Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The mutual recognition principle in criminal matters: a review

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

According to the Treaty on European Union (TEU), the mutual recognition principle is the cornerstone of mutual cooperation between judicial authorities in Europe. The few instruments approved since the Lisbon Treaty show an unsystematic extension of the ground for refusal principle, and the existing instruments have been amended only once. The list of offences that may give rise to surrender without verification of the double criminality of the act has not been updated yet.

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. “The principle of mutual recognition should also apply to pre-trial orders, in particular to those which would enable competent authorities quickly to secure evidence and to seize assets which are easily movable; evidence lawfully gathered by one Member State’s authorities should be admissible before the courts of other Member States, taking into account the standards that apply there”.

  2. Fischera [5], 1–6; Murphy [14].

  3. In Germany decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 2236/2004, that found unconstitutional the domestic regulation. In Poland, the Judgment of 27 April 2005 and in Cyprus, the Decision of 7 Nov. 2005 of the respective Constitutional Courts. In these countries the problem was the prohibition of extradition of nationals.

  4. Mitsilegas [10], 1278–1289. For human rights, see also Spencer [20], 33–35 and Weyembergh [24]. Glaser, Motz, Zimmermann [7], 5, add: “a citizen can potentially be confronted with the procedural rules of 26 foreign States”. The latest authors add doubts on the democratic legitimacy of the principle, due to the absence of any influence on other procedural systems.

  5. Fischera [5], 24–25, Murphy [14].

  6. Weyembergh [24], taking in account the risks of a step backward.

  7. 2005/C 53/01: “The further realisation of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in Member States and with due respect for their legal traditions. In this context, the draft Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union should be adopted by the end of 2005”.

  8. 2010/C 115/01: “In the Hague Programme, adopted in 2004, the European Council noted that in order for the principle of mutual recognition to become effective, mutual trust needed to be strengthened by progressively developing a European judicial culture based on the diversity of legal systems and unity through European law. The judicial systems of the Member States should be able to work together coherently and effectively in accordance with their national legal traditions”.

  9. Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor der Wereld v Leden van de Ministerraad, Judgment of 3 May 2007.

  10. Some authors have focused their criticism against the principle in this idea, as Murphy [14], p. 9.

  11. I. B. 21 Oct. 2010; C-66-2008, Kozlowsky, 17 June 2008 and C-388-2008, Leymann/Putsovarov, 1 December 2008; Santisteban Goicoechea, C-296/2008, 12 August 2008. The analysis of the case law, see Roma [19] and Borgers [3].

  12. The listed crimes in 2002 have the origin in the Europol Convention or otherwise Europol can deal with, with few addictions. Prior, taking in account the difficulties, see the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Mutual Recognition of Final Decision in Criminal Matters, COM (2000) 495 final, of 26 July 2000.

  13. 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings; 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; 2005 International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism; 2010 Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation.

  14. 1977 European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism; 2003 Protocol amending the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism; 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism; 2005 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism.

  15. 1950 Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others, 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, 2000 Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, the latest ratified by the European Union.

  16. 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

  17. See also 2007 Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse.

  18. Several Conventions have been approved in the United Nations: 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (as amended in 1972), 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, ratified the last by European Union.

  19. See also the 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection.

  20. See also the 1929 International Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency.

  21. See the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, 2001.

  22. 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

  23. 1988 Convention on the Protection of Environment through Criminal Law.

  24. 2000 Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons.

  25. 2002 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine Concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin. Also, the Council of Europe 2015 Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs.

  26. See the 2008 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems.

  27. See the United Nations 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the 2003 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

  28. See Weyembergh [24]. Before Lisbon, the main problems are the low level of ambition, the exceptions and the limits of democracy in the preparation.

  29. 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and transfer of cultural property.

  30. All States, CC: Criminal Code; Greece: Nomos 3028/2002 on protection of antiquities and cultural heritage; Italy: Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42, in materia di “Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’articolo 10 della legge 6 luglio 2002; France: Code du Patrimoine, actualizado, 2014”. In UK, Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003; Portugal: Decreto-Lei n.° 376-A/89 de 25 de Outubro, if the value is high. In Spain, “Ley de contrabando”, 2011. In Italy, Article 178 includes counterfeiting cultural goods; Greece Article 60 L. 2002 dealing with no authorisation; In UK, the Dealing of Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, selling with “knowledge of or belief tainted”. Others are mentioned in CECOJI-CNRS—UMR 6224, Study on preventing and fighting illicit trafficking in cultural goods in the European Union, Final Report (Home/2009/ISEC/PR/019-A2), 2011, but not indicating source, are indicated with X.

  31. See Borgers [3].

References

  1. Bachmaier Winter, L.: La orden Europea de Investigación y el principio de proporcionalidad. Iustel 25, 1–23 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Belfiore, R.: Movement of evidence in the EU: The present scenario and possible future developments. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 17, 1–22 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgers, M.J.: Mutual recognition and the European Court of Justice: The meaning of consistent interpretation and autonomous and uniform interpretation of union law for the development of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 18, 99–114 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Carrasquero Cepeda, M.: Orden europea de protección: un paso adelante en la protección de las víctimas. Cuaderno electrónico de estudios jurídicos 2, 91–114 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fischera, M.: Mutual recognition in criminal matters from its creation to the new developments in the Lisbon treaty (draft version). In: Rethinking the European Union, Exchanging Ideas on Europe 2008, UACES seminar, 1–3 September, Edinburgh, UK, pp. 1–27 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fichera, M., Janssens, C.: Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the role of the national judge. ERA Forum 8(2), 177–202 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Glaser, S., Motz, A., Zimmermann, F.: Mutual recognition and its implications for the gathering of evidence in criminal proceedings: a critical analysis of the initiative for a European investigation order. European Criminal Law Review 1(1), 55–79 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamilton, J.: Mutual assistance in criminal matters in Ireland and the proposed European evidence warrant. In: Dealing with European Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: National Practice and European Union Policy, ERA, pp. 53–68 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kusak, M.: Crime’s victim and the procedure of executing the Freezing Order and the European Investigation Order. In: Wiliński, P., Karlik, P. (eds.) Improving Protection of Victims’ Rights: Access to Legal Aid, Poznan, pp. 231–237 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mitsilegas, V.: The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Mark. Law Rev. 43, 1277–1311 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mitsilegas, V.: The third wave of third pillar law: which direction for EU criminal justice? European Law Review 523–560 (2009)

  12. Morán Martínez, R.A.: El embargo preventivo y aseguramiento de pruebas, la ejecución de sanciones pecuniarias y el comiso: las decisiones marco. Derecho Penal supranacional y cooperación jurídica internacional. Cuadernos de derecho judicial XIII, pp. 169–203 (2003)

  13. Morgade Cortés, M.: La orden europea de protección como instrumento tuitivo de las víctimas de violencia de género. Cuaderno electrónico de estudios jurídicos 3, 79–112 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Murphy, C.C.: The European evidence warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis)trust? In: Eckes, K. (ed.) King’s College London Crime Within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A European Public Order, Cambridge, pp. 1–25 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Pamfil, M.L.: Judicial cooperation based on a European evidence warrant. Social Science Research Network 15, 1–5 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pérignon, I., Daucé, C.: The European arrest warrant: a growing success story. ERA Forum 8(2), 203–214 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rodríguez-Medel Nieto, C.: El principio de reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones judiciales penales en la Unión Europea. Abogacía 6, 107–137 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rodríguez-Medel Nieto, C.: Embargo preventivo y decomiso en la Unión Europea: problemas prácticos. Estudios Jurídicos (2011)

  19. Roma Valdés, A.: La recuperación de bienes culturales por parte de la jurisdicción penal. Patrim. Cult. Derecho 12, 11–24 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Spencer, J.R.: An academic critique of the EU acquis in relation to trans-border evidence-gathering. In: Dealing with European Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: National Practice and European Union Policy, ERA, pp. 28–40 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Spencer, J.R.: The problem of trans-border evidence, and European initiatives to resolve them. In: 9 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, pp. 465–480 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vermuelen, G., De Wondt, W., Van Damme, Y.: EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence? IRPC-series 37 (2010)

  23. Vervaele, J.A.E.: The transnational ne bis in idem principle in the EU Mutual recognition and equivalent protection of human rights. Utrecht Law Rev. 1(2), 100–118 (2005). In: Vervaele, J.A.E. (ed.), European Evidence Warrant. Transnational Judicial Inquiries in the EU, Antwerpen-Oxford (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Weyembergh, A.: Harmonisation of Criminal Law in the EU and the Principle of Mutual Recognition 15 Years Later: Lessons Learned for the Years Ahead. ERA e-presentation (2014). https://www.era.int/cgi-bin/cms?_SID=NEW&_sprache=en&_bereich=artikel&_aktion=detail&idartikel=124988

  25. Williams, C.: The European evidence warrant: the proposal of the European commission. In: Dealing with European Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: National Practice and European Union Policy, ERA, pp. 17–27 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of A Coruña Fiscalía del Tribunal Superior de, Avenida de Viena s.n., 15707, Santiago de Compostela, Spain

    Antonio Roma Valdés

Authors
  1. Antonio Roma Valdés
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Antonio Roma Valdés.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation given at the ERA “Annual Forum on Combatting Corruption in the EU 2015” which took place on 27–28 April 2015 in Trier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valdés, A.R. The mutual recognition principle in criminal matters: a review. ERA Forum 16, 291–303 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0383-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-015-0383-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation