in the Union. This means that the condition for the application of the principle on the European arrest warrant do not follow the model for its application in the first pillar. The application of the principle of mutual recognition has, nevertheless, created an efficient free movement of judicial decisions in the EU.},
  author       = {Fransson, Lina},
  keyword      = {European Affairs},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Free Movement of Judicial Decisions. Application of the Principle of Mutual Recognition on the European Arrest Warrant},
  year         = {2006},
}