Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Balancing Between Human Rights Assumptions and Actual Fundamental Human Rights Safeguards in Building an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: a Cosmopolitan Perspective

  • Published:
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rhetoric often claims that the European Union (EU), in issues related to Justice and Home Affairs, has to be united in its diversity. As such, the asylum and judicial systems of the Member States are initially perceived as equally good. By applying the cosmopolitan theory on two fields of interstate cooperation, asylum and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the article explores how cosmopolitan the EU is in these fields, with a specific focus on material detention conditions. For cosmopolitanism to work, it has to be grounded in commonly shared norms, which enable the EU to regulate its dealings with the otherness of the Member States. The crucial role of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union in placing boundaries on the equal goodness of the Member States’ asylum and judicial systems is analysed. This judicial reality in which cosmopolitan norms are established and protected is discussed, together with the political realities dominating policy debates in order to build an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A substantive part of research in the area of criminology seems to be guilty to what Beck (2006) defines as ‘methodological nationalism’: equating social boundaries with state boundaries and framing society, law and justice in the nation-state outlook (Franko Aas 2007).

  2. For this article otherness and diversity can be used interchangeable, although they have a different connotation. Otherness relates to socially constructed divisions, the term difference or diversity relates to factual differences.

  3. These features were identified because they are intrinsically linked to the area of asylum or judicial cooperation in criminal matters: human rights and refugee policies. For all 21 features see Van Hooft (2009).

  4. Opening statement of Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová at the European Parliament hearings, where she stated: “I want to build trust across the judicial systems in the EU. We should be united in our diversity, but we also need to make sure that our different cultural and legal traditions are not an obstacle to freedom, justice or the Single Market.” (Jourová 2014)

  5. Tampere in 1999, the Hague in 2004, Stockholm in 2009.

  6. See par. 14 of the Tampere President Conclusions (European Council 1999).

  7. Ibid., par. 33.

  8. The Dublin Convention determines the State responsible to examine applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities (European Communities 1997a).

  9. These criteria are based on the strength of the link between the asylum seeker and the State: family ties, administrative and material ties, specific cases such as pregnancy, age and illness (Irish Refugee Council 2011).

  10. The meaning of the risk of absconding is defined by national law, which can lead to diverging interpretations.

  11. The revision process of the Reception Conditions Directive was difficult and troublesome. As a result, the safeguards for asylum seekers regarding reception conditions in the initial 2008 Commission proposal were lowered in comparison with the eventual adopted Recast (Velluti 2014).

  12. The EU allows people who have not committed a criminal offence to be imprisoned in order to verify their nationality or identity for public safety and security reasons, to determine the elements of the asylum application in case there is a risk of absconding, and in border procedures. See art. 8(3) of the Recast Reception Conditions Directive (European Union 2013a).

  13. See art. 10 of the Recast Reception Conditions Directive. The Directive further addresses rules concerning access to open air in art. 10(2), contact opportunities in art. 10(3) & (4) and information in art. 10(5). The Directive has separate guarantees for females, families and minors (European Union 2013a).

  14. See for example, the Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 7 September 2010 in the Mantello case par. 1: “based on a high level of confidence between those authorities. It is regarded, rightly, as the instrument of judicial cooperation in criminal matters which produces the best results” (Bot 2010).

  15. The Commission has received representations from European and national parliamentarians, defence lawyers, citizens and civil society groups highlighting a number of problems with the operation of the EAW: no entitlement to legal representation in the issuing state during the surrender proceedings in the executing state; detention conditions in some Member States combined with sometimes lengthy pre-trial detention for surrendered persons and the non-uniform application of a proportionality check by the issuing states, resulting in surrender requests for relatively minor offences that, in the absence of a proportionality check in the executing state, must be executed (European Commission 2011b).

  16. Dougoz v. Greece (2001), Riad and Idiab v. Belgium (2008), S.D. v. Greece (2009), A.A. v. Greece (2010), Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium (2010), M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011), R.U. v. Greece (2011), Kanagaratnam and Others v. Belgium (2011), Bygylashvili v. Greece (2012), Popov v. France (2012), A.F. v. Greece (2013), Horshill v. Greece (2013), Tabesh v. Greece (2013), C.D. and Others v. Greece (2013), B.M. v. Greece (2013), Ahmed v. Malta (2013), F.H. v. Greece (2014), Tatishvili v. Greece (2014).

  17. For example in K.R.S. v. United Kingdom (2008) the removal of the asylum applicant from the U.K. to Greece would not constitute a violation of art. 3 because Greece, as a Contracting State has undertaken to abide Convention obligations and to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined therein, including those guaranteed by art. 3.

  18. See par. 86 of the joined cases N.S. and M.E. (2011).

  19. Ibid., par. 83.

  20. Ibid., par. 84.

  21. Ibid., par. 84–85.

  22. See par. 59 of Shamso Abdullahi v. Bundesasylamt (2013).

  23. Ibid., par. 60.

  24. Due to the delay in the implementation of the Transfer of Prisoners Framework Decision, the CJEU did not have to rule concerning the scope, application and/or implementation of this Framework Decision at the time of writing this article.

  25. See for example par. 39: “… the observance of Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter does not require that a judicial authority of a Member State should be able to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution on the ground that the requested person was not heard by the issuing judicial authorities before that arrest warrant was issued.” (Radu 2013)

  26. See par. 60 of the Melloni case (2013).

  27. See par. 125 of the opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered in case C‑399/11, criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni (Bot 2012).

  28. See par. 120 of Orchowski v. Poland (2009).

  29. See for example the cases of Labzov v. Russia (2005), Andrey Frolov v. Russia (2007), Kantyrev v. Russia (2007), Lind v. Russia (2007).

  30. See for example the cases of Peers v. Greece (2001), Kalashnikov v. Russia (2002), Slawomir Musial v. Poland (2009), Orchowski v. Poland (2009), Florea v. Romania, (2010), Canali v. France, 25 April (2013), Radulescu v. Romania (2014), Vasilescu v. Belgium (2014), Adrian Radu v. Romania (2015).

  31. See for example par. 50 of I.B. (2012), par. 64 of Melvin West (2012), par. 36 of Jeremy F. (2013).

  32. C-404/15 Aranyosi: A German court raised the question if the extradition for the purpose of prosecution is impermissible where there are strong indications that detention conditions in the issuing state infringe the fundamental rights of the person concerned. Furthermore, in such circumstances can or must the executing state decide on the permissibility of the extradition based upon the assurances given that detention conditions are compliant?

  33. With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam in May 1999 only police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters continued to remain under the auspices of the old EU Third Pillar (Mitsilegas et al. 2014).

  34. The Dublin system was indirectly already applied beginning on 26 March 1995 when the Schengen acquis resulted in the abolition of border controls between Belgium, Germany, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal (European Commission 2010).

  35. Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania and Hungary voted against, Finland abstained (Council of the European Union 2015a).

References

  • Alegre, S. (2005). Mutual trust—Lifting the mask. In G. De Kerckhove & A. Weyembergh (Eds.), La confiance mutuelle dans l’espace pénal européen/Mutual trust in the European criminal area (pp. 40–45). Brussel: Editions de l’université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amtenbrink, F. (2008). The multidimensional constitutional legal order of the European Union—A successful case of cosmopolitan constitution-building? In Netherlands yearbook of international law (Vol. XXXIX, pp. 3–68).

  • Battjes, H., Brouwer, E., Paulien, D. M., & Ouwerkerk, J. (2011). The principle of mutual trust in European asylum, migration, and criminal law. Reconciling trust and fundamental rights (p. 55). Utrecht: Meijers Committee.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (2006). The cosmopolitan vision. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Grande, E. (2007). Cosmopolitan Europe. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., & Levy, D. (2013). Cosmopolitanized nations: reimagining collectivity in world risk society. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(2), 3–31.

  • Bot, A. G. (2010). Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 7 September 2010 case C-261/09, criminal proceedings against Gaetano Mantello.

  • Bot, A. G. (2012). Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 2 October 2012, case C‑399/11, criminal proceedings against Stefano Melloni.

  • Calhoun, C. (2008). Cosmopolitanism and nationalism. Nations and Nationalism, 14(3), 427–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrera, S., Guild, E., & Hernanz, N. (2013). Europe’s most wanted? Recalibrating trust in the European Arrest Warrant System. CEPS papers in liberty and security in Europe (Vol. 55, pp. 42). CEPS.

  • Cicchelli, V. (2014). Living in a global society, handling otherness: An appraisal of Cosmopolitan socialization. In Quaderni di Teoria Sociale (pp. 217–242). Perugia: Morlacchi Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the evaluation of the Dublin system COM(2007) 299 final.

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (Recast) COM(2008) 820 final.

  • Council of the European Union. (2015a). Justice and Home Affairs Council, 22/09/2015. http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/jha/2015/09/22/. Accessed 19 Nov 2015.

  • Council of the European Union. (2015b). Relocation of 40 000 refugees from Greece and Italy agreed by Council. Brussels: Press office - General Secretariat of the Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Justice of the European Union. (2012). Judgment in case C-179/11 cimade and GISTI v Ministre de L'Intérieur, de l'Outre-mer, des Collectivités territoriales et de l'immigration. Luxembourg.

  • CPT. (2002). CPT standards. CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 - Rev. 2015. (pp. 112). Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

  • Delanty, G. (2005). The idea of a cosmopolitan Europe: on the cultural significance of Europanization. International Review of Sociology, 15(3), 405–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delanty, G. (2009). The Cosmopolitan imaginiation. The renewal of critical social theory. Cambridge: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Delanty, G., & Rumford, C. (2005). Rethinking Europe, social theory and the implications of Europeanization (Key approaches to criminology). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgström, O. (2005). Consolidating ‘unobjectionable’ norms. Negotiating norms spread in the European Union. In O. Elgström & C. Jönsson (Eds.), European Union Negotiations. Processes, Networks and Institutions (pp. 29–44). London: Palgrave.

  • Eriksen, E. O. (2006). The EU—a cosmopolitan polity? Journal of European Public Policy, 13(2), 252–269.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010). Schengen: some basic facts (p. 3). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011a). Green Paper - Strengthening mutual trust in the European judicial area – A green paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention (p. 18). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2011b). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation since 2007 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States {SEC(2011) 430 final} COM(2011) 175 final.

  • European Commission. (2015). Parliamentary question, answer given by Ms Jourová on behalf of the Commission. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2014-010694&language=EN. Last accessed on 3 February 2016.

  • European Communities. (1997a). Convention determining the State responsible for examining applications for asylum lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 254/1.

  • European Communities. (1997b). Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establising the European Communities and certain related acts. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340.

  • European Communities. (2002). Council framework decisions of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA). Official Journal of the European Communities, L190/1.

  • European Council. (1999). Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999 Presidency conclusions.

  • European Council on Refugees and Exiles. (2015). Reception and detention conditions of applicants for international protection in light of the charter of fundamental rights of the EU (p. 89). Brussels: European Council on Refugees and Exiles.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Migration Network. (2014). Synthesis report – The organisation of reception facilities for asylum seekers in different Member States (p. 69). Brussels: European Migration Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament. (2014). European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (2013/2109(INL)).

  • European Union. (2003a). Council directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. Official Journal of the European Union, L 31/18.

  • European Union. (2003b). Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national. Official Journal of the European Union, L 50/1.

  • European Union. (2008). Council framework decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, L 327/27.

  • European Union. (2012). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326/391.

  • European Union. (2013a). Directive 2013/33/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 laying down standards for the reception of applicants for international protection (recast). Official Journal of the European Union, L 180/96.

  • European Union. (2013b). Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person. Official Journal of the European Union, L 180/31.

  • Ferraro, F. (2013). EU rules on transfer of sentenced persons. Library Briefing.

  • Fine, R. (2006). Cosmopolitanism : A social science research agenda. In G. Delanty (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary European social theory (pp. 242–253). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franko Aas, K. (2007). Analysing a world in motion: global flows meet ‘criminology of the other’. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franko Aas, K. (2013). Globalization & crime (Key approaches to criminology). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild, E., & Carrera, S. (2010). The European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on. In E. Guild, S. Carrera, & A. Eggenschwiler (Eds.), The European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on. Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm programme. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heard, C., & Mansell, D. (2011). The European Arrest Warrant: the role of judges when human rights are at risk. New Journal of Criminal Law, 2(2), 133–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hruschka, C. (2014). The (reformed) Dublin III Regulation—A tool for enhanced effectiveness and higher standards of protection? ERA Forum, 15(4), 469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irish Refugee Council. (2011). Dublin Transnational Project Final report (pp. 118). Irish Refugee Council.

  • Janssens, C. (2013). The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law (Oxford Studies in European Law). Oxford: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jourová, V. (2014). Opening statement of Věra Jourová, Commissioner designate for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality at European Parliament hearings. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/news/20141001_en.htm. Last accessed on 3 February 2016.

  • Konstadinides, T., & O’Meara, N. (2014). Fundamental rights and judicial protection. In D. Arcarazo & C. Murphy (Eds.), EU security and justice law. After Lisbon and Stockholm (pp. 77–91). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krossa, A. S., & Robertson, R. (2012). European cosmopolitanism: A critical introduction. In A. S. Krossa & R. Robertson (Eds.), European cosmopolitanism in question (pp. 1–5). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, D., Heinlein, M., & Breuer, L. (2011). Reflexive particularism and cosmopolitanization: the reconfiguration of the national. Global Networks, 11(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2009). The third wave of third pillar law: which direction for EU criminal justice? Queen Mary University of London, School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper, 33, 522–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2012). The limits of mutual trust in Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: from automatic inter-state cooperation to the slow emergence of the individual. Yearbook of European Law, 31(1), 319–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V. (2015). The criminalisation of migration in Europe challenges for human rights and the rule of law (Springer briefs in law). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas, V., Carrera, S., & Eisele, K. (2014). The end of the transitional period for police and criminal justice measures asopted before the Lisbon treaty: Who monitors trust in the European Criminal Justice area? CEPS Paper in Liberty and Security in Europe (Vol. 74). CEPS.

  • Morgan, C. (2010). The potential of mutual recognition as a leading policy principle. In C. Fijnaut & J. Ouwerkerk (Eds.), The future of police and judicial cooperation in the European Union (pp. 231–239). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C., & Arcarazo, D. (2014). Rethinking Europe’s freedom, security and justice. In D. Arcarazo & C. Murphy (Eds.), EU security and justice law. After Lisbon and Stockholm (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers, S. (2004). Mutual recognition and criminal law in the European Union: has the Council got it wrong? Common Market Law Review, 41, 5–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachta, M., & van Ballegooij, W. (2005). The Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States of the European Union. In R. Blextoon & W. van Ballegooij (Eds.), Handbook on the European Arrest Warrant (pp. 13–38). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The AIRE Centre. (2014). Joint Press Release: Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations General Assembly. (1951). Convention relating to the status of refugees. United Nations Treaty Series, 189, 137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft, S. (2009). Cosmopolitanism. A philosophy for global ethics. Stocksfield: Acumen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Swaaningen, R. (2007). Naar een kosmopolitische criminologie. In H. van de Bunt, P. Spierenburg, & R. van Swaaningen (Eds.), Drie perspectieven op sociale controle (Erasmus Law Lectures, Vol. 10). Den Haag: Boom Juridische uitgevers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl Smit, D., & Spencer, J. R. (2010). The European dimension to the release of sentenced prisoners. In N. Padfield, D. Van Zyl Smit, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Release from prison. European policy and practice (pp. 9–46). Willan: Devon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Velluti, S. (2014). Recasting of asylum legislation: Nolumus leges mutari! In S. Velluti (Ed.), Reforming the Common European Asylum System—Legislative developments and judicial activism of the European courts (pp. 39–76). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, G., & De Bondt, W. (2014). EU Justice and Home Affairs. Institutional and policy development. Antwerpen: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, G., van Kalmthout, A., Paterson, N., Knapen, M., Verbeke, P., & De Bondt, W. (2011a). Cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU. Overcoming legal and practical problems through flanking measures (Vol. 40, IRCP-Series). Antwerpen: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen, G., Van Kalmthout, A., Paterson, N., Knapen, M., Verbeke, P., & De Bondt, W. (2011b). Material detention conditions, execution of custodial sentences and prisoner transfer in the EU Member States (Vol. 41, IRCP-Series). Antwerp: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen, G., & Surano, L. (2008). Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union (pp. 93). Institute for European Studies, Université Libre de Bruxelles, ECLAN—European Criminal Law Academic Network.

  • Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (2002). Introduction: Conceiving cosmopolitanism. In S. Vertovec & R. Cohen (Eds.), Conceiving cosmopolitanism (pp. 1–22). Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Case law: European Court of Human Rights, Court of Justice of the European Union

  • Dougoz v. Greece, Judgment of 6 March 2001

  • Peers v. Greece, Judgment of 19 April 2001

  • Kalashnikov v. Russia, Judgment of 15 July 2002

  • Labzov v. Russia, Judgment of 16 June 2005

  • Andrey Frolov v. Russia, Judgment of 29 March 2007

  • Kantyrev v. Russia, Judgment of 21 June 2007

  • Lind v. Russia, Judgment of 6 December 2007

  • Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, Judgment of 24 January 2008

  • K.R.S. v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 2 December 2008

  • Slawomir Musial v. Poland, Judgment of 20 January 2009

  • S.D. v. Greece, Judgment of 11 June 2009

  • Orchowski v. Poland, Judgment of 22 October 2009

  • Muskhadzhiyeva and Others v. Belgium, Judgment of 10 January 2010

  • A.A. v. Greece, Judgment of 22 July 2010

  • Florea v. Romania, 14 September 2010

  • M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Judgment of 21 January 2011

  • R.U. v. Greece, Judgment of 7 September 2011

  • Kanagaratnam and Others v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 December 2011

  • Popov v. France, Judgment of 19 January 2012

  • Bygylashvili v. Greece, Judgment of 25 September 2012

  • Torreggiani and others v. Italy, Judgment of 8 January 2013

  • Canali v. France, Judgment of 25 April 2013

  • A.F. v. Greece, Judgment of 23 June 2013

  • Ahmed v. Malta, Judgment of 23 July 2013

  • Horshill v. Greece, Judgment of 1 August 2013

  • Tabesh v. Greece, Judgment of 19 December 2013

  • C.D. and Others v. Greece, Judgment of 19 December 2013

  • B.M. v. Greece, Judgment of 19 December 2013

  • Radulescu v. Romania, Judgment of 1 April 2014

  • F.H. v. Greece, Judgment of 31 July 2014

  • Tatishvili v. Greece, Judgment of 31 July 2014

  • Tarakhal v. Switzerland, Judgment of 4 November 2014

  • Vasilescu v. Belgium, Judgment of 25 November 2014

  • Adrian Radu v. Romania, Judgment of 7 April 2015

  • Joined Cases N. S. (C-411/10) and M. E. (C-493/10), Judgment of 21 December 2011

  • I.B. ( C-306/09), Judgement of 28 June 2012

  • Melvin West (C-192/12 PPU), Judgment of 28 June 2012

  • Radu (C-396/11), Judgment of 29 January 2013

  • Stefano Melloni (C-399/11) Judgment of 26 February 2013

  • Jeremy F. (C-168/13 PPU), Judgment of 30 May 2013

  • Shamso Abdullahi (C-394/12), Judgment of 10 December 2013

  • Pál Aranyosi (C-404/15), judgment pending

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University, Universiteitstraat 4, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Rebecca Deruiter & Gert Vermeulen

Authors
  1. Rebecca Deruiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gert Vermeulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebecca Deruiter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deruiter, R., Vermeulen, G. Balancing Between Human Rights Assumptions and Actual Fundamental Human Rights Safeguards in Building an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: a Cosmopolitan Perspective. Eur J Crim Policy Res 22, 731–749 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9305-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9305-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation