Dissertations / Theses on the topic 'European arrest warrant'

This thesis considers the relationship between human rights and the principle of mutual recognition as applied in criminal matters. It examines the impact of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) on human rights and highlights the importance of human rights for the success of mutual recognition measures. Having embarked on the mutual recognition programme, on the basis of largely theoretical presumptions, an attempt by the EU to reposition human rights and to ensure that a genuine area of justice exists for all, can be witnessed through recent Directives on defence rights,. This research addresses the scope and method of human rights protection with focus on the implementation of the EAW. In the first part, mutual recognition and the EAW are defined. The second part considers the practical effect of the EAW on human rights, setting out the ECHR minimum standards and the extended EU scope. The third part evaluates the defence measures adopted to date by the EU under the Stockholm Roadmap. The final part summarises the main research findings which show that human rights are key to promoting mutual trust. The scope of some rights has already been extended and reinforced by the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the EU defence rights measures. The thesis argues that the best method for reinforcing these rights in practice is a tripartite collaborative approach between the EU, Member States and the Council of Europe. In order to address the tension between human rights and mutual recognition, work needs to continue beyond adoption of the Stockholm measures. It requires genuine commitment on the part of the EU institutions and Member States for the necessary amendments, adoptions, implementation and human rights protection to take place and be reflected in practice.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is the first and most important measure in the field of European criminal law for the purpose of implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. The Framework Decision which introduced it was adopted on 13 June 2002 following point 35 of the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15-16 October 1999 (aiming at abolishing the formal extradition procedure among the Member States of the European Union). The Warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State, which requires the arrest and surrender of a person by another Member State, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. It is issued when the person whose return is sought is accused of an offence for which the law establishes a maximum of at least one year in prison, or when the person has already been sentenced to a prison term of at least four months. The research aims at exploring the context in which the EAW was adopted, as part of the mutual recognition agenda. This will be done through an analysis of the substantive and procedural legal aspects of its implementation. Is mutual recognition correctly implemented? While some authors hail it as a giant leap towards a new system of inter-state judicial cooperation, others view it as a danger for the traditional principles of criminal law as developed in Europe in the last centuries. The thesis will look at the functioning of the EAW in the EU criminal law area and at its implications for national sovereignty as well as individual rights, with particular reference to the radical modification of the principles of classical extradition law. An evaluation of its effectiveness and its real importance will be carried out from both an international and a European law point of view.

The European union started as an area of economic cooperation, but has developed into an area of cooperation in many legal fields. There are these days even cooperation when it comes to dealing with criminals. There is a new procedure called the European arrest warrant which goal is to make the extradition of criminals between the different member states in the European union more efficient. Sometimes when a state receives a European arrest warrant they have to extradite the person in question without doing any investigation of their own. The procedure is based on the principle of mutual recognition. This principle means that the member states should recognise the legal decisions of the other member states, as they were their own. The aim of the thesis is to see if this procedure is acceptable concerning the legal security. Will the procedure with the European arrest warrant effect the legal security for the suspects, or the rest of the citizens?

Le contentieux du mandat d’arrêt européen offre un éclairage sur la conciliation entre le respect des droits fondamentaux et l’effectivité de l’outil de coopération pénale européenne par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. L’articulation de ces impératifs contradictoires, néanmoins caractéristiques de la coopération pénale européenne, révèle les résistances à l’émergence d’un espace pénal européen. Après avoir opéré un premier travail de conciliation des intérêts en présence, la Cour devra dépasser ces contradictions pour mettre ce contentieux au service du processus d’intégration pénale européenne. Dans un contexte de crise des valeurs, ce contentieux, tantôt outil de résistance tantôt matériau résilient à la construction d’une Europe pénale, confère au juge un rôle déterminant dans la conduite de la politique pénale européenne. En effet, en répondant aux velléités souverainistes au moyen des principes de reconnaissance mutuelle et de confiance mutuelle, il contribue à la réalisation de l’objectif de rapprochement des législations pénales nationales imposé par les Traités. Le juge participe également au renforcement de la protection des droits fondamentaux par l’Union européenne et cristallise les prémices d’une harmonisation pénale européenne
The litigation of the European arrest warrant sheds light on the reconciliation between respect for fundamental rights and the effectiveness of the European criminal cooperation instrument by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The articulation of these contradictory imperatives, which are nevertheless characteristic of European criminal cooperation, reveals resistance to the emergence of a European criminal area. After having carried out an initial work of reconciling the interests involved, the Court will have to overcome these contradictions in order to put this litigation at the service of the European criminal integration process. In a context of a crisis of values, this litigation, sometimes a tool of resistance and sometimes a resilient material for the construction of a criminal Europe, gives the judge a decisive role in the conduct of European criminal policy. Indeed, by responding to sovereignist impulses through the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust, it contributes to the achievement of the objective of approximating national criminal legislation imposed by the Treaties. The judge also contributes to the strengthening of the protection of fundamental rights by the European Union and crystallizes the foundations of European criminal harmonisation

Révolution dans l’ordre juridique international pénal, le mandat d’arrêt européen a été la traduction, concrète, d’un espace judiciaire européen en matière pénale. La création du mandat d’arrêt européen est né du constat d’un décalage, dont tirait profit la criminalité : alors que la liberté de circulation des biens, des services et des personnes était devenue une réalité au sein de l’Union européenne, l’effet des décisions de justice, expression de la souveraineté étatique, restait confiné aux limites frontalières nationales de chaque Etat membre. Visant à remplacer le système classique d’extradition au sein de l’Union européenne, en imposant à chaque autorité judiciaire nationale de reconnaître, moyennant un contrôle minimum, une demande de remise émanant de l’autorité judiciaire d’un autre Etat membre, le mandat d’arrêt européen est la conséquence d’une volonté de coopération efficace, visant à apporter une réponse pénale, forte, à la criminalité. L’ « euromandat » a été la première application concrète du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de justice. Pierre angulaire de la coopération pénale européenne, ce principe repose sur le préalable nécessaire et fondamental de confiance mutuelle que doivent s’accorder, entre eux, les Etats membres, quant au fonctionnement de leur système juridique pénal interne et à la qualité des décisions rendues par leurs juridictions respectives. Théoriquement, le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions de justice implique l’existence de véritables standards communs des droits fondamentaux dans l’Union européenne, en ce sens que tous les Etats membres doivent assurer, de manière équivalente, le respect des libertés individuelles, des droits de l’homme et des garanties procédurales. Pourtant, en pratique, le mandat d’arrêt européen fait courir le risque, pour un Etat membre, de remettre une personne (y compris un national), aux autorités judiciaires d’un autre Etat membre, qui ne garantirait pas, effectivement, les droits fondamentaux, en général, et les droits de la défense, en particulier
A Revolution in the international criminal legal order, the European arrest warrant was the concrete translation of a European judicial area for criminal issues. The European arrest warrant was created to close a loophole which benefitted criminals: while the free circulation of goods, services and people had become a reality within the European Union, the effect of legal decisions, the expression of a State’s sovereignty, remained confined to the national borders of each Member State. Aimed at replacing the classic extradition system within the European Union, by forcing each national judicial authority to recognise a request to surrender a suspect, from the judicial authority of another Member State, the European arrest warrant is the result of a desire for efficient cooperation, and is intended to send a strong message to criminals. The “Euro-warrant” was the first concrete application of the principal of mutual recognition of judicial decisions. The Cornerstone of the European criminal cooperation, this principal relies on the fundamental requirement of mutual trust between the Member States, with respect to the functioning of their internal criminal justice systems and the quality of the rulings made by their respective jurisdictions. Theoretically, the principal of mutual recognition of judicial decisions implies the existence of true common standards of fundamental rights in the European Union, in the sense that all the Member States must respect individual freedoms, human rights and procedural guarantees. However, in practice the European arrest warrant runs the risk of surrendering a person (including a national) to the judicial authorities of another Member State who do not effectively guarantee the fundamental rights in general and more specifically the right to defend oneself

Este trabalho tem como objetivo analisar a viabilidade de aplicação do instrumento de Mandado de Detenção Europeu (que foi criado em decorrência da quebra de fronteiras gerada com integração regional europeia, União Europeia) no bloco de integração regional latino-americano, MERCOSUL, tendo em vista ser um instrumento substitutivo do Instituto extradicional aplicado no âmbito criminal. Em um primeiro momento é tratado o fenômeno da globalização, da integração regional e sua repercussão no universo criminal, observando-se o surgimento de uma nova modalidade criminal, qual seja a criminalidade transnacional. Em decorrência dessa criminalidade transnacional, que abrange mais de um território nacional é estudado o desenvolvimento de uma cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria penal entre os países, com a finalidade de combater a impunidade. Assim, faz-se um paralelo sobre cooperação jurídica internacional em matéria penal nos blocos de integração regional: União Europeia e MERCOSUL. Adiante, analisa-se o mandado de detenção europeu, seu surgimento na União Europeia e o papel do principio do reconhecimento mutuo na aplicação desse instituto. Por fim, examina-se a possibilidade, enfim, de aplicação desse instituto no bloco do MERCOSUL.
This study aims to examine the application of the instrument of the European Arrest Warrant (which was created as a result of the breach of boundaries generated with European regional integration, European Union) in the block of regional integration in Latin America, MERCOSUR considering it as a substitute for the extraditional institute instrument, which is applied in international criminal justice as a cooperation instrument. At first the phenomenon of globalization, regional integration and their impact on the criminal universe is analyzed. From this the emergence of a new criminal mode, transnational criminality has been observed. Because of this transnational criminality, which covers more than one country, the development of international legal cooperation in criminal matters is studied between the countries, with the aim of combating impunity. With this, a parallel on international legal cooperation in criminal matters in the blocks for regional integration is made: the European Union and MERCOSUR. Before this, it analyzes the European Arrest Warrant, the appearance and development in the European Union and the function of the principle of mutual recognition in the implementation of this institute. Finally, it examines the possibility of implementation of this institute in the MERCOSUR bloc.

La double incrimination est une condition « classique » en droit pénal international, que l'on trouve formulée dans les instruments normatifs relatifs à la coopération pénale internationale, ainsi que dans ceux consacrés aux compétences extraterritoriales. Dans ces deux domaines la condition de la double incrimination est considérée comme remplie lorsque les faits en question sont punis par les droits internes des deux États concernés (État requérant et État requis, ou État de poursuite et État de commission). Toutefois, l'application de cette condition n'est pas sans poser de difficultés, aussi bien sur un plan substantiel que sur un plan procédural. Des difficultés qui ont conduit les États européens à la remettre en cause, du moins pour partie ; une remise en cause totale de la double incrimination s'avérant, en l'état, impossible
Double criminality is a “classic” condition in international criminal law, which is found in normative instruments relating to international cooperation in criminal matters, as well as those relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction. In these two fields, the condition of double criminality is considered fulfilled when the conduct in question is punishable under the domestic law of both states (the requesting state and the requested state, or the prosecuting State and the State in which the act was committed). Moreover, the application of this condition continues to pose difficulties, not only in substance but also in procedure. The difficulties have driven the European states to call the condition into question, at least partially; even though a total removal of the condition in its current state is impossible

SUMMARY Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. As between nations, extradition is regulated by treaties. As between states or other political subdivisions on a domestic level, extradition is more accurately known as rendition. The master thesis is a research of the concept of extradition in historical perspective, trying to overlook deeper the basics of this legal norm. The research of the concept of extradition in historical perspective, trying to overlook deeper the basics of this legal norm. The research is made by comparing the institute of extradition and institute of fugitives in the context of international law, other legal acts. Fundamental legal acts of extradition are thoroughly discussed in the master thesis. The author presents the analysis of conventions, bilateral, agreements, national laws of extradition, principle of reciprocity and moral human rights. The author presents opinions of various contemporary Lithuanian scientists such as V. Vadapalas, A. Nevera, A. Čepas, J. Žilinskas, G. Goda, M. Kazlauskas, P. Kuconis, G. Švedas, L. Visockienė. Also were used fundamental works about extradition by M. Akehurst, S. Bedi, G. Gilbert, H. Lauterpacht, I. A. Shearer, A. Boicov, R. Valejev, J. Vasiljev, B. Velčev, L. Galenskaja etc. International agreements, national criminal laws and laws of criminal procedure are also analyzed in the study... [to full text]

La lutte contre le terrorisme, ainsi que ses conséquences sur la sphère des droits de l'Homme, n'est pas un thème nouveau en Europe. Cependant, depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 perpétrés sur le sol des Etats-Unis, «confirmés» par ceux de Madrid en 2004 et Londres en 2005, elle n'a jamais incarné une telle priorité. La majeure partie des mesures prises par l'Union européenne tombe sous le titre de la coopération en matière pénale, c’est-à-dire sousl’ex-troisième Pilier, parmi lesquelles la décision-cadre sur la lutte contre le terrorisme, la décision-cadre sur le mandat d'arrêt européen et les accords entre l'Union européenne et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique sur l'extradition et l'assistance juridique mutuelle. Sur base des mesures européennes, certains Etats, historiquement non concernés par ce phénomène, ont été pressés à adopter des mesures anti-terroristes alors que d’autres y ont vu une légitimation pour renforcer leur corpus juridique déjà existant. Quel est l'impact des mesures européennes et de celles prises par les Etats sur le délicat équilibre entre la sécurité et la liberté ? En d'autres termes, quel est le rôle de l'Etat de droit : une limitation à ces mesures ou, un principe visant au renforcement du combat contre le terrorisme?
The fight against terrorism, as well as its consequences in the field of Human Rights, is not a new theme for Europe. However, since the terrorist attacks of September the 11th 2001 in the United States of America, “confirmed” by the ones of Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, it has never embodied such a priority. The larger part of the measures taken by the European Union falls under the heading of cooperation in criminal matters, i.e. within the scope of the former Third Pillar, among which the framework decision on combating terrorism, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On basis of the European measures, some States, not historically concerned by terrorism, have been compelled to carry out counter-terrorism measures whereas, others have seen a legitimation to reinforce their existing body of law. What is the impact of the European measures and the ones taken by States on the delicate balance between security and liberty? In other words, what is the role of the Rule of Law: a limitation to those measures or, a principle aiming to the strengthening of the fight against terrorism?

La lutte contre le terrorisme, ainsi que ses conséquences sur la sphère des droits de l'Homme, n'est pas un thème nouveau en Europe. Cependant, depuis les attentats du 11 septembre 2001 perpétrés sur le sol des États-Unis, « confirmés » par ceux de Madrid en 2004 et Londres en 2005, elle n'a jamais incarné une telle priorité. La majeure partie des mesures prises par l'Union européenne tombe sous le titre de la coopération en matière pénale, c’est-à-dire sous l’ex-troisième Pilier, parmi lesquelles la décision-cadre sur la lutte contre le terrorisme, la décision-cadre sur le mandat d'arrêt européen et les accords entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis d'Amérique sur l'extradition et l'assistance juridique mutuelle. Sur base des mesures européennes, certains États, historiquement non concernés par ce phénomène, ont été pressés à adopter des mesures anti-terroristes alors que d’autres y ont vu une légitimation pour renforcer leur corpus juridique déjà existant. Quel est l'impact des mesures européennes et de celles prises par les États sur le délicat équilibre entre la sécurité et la liberté ? En d'autres termes, quel est le rôle de l'État de droit : une limitation à ces mesures ou, un principe visant au renforcement du combat contre le terrorisme?
The fight against terrorism, as well as its consequences in the field of Human Rights, is not a new theme for Europe. However, since the terrorist attacks of September the 11th 2001 in the United States of America, “confirmed” by the ones of Madrid in 2004 and London in 2005, it has never embodied such a priority. The larger part of the measures taken by the European Union falls under the heading of cooperation in criminal matters, i.e. within the scope of the former Third Pillar, among which the framework decision on combating terrorism, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant and the agreements between the European Union and the United States of America on extradition and mutual legal assistance. On basis of the European measures, some States, not historically concerned by terrorism, have been compelled to carry out counter-terrorism measures whereas, others have seen a legitimation to reinforce their existing body of law. What is the impact of the European measures and the ones taken by States on the delicate balance between security and liberty? In other words, what is the role of the Rule of Law: a limitation to those measures or, a principle aiming to the strengthening of the fight against terrorism?

The reason of this work is to unify the knowledges about European arrest warrant into international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, to show the differences between process of classic extradition and extradition on the grounds of European arrest warrant and to demonstrate an implementation of the Council framework decision on European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures 2002/584/JVV into the Czech Republic legal order and some other European Union member states.The work is composed of four chapters. Chapter one describes the history of the institute of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the grounds of the idea of European arrest warrant.Chapter two defines the term extradition, explains its main principles and compares the process of classic extradition and extradition on the grounds of Europaen arrest warrant.In chapter three is analysed the Council framework decision 2002/584/JVV,its principles, its relation to international treaties dealing with judicial cooperation in criminal matters (especially the European convention on extradition) and the implementation of this framework decision into the Czech Republic legal order and legal orders some other European Union member states. In this chapter is also illustated the decision of the Czech Republic Constitution...

Resumé The European Arrest Warrant The aim of my diploma thesis is to analyze the Framework Decision of 13 of June on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA), next as "FWD", and how it has contributed to the creation of new simplified and more effective system of extradition of criminals among the Member States of the European Union. The historical development of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and the extradition procedure will be discussed first in order to understand the need for a new solution for handling with the new forms of organised cross boarder crime in the European Union that were brought by the introduction of the principle of free movement of persons and the abolition of boarder checks after the Schengen Agreement. This will lead us to the critical analysis of fundamental principles on which the European Arrest warrant is based, its practical application by the judicial authorities in different Member States and core problematic issues that the daily practise of surrender procedure is nowadays facing. The possible solutions for such questions will be presented, not only on the state but also on the Union level. A part of my research is also devoted to the transposition of the FWD into the Czech legal order and...

European arrest warrant represents an innovative criminal procedure instrument at the European level that has significantly helped the Member states of the European Union to effectively prosecute cross-border crime. The aim of my diploma thesis is to describe and analyze the European arrest warrant as a legal basis of surrender procedure among the Member states of EU. The description of this institute is not the only thing to be presented to the reader, the thesis also proposes a critical view on using it. The thesis is divided into five chapters. The introductory chapter is an analysis of the traditional international judicial cooperation in criminal matters and its particular types, mainly the extradition, which is important for a consecutive explanation of surrender procedure. After a brief theoretical part, in the second chapter author focuses on the evolution and the process of the European judicial cooperation in criminal matters, starting with the opening of the external borders of the EU regarding the Schengen Agreement in 1985, mentioning the important Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties and the last important change of the Treaties of the European Union brought by the Lisbon Treaty. Corpus Iuris, a prototype of a criminal law code of the EU, will be as well mentioned. Whereas the third...

The thesis deals with the issue of dual criminality test under the European arrest warrant. The aim of the thesis is to analyze the way of applying the dual criminality test between the Member States of the European Union while surrendering persons. It focuses on the European arrest warrants issued against Catalan politicians in relation to the Catalan referendum regarding the independence from the Kingdom of Spain and the subsequent decisions of the Belgian and German courts. The thesis is divided into seven parts. The first part introduces the dual criminality test, including the methods of interpretation or its problematic aspects. The second part summarizes the long-standing genesis of judicial cooperation in criminal matters at the European level, leading to the adoption of the European arrest warrant, which will enable a better understanding of the continuing will to apply the dual criminality test. The provisions of the European arrest warrant are discussed in the following part. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the dual criminality test is introduced as well. As the thesis is set in the context of the Catalan crisis, the fourth part highlights the key moments, adopted legal acts and the acts of the main protagonists of the case, which not only led to the...

This essay presents the European Arrest Warrant and its relationship with the principle of double criminality, which was abolished in 2002 with the new Framework Decision (FD). This instrument was essential to implement the principle of mutual recognition and strengthen the police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the newly created space of freedom, security and justice. It was urgent to create mechanisms to combat cross-border crime, that alone States have struggled to counter. An analysis of the FD No 2002/584/JHA is made. The execution of warrants and the non-mandatory and optional grounds of refusal are studied in detail. As it is the implementation issue. The role of mutual recognition in practice is studied as well. The procedure is to introduce the principle of double criminality, to explain the concept and its abolition, warning for the consequences derived from them, related to the principle of legality and fundamental rights. The analysis of the European Arrest Warrant in practice in Portugal and in comparison with other Member States allows the measurement of the consequences from the abolition of dual criminality and the position of States on this measure. With the abolition of double criminality, the cooperation in judicial and criminal matters departs from what was intended by the European Council of Tampere. And without cooperation, fundamental rights of citizens are unprotected, so the states have to adopt measures to remedy the "failures" of the European Law.
Este trabalho apresenta o Mandado de Detenção Europeu e a sua relação com o princípio da dupla incriminação, que foi abolida em 2002 com a nova Decisão-quadro (DQ). Este instrumento foi essencial para aplicar o princípio do reconhecimento mútuo e fortalecer a cooperação policial e judiciária em matéria penal no espaço recentemente criado de liberdade, segurança e justiça. Urgia criar mecanismos de combate ao crime transfronteiriço, que os Estados sozinhos já tinham dificuldades em contrariar. É feita uma análise material da DQ n.º 2002/584/JAI e estuda-se em pormenor a emissão e execução de mandados, bem como os motivos de não execução obrigatórios e facultativos. Acrescenta-se o papel essencial do reconhecimento mútuo na prática. Procede-se à introdução do princípio da dupla incriminação, explica-se o conceito e dá-se conta da sua abolição, alertando para as consequências daí derivadas, relacionadas com o princípio da legalidade e os direitos fundamentais. A análise do Mandado de Detenção Europeu na prática em Portugal e em comparação com outros Estados-Membros permite aferir das consequências da abolição da verificação da dupla incriminação e permite verificar qual é a posição dos Estados relativamente a esta medida. Com a abolição da dupla incriminação, a cooperação em matéria judiciária e criminal afastou-se do que era pretendido no Conselho Europeu de Tampere. E sem cooperação, os direitos fundamentais dos cidadãos ficam desprotegidos, tendo os Estados que adoptar medidas para colmatar as “falhas” da Lei Europeia.

Dissertação de Mestrado em Direito apresentada à Faculdade de Direito
Com este estudo pretende-se analisar o modo como os sistemas jurídicos nacionais e o sistema jurídico da União Europeia se relacionam em matérias de cooperação penal. Primeiramente, introduzimos alguns conceitos chave da Teoria dos Sistemas de Niklas Luhmann, que serão importantes para a compreensão de algumas das respostas emitidas de parte a parte. Abordaremos a questão da existência de Soberania e de uma Constituição na União Europeia, pela importância que isso tem na construção de um método de análise que se pretende de aplicação holística. Defender-se-á que se podem conceber estes sistemas de uma forma autónoma e autopoiética e que o seu modo de relacionamento se pode enquadrar no conceito de comunicação de Luhmann. Por considerarmos que a relação se constrói por uma regra de deferência de atribuições e competências, estudaremos a divisão das mesmas e as doutrinas da preempção. Estudar-se-á relevantes decisões do Tribunal de Justiça neste campo, problematizando-se tanto leituras positivas como normativas. Mais especificamente abordaremos os casos Melloni e Aranyosi e Căldăraru, propondo diferentes respostas que permitam uma melhor compatibilização dos fins em cada caso. O artigo 53.º da Carta será objecto de análise, assim como a protecção das identidades constitucionais dos Estados-Membros. Teremos sempre como pano de fundo o regime do Mandado de Detenção Europeu e a protecção de direitos fundamentais. Com este estudo pretende-se analisar o modo como os sistemas jurídicos nacionais e o sistema jurídico da União Europeia se relacionam em matérias de cooperação penal. Primeiramente, introduzimos alguns conceitos chave da Teoria dos Sistemas de Niklas Luhmann, que serão importantes para a compreensão de algumas das respostas emitidas de parte a parte. Abordaremos a questão da existência de Soberania e de uma Constituição na União Europeia, pela importância que isso tem na construção de um método de análise que se pretende de aplicação holística. Defender-se-á que se podem conceber estes sistemas de uma forma autónoma e autopoiética e que o seu modo de relacionamento se pode enquadrar no conceito de comunicação de Luhmann. Por considerarmos que a relação se constrói por uma regra de deferência de atribuições e competências, estudaremos a divisão das mesmas e as doutrinas da preempção. Estudar-se-á relevantes decisões do Tribunal de Justiça neste campo, problematizando-se tanto leituras positivas como normativas. Mais especificamente abordaremos os casos Melloni e Aranyosi e Căldăraru, propondo diferentes respostas que permitam uma melhor compatibilização dos fins em cada caso. O artigo 53.º da Carta será objecto de análise, assim como a protecção das identidades constitucionais dos Estados-Membros. Teremos sempre como pano de fundo o regime do Mandado de Detenção Europeu e a protecção de direitos fundamentais.
The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between national judicial systems and the European Union judicial system in what concerns criminal cooperation. Firstly, key theoretical concepts from Niklas Luhmann’s Systems Theory are introduced, which will shape the understanding of how these systems communicate. We will discuss the question of the existence of Sovereignty and a Constitution in the European Union, due to the key role that that plays in the development of an analysis method which is desired to be of comprehensive application. It will be argued that these systems can be conceived in an autonomous and autopoietic manner and this interaction can fit in Luhmann’s concept of communication. Competence distribution and the preemption doctrines will be studied under the assumption that the interaction is built by a rule of permission. Relevant decisions from the European Court of Justice will be studied, and both positive and normative analyses will be discussed. The Melloni and Aranyosi & Căldăraru cases will be discussed, and innovative solutions for them will be proposed in order to fulfill all the values shown in each case. The 53.º of the Charter will be discussed as well as EU protection of EM’s constitutional identities. Throughout this study, the European Arrest Warrant and the safeguarding of fundamental rights are continuously present as background. The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between national judicial systems and the European Union judicial system in what concerns criminal cooperation. Firstly, key theoretical concepts from Niklas Luhmann’s Systems Theory are introduced, which will shape the understanding of how these systems communicate. We will discuss the question of the existence of Sovereignty and a Constitution in the European Union, due to the key role that that plays in the development of an analysis method which is desired to be of comprehensive application. It will be argued that these systems can be conceived in an autonomous and autopoietic manner and this interaction can fit in Luhmann’s concept of communication. Competence distribution and the preemption doctrines will be studied under the assumption that the interaction is built by a rule of permission. Relevant decisions from the European Court of Justice will be studied, and both positive and normative analyses will be discussed. The Melloni and Aranyosi & Căldăraru cases will be discussed, and innovative solutions for them will be proposed in order to fulfill all the values shown in each case. The 53.º of the Charter will be discussed as well as EU protection of EM’s constitutional identities. Throughout this study, the European Arrest Warrant and the safeguarding of fundamental rights are continuously present as background.

Unstoppable development in every area of life which brings an innovative methods, implements and forms has been an inherent part of the evolution of society for a long time now. Accordingly, the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters with phased pressure on the integrating procedures within the framework of the European Union, with the development of international relations between the Member States, and with increased rate of criminal activity exceeding the implementation of free movement of persons within the European Union has been made to reflect introduction of new mechanisms. The main task of such mechanisms is repressing organised crime and cross-border criminal activities, and also protection of fundamental rights of individuals who are suspected of commiting an offence. One of these mechanisms is the European arrest warrant, relatively new legal instrument to which is my diploma work devoted to. This instrument of criminal law based on the principle of mutual recognitions in criminal matters represents not just a symbol of mutual confidence for the Member States reflecting in their systems of criminal justice, but also some achievement of philosophical purpose in integrating aspects or rather ambitions in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It is...

European Arrest Warrant is an institute of the police and judicial cooperation in the criminal matters. Based is on the mutual confidence of Member States in its legal systems. His formation was caused not only by the failed ratification of the international agreements governing extradition, but also by the terrorist attacks occurred on 11 September 2001 in New York. European Arrest Warrant meant the breakthrough into the national traditional sovereignty of Member States and that all to ensure the area of freedom, safety and justice inside Europe. Formation of the European Arrest Warrant led to the restriction of some principles, which dominated to the extradition, when between the most important ones belongs the principle of surrender of own citizens. European Arrest Warrant is the necessary means and tool of police and judicial bodies in the fight against the national and multinational crime, whose use rises year from year.

The criminal justice as well as the persons participating in criminal proceedings, they both are currently facing number of newly posed challenges and unanswered questions so far, due to the onward going integration of the European Union and much closer cooperation of the Member States, in the field of the Procedural Criminal Law. There have been established many new institutions within the field of the European Union in last few years and there were adopted many legal tools which directly influence the cooperation between the judicial and police authorities of individual countries. In connection with newly emerging forms of the crime and more coherent cooperation of the perpetrators of severe crime, the relevant authorities at the union level as well as at the national level encounter situations not being resolved at all, or which are specified by theoretical standards only and have not been put into practice yet. Due to the diversity and abundance of the legal tools and institutions which interfere the criminal law sphere without adjusting their mutual cooperation or without having sorted out the priority of application in many cases, the author of this thesis considers as an appropriate to have such comprehensive view to this relevant issue introduced to the specialized public, as well as having...