Explore the vast range of titles available.

Defining the concept of an \"issuing judicial authority\" in European Arrest Warrant (EAW) proceedings is one of the starting points for formulating the principles of effective judicial protection in emerging \"European criminal procedure\". There is no potential for this concept to be homogeneous for all instruments of cross-border cooperation in criminal matters, as the EAW mechanism may result in consequences for the individual incomparably more severe than other instruments. The uniqueness of the EAW mechanism has not yet been properly addressed, both by EU legislative policy and in the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice. Given the deficiencies of effective judicial protection of the individual at the stage of issuing the EAW, the principle of mutual recognition seems to have taken too much priority in the approach adopted. The EAW procedure should be more individual-centred at the initial stage, otherwise the national courts executing an EAW will face an ongoing problem with imperfect assessment of the qualities necessary for an \"issuing judicial authority\". Removing the concept of an \"issuing judicial authority\" from the procedural autonomy of Member States, and placing it within the scope of the EU's minimum standards on effective judicial protection of the individual could be helpful in solving this problem.

The study exposes, in a structured way, the essential aspects that sum up and define the set of procedural documents composing the European Investigation Order (EIO). In addition to the dynamics of the procedural document requesting the administration of some evidence, the legal nature of the procedural documents issued by the judicial body from the structures of the requested state is also analyzed, in order to highlight the complexity of the principles of legality and finding the truth at the European level. The content of the study shows the intrinsic and extrinsic elements of an effective judicial instrument in the activity of procedural administration of the evidence necessary to find out the objective truth, in the spirit of art. 5 para. (1) CPP. The contribution of the study in the study and clarification of the researched object is decisive, original, adding an extra step to the act of knowledge of the legal nature and form of the EIO.

The redesign of data protection in the police and judicial area is intended to create uniformity at the European level for the citizens of EU Member States. This scientific article analyses the subject of data protection in law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The focus is primarily on the existing provisions and the latest developments of the EU with regard to Directive (EU) 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA. The international level with regard to data protection in the police and judicial area and possible changes due to the developments in data protection under European law are also examined in more detail.

As a new alternative, mediation is integrated in the legislation of both developed and developing countries in Europe. Various researchers in member states of the Council of Europe revealed obstacles, particularly related to the implementation of mediation in criminal matters. They are addressed through several recommendations and non-binding guidelines. However, there is limited empirical research on how mediation in criminal matters is being implemented in the contexts of developing countries in south-eastern Europe. Hence, the purpose of this qualitative study is to assess mediation in criminal matters in Kosovo by exploring how the main stakeholders describe the legal basis and implementation process and what it indicates for future practices. The data were gathered through 11 semi-structured interviews with judges, prosecutors, mediation clerks, and mediators. Results show that laws and other guidelines that have been introduced since 2008 constitute a solid legal ground that facilitates mediation in criminal matters. The stakeholders are well aware of the benefits mediation brings and express their willingness to advance its application to criminal matters. Results also indicate uncertainty among judges and prosecutors regarding the assessment and referral of certain criminal offences to mediation. To address it, specialized trainings, exchange programs, and continuous monitoring and evaluation of the process could be supportive.

The evolution of information and communication technologies has impacted society, including the modus operandi of criminals, who use them in the preparation and commission of their criminal activities. This led to the adaptation in the work of criminal justice actors who increasingly rely on electronic evidence in the course of criminal proceedings. This type of evidence, composed of data, including sensitive personal data, presents certain characteristics, as it is often produced online, easily moved and destroyed. As a consequence, several actors started to develop new standards on direct cooperation with service providers for obtaining the preservation and disclosure of such data. The present Article, taking the perspective of the European Union in such matters, aims to analyse the mechanisms through which the EU, relying on both its internal and external competences, participates in the elaboration of common criminal procedural rules. Building on the internal EU proposals on e-evidence, the EU claimed external competences to negotiate a bilateral agreement with the United States of America and to participate in the negotiations of a Second Protocol to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. If at the current stage of the negotiations, it is unclear what will result of these parallel processes, the EU has the possibility in the elaboration of these standards to manifest the importance it grants to the protection of fundamental rights, both internally and externally.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(3), 993-1004 | European Forum Insight of 3 January 2023 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. Facts of the case and preliminary questions. - III. The Court's response. - IV. KL v Grundza: stronger demand for flexibly assessing double criminality. - IV.2. The irrelevance of a partial lack of double criminality. Towards a flexible, prima facie appraisal of the facts. - IV.3. The marginal role of the principle of proportionality of penalties. - V. Concluding remarks. | (Abstract) The Court of Justice provided a comprehensive interpretation of the dual criminality requirement under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA when it handed down its judgment in the KL judgment (case C-168/21 Procureur général près la cour d'appel d'Angers ECLI:EU:C:2022:558). The case at hand raised three intertwined legal issues. Firstly, whether the double criminality criterion is fulfilled where the relevant offences in the issuing and executing Member States aim at protecting different legal interests. Secondly, whether an accused person's refusal to surrender could be grounded on a partial lack of dual criminality. Lastly, whether the execution of a European Arrest Warrant may be denied in the event of a supervening disproportion of the penalty due to the said lack of double criminality. This Insight highlights how this ruling allows the executing authority significant flexibility when carrying out a double criminality check, with a view to minimising the applicability of the grounds for refusal in question. Comparing the KL judgment with the only existing precedent, it will be argued that the Court is increasingly oriented towards an abstract assessment of double criminality. A few final considerations will highlight the persistence of an effectiveness-oriented approach to mutual recognition and its exceptions.

The chosen topic, through its novelty in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters, presents both theoretical and practical importance through the procedural-criminal implications it determines. The author analyzes both synthetically and analytically the functionality of the institution of the European investigation order, determining its content, application limits and subjects involved in the criminal trial report, highlighting the aspects of non-correlation of the objective with the intended purpose. The conclusions materialized in proposals to complete and improve the existing legislative framework, represented by Law no. 236/2017.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(1), 405-421 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. La nécessité d'une harmonisation accrue de la procédure pénale européenne. - II. L'existence de garanties protégeant les intérêts des États. - II.1. Un droit primaire garantissant l'efficacité des enquêtes. - II.2. Un droit dérivé garantissant le respect des droits nationaux. - III. L'émergence de garanties protégeant les droits des individus. - III.1. Des garanties implicites fondées sur la Charte. - III.2. Des garanties rejetées par le droit pénal européen. | (Abstract) European Union criminal law covers cooperation in criminal matters and the investigative powers granted to European delegated prosecutors. Therefore, it provides for the use of investigative measures interfering with the right to privacy. Those measures are taken on the basis of national law implementing European Union law and they must comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. However, the Charter does not explicitly specify the guarantees applicable to such investigative acts. Moreover, the competences of the Euro-pean Union in criminal procedure are intended only to balance the effectiveness of European investigations and the interests of Member States. Therefore, secondary law does not directly aim at protecting fundamental rights. This situation is becoming increasingly problematic insofar as the case law of the Court of Justice itself tends to request guarantees regarding the use of those measures. For example, a minimum degree of suspicion is a requirement that must be met for those measures to be used. Similarly, targeted persons have to be notified of the measure and have access to effective remedies. Such requirements are currently rejected by Europe-an union secondary law.

The meaning of the general principles of EU law has been broadly developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union; however, for many years it had only limited competence in deciding criminal cases. The principle of direct effect is important for ensuring the efficient functioning of EU law. The aim of this research is to find out if and how this principle affects criminal justice. To reach this objective, the researchers examine how the substance and content of the principle, through the doctrine and the judgments of Court of Justice of the European Union, can influence national criminal law and criminal procedure. Afterwards, the actual impact of EU law on national criminal law is evaluated, taking Lithuania as an example. The analysis reveals that direct application of directives in material criminal law is highly unlikely, while in criminal procedural, law such a possibility is real if EU norms are clear, unconditional, and precise.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2020 5(3), 1251-1269 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. La question de l'indépendance des juges et des procureurs. - II. L'indépendance comme exigence primordiale pour la coopération judiciaire pénale. - II.1. Une garantie essentielle pour la protection des droits fondamentaux. - II.2. Un gage de confiance mutuelle entre autorités judiciaires. - III. L'indépendance comme exigence conditionnant l'exécution d'un MAE: les limites posées à la confiance mutuelle entre États membres. - III.1. Un risque réel de violation du droit fondamental à un tribunal indépendant justifiant l'inexécution d'un MAE: l'arrêt LM. - III.2. Un lien de subordination à l'égard de l'exécutif non nécessairement invalidant pour l'émission d'un MAE: l'arrêt OG et PI et ses suites. - IV. Conclusion. | (Abstract) As a core requirement of the fundamental right to a fair trial, judicial independence is of fundamental importance to ensure the proper conduct of criminal procedure and to uphold the rule of law. In this respect and despite their distinctive status, it is essential that national judges and prosecutors can act without influence during their mission. The requirement of independence has recently received increasing attention at EU level, notably in the context of the European Arrest Warrant mechanism following a series of preliminary rulings. This Article analyses the requirement of independence in the light of recent Court of justice rulings concerning judges and prosecutors, two key players in the criminal procedural law and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.