Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

CJEU case law on double criminality. The Grundza-Piotrowski paradox?

Some notes regarding the Puigdemont case

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

The implementation of the requirement of double criminality in the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision is one of the fields where the strength of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters is put to the test.

There are differences between the transposition modalities of the different Member States and diverse interpretations in the case law of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) regarding the need for dual criminality. These circumstances may lead to problematic situations as has recently been highlighted in the wake of the request for extradition of Mr Puigdemont to Spain from Germany.

These factors are analysed in light of CJEU jurisprudence (chiefly the Grundza and Piotrowski judgments) applying Articles 2(4) and 4(1) of the EAW Framework Decision and the German transposition legislation, IRG.

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. Special Proceedings no. 20907/2017. The most important Supreme Court decisions are available in the jurisprudence search engine of the website of the General Council of the Judiciary of Spain (CENDOJ): http://www.poderjudicial.es/search/indexAN.jsp.

  2. Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 of June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [2002] OJ L 190/1.

  3. Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C 326/1.

  4. Tampere European Council, 15–16 October 1999. Presidency Conclusions, conclusion no. 37, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/tam_en.htm.

  5. 5 Mitsilegas [19], pp. 1277–1311.

  6. On the notion of European Public Order see De Lange [7].

  7. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome, 4.11.1950, available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.

  8. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 26 October 2012, OJ C 326/02.

  9. Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings [2009] OJ C 295/1.

  10. 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 [2008] OJ L/327/27.

  11. Case C-168/13 Jeremy F./Premier ministre, EU:C:2013:358.

  12. Case C-399/11 Melloni, EU:C:2013:107.

  13. Julian Assange v The Swedish Prosecution [2011] EWHC Admin 2849.

  14. Klip [14], p. 362.

  15. Joined Cases C-404/15 and 659/15 Aranyosi-Caldararu, EU:C:2016:198.

  16. Case C-216/18 \(LM\), EU:C:2018:586.

  17. De Bondt [4], p. 131 and Platcha [20], pp. 170–178.

  18. Falkiewicz [8], pp. 258–275.

  19. See footnote 3.

  20. Case C-305/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, EU:C:2007:261.

  21. Klimek [13], pp. 8–9.

  22. Extradition Act 2003, Chap. 41. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents.

  23. Code de Procédure Pénale. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCode.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006071154&dateTexte=29990101.

  24. Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (IRG) in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 27. Juni 1994 (BGBl. I S. 1537), das zuletzt durch Artikel 3 des Gesetzes vom 27. August 2017 (BGBl. I S. 3295) geändert worden ist. Available at: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/irg/BJNR020710982.html.

  25. Ley 23/2014, de 20 de noviembre, de reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones penales en la Unión Europea (BOE 282, de 21 de noviembre de 2014, p. 95437). Available at: https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejnupload/InfoAbout/English%20version%20LAW%2023%20of%202014.pdf.

  26. Eurojust Case law by the Court of Justice of the EU on the European Arrest Warrant (October 2018). Available at: http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/doclibrary/Eurojust-framework/casedsdlawanalysis/Case%20 Law%20by%20the%20Court%20of%20Justice%20of%20the%20European%20Union%20on%20the% 20European%20Arrest%20Warrant%20%28October%202018%29/2018-10_EAW-case-law_EN.pdf.

  27. Case C-123/08 Wolzenburg, EU:C:2009:616.

  28. Marguery [18], pp. 84–91.

  29. Cases C-66/08 Kozlowski, EU:C:2008:437 and C-396/11 Radu, EU:C:2013:39, among others.

  30. Op. cit: p. 362.

  31. Case C-289/15 Grundza, EU:C:2017:4.

  32. Plactcha [20], pp. 170–178.

  33. Op. cit: p. 273.

  34. Order C-463/15PPU Openbaar Ministerie v A., EU:C:2015:634.

  35. Case C-367/16 Piotrowski, EU:C:2018:27.

  36. Case C-640/15 Vilkas, EU:C:2017:39.

  37. Spanish Criminal Code, Organic Act 10/1995, BOE núm. 281, of 24 of November 1995, 33987-34058; last amended April 28, 2015. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=415252.

  38. Order of the High Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein. First Senate, Criminal. Case 1 Ausl (A) 18/18 (20/18), DE:OLGSH:2018:0405.1AUSL.A18.18.20.1.00.

  39. Criminal Code (version promulgated on 13 November 1998), Federal Law Gazette [Bundesgesetzblatt] I p. 3322, last amended by Article 1 of the Law of 24 September 2013, Federal Law Gazette I p. 3671 and with the text of Article 6(18) of the Law of 10 October 2013, Federal Law Gazette I p 3799. Available at https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/index.html.

  40. Federal Court of Germany, Judgment, of 23 of November 1983, 3 StR 256/83. Available at: https://opinioiuris.de/entscheidung/1244.

  41. De Bondt [5], p. 108.

  42. Op. cit. [8], p. 266.

  43. Gimbernat Ordeig [11].

  44. Sections 83, 89a, 90a, 111, 113, 125 StGB.

  45. Advocate General conclusions, 16 of May 2018. Case C 268/17AY, EU:C:2018:317.

  46. Mangas Martín [17].

  47. Sarmiento [21].

  48. Fich [9], pp. 151–195.

  49. Mangas Martín [16], pp. 47–68.

  50. Del Río Prada v Spain, Appl. no. 42750/09, CE:ECHR:2013:1021JUD004275009.

  51. Conclusions of the Council of the European Union and the member states meeting within the Council on ensuring respect for the rule of law. General Affairs Council meeting Brussels, 16 December 2014. Available at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/24875/146323.pdf.

  52. See, Reuters, 11 April 2018. Available at: https://es.reuters.com/article/topNews/idESKBN1HI2ND-OESTP or El País, 12 April 2018. Available at: https://politica.elpais.com/politica/2018/04/11/actualidad/1523408741_222117.html.

  53. Eurojust Press Centre. Press releases. Available at: http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/press/PressReleases/Pages/2018.aspx.

  54. On the preliminary ruling, in general, see Vandersanden [23].

  55. Recommendations of the CJEU to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings [2018] OJ C 257/01.

  56. Case C-29/68 Milch-, Fett- und Eierkontor GmbH c. Hauptzollamt Saarbrücken, EU:C:1969:27.

  57. Schermers [22], p. 392 et seq.

  58. Cobreros Mendazona [3], pp. 127–141.

  59. Order of 12 July 2018, special proceedings no. 20917/17, ES:TS:2018:8477A.

  60. On forum shopping in criminal matters within the EU see Janssens [12], pp. 230–233 and Lutchman [15], pp. 3–61.

  61. Bachmaier [2], p. 39.

  62. https://euobserver.com/justice/140218.

  63. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-revision-of-the-european-arrest-warrant.

  64. On the assimilation principle see De Hoyos Santos [6], pp. 807–842; Ambos [1], pp. 326 et sq.; and Vogel [24], pp. 171 et seq.

References

  1. Ambos, K.: European Criminal Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2018) (326 et sq.)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bachmaier, L.: Orden Europea de Detención y Entrega, doble incriminación y reconocimiento mutuo a la luz del caso Puigdemont. In: Arroyo Zapatero, L., Muñoz de Morales Romero, M. (eds.) Cooperar y castigar: el caso Puigdemont, p. 39. Ediciones Universidad de Castilla-la Mancha, Cuenca (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cobreros Mendazona, E.: Efectos de la sentencia prejudicial. In: Alonso García, R., Ugartemendía Eceizabarrena, J.I. (eds.) La cuestión prejudicial europea. European Inklings, vol. 4, pp. 127–141 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. De Bondt, W.: Overcoming Offence Diversities in EU Policy-Making. Needs and Feasibility Assessment, p. 131. Ghent University, Department of Penal Law and Criminology, Ghent (2012). Available at: https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/2129164

    Google Scholar 

  5. De Bondt, W.: Rethinking International Cooperation in Criminal Matters in the EU. IRCP Research Series, vol. 42, p. 108. Maklu, Antwerpen/Apeldoorn/Portland (2012). Available at: http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6335/Rethinking%20international%20cooperation%20in%20criminal%20matters.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  6. De Hoyos Santos, M.: El principio de reconocimiento mutuo de resoluciones penales en la Unión Europea: ¿Asimilación automática o corresponsabilidad? Rev. Derecho Comun. Europeo 22, 807–842 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  7. De Lange, R.: The European public order, constitutional principles and fundamental rights. Erasmus Law Rev. 1(1), 3 (2007). Available at: http://www.erasmuslawreview.nl/tijdschrift/ELR/2007/1/ELR_2210-2671_2007_001_001_002.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  8. Falkiewicz, A.: The double criminality requirement in the area of freedom, security and justice-reflections in light of the European Court of Justice judgment of 11 January 2017, C-289/15, Criminal Proceedings against Jozef Grundza. Eur. Crim. Law Rev. 7, 258–275 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fich, Ch., et al.: Legitimidad del poder supranacional: ¿una Constitución Europea? In: Baron, I., Fich, Ch., Herslund, M., Lorenzo, M.P. (eds.) De Leviatán a Lisboa. Camino del Constitucionalismo Europeo, CEPC, Madrid, pp. 151–195 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fichera, M.: The Implementation Of the European Arrest Warrant in the European Union. Law, Policy and Practice. Intersentia Ltd., Antwerp (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gimbernat Ordeig, E.: Alemania, obligada a entregar a Puigdemont por rebelión. Diario El Mundo, 16 April 2018. Available at: http://www.elmundo.es/opinion/2018/04/16/5ad34048268e3ee23d8b45d9.html

  12. Janssens, C.: The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013), pp. 230–233

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Klimek, L.: Implementation of the grounds for non-execution the European Arrest Warrant: Lex Ferenda towards the Act No. 154/2010 Coll. On the European Arrest Warrant. Lawyer Q. 6, 8–9 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Klip, A.: European Criminal Law, an Interpretative Approach. Intersentia, Cambridge/Antwerp/Portland (2016), p. 362

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lutchman, M.: Choice of forum and the prosecution of cross-border crime in the European Union—what role for the legality principle? In: Luchtman, M. (ed.) Choice of Forum in Cooperation Against EU Financial Crime—Freedom, Security and Justice and the Protection of Specific EU-Interests, pp. 3–61. Eleven, The Hague (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mangas Martín, A.: La secesión de territorios en un Estado miembro: efectos en el Derecho de la Unión Europea. Rev. Derecho Union Eur. 25, 47–68 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mangas Martín, A.: Euroorden versus extradición: discordancias en el (des)concierto europeo. Real Instituto Elcano. ARI 50/18 (2018). Available at: http://realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_es/publicaciones/ari

  18. Marguery, T.: EU citizenship and European arrest warrant: the same rights for all? Merkourios 27(73), 84–91 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mitsilegas, V.: The constitutional implications of Mutual Recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Mark. Law Rev. 43, 1277–1311 (2006). Available at: https://www.biicl.org/files/3190_cmlr_mutual_recognition_article.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  20. Platcha, M.: European arrest warrant: revolution in extradition? Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 11, 170–178 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sarmiento, D.: The strange (German) case of Mr. Puigdemont’s European arrest warrant. VerfBlog, 11 April 2018. https://doi.org/10.17176/20180411-141130

  22. Schermers, H.G.: Judicial protection in the European Communities. Europa Instituut University of Leiden. Springer, Berlin (1983) (392 et sq.)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Vandersanden, G.: Renvoi préjudiciel en droit européen. Bruylant, Brussel (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Vogel, J.: ¿Supresión de la extradición? Observaciones críticas en relación con la reforma de la legislación en materia de extradición en la Unión Europea. Derecho Penal Internacional. Consejo General del Poder Judicial, Madrid (2001) (171 et sq.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Appeal Court of Huelva, Palacio de Justicia, Alameda Sundheim, 28, 21001, Huelva, Spain

    Florentino-Gregorio Ruiz Yamuza

Authors
  1. Florentino-Gregorio Ruiz Yamuza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florentino-Gregorio Ruiz Yamuza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruiz Yamuza, FG. CJEU case law on double criminality. The Grundza-Piotrowski paradox?. ERA Forum 19, 465–484 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00553-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00553-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation