Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: Converging Human Rights Standards, Mutual Trust and a New Ground for Postponing a European Arrest Warrant
In: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal JusticeSearch for other papers by Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi in
Current site
Google Scholar
This case-note provides a critical overview of Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 ppu, Aranyosi and Căldăraru. The cjeu tries to reconcile the principles of mutual trust and recognition with the protection of the fundamental rights of the requested person. Instead of introducing a new ground of refusal for a European Arrest Warrant based on the breach of fundamental rights, the cjeu opted for a ground of postponement. Furthermore, it brings its two-tier ‘systemic deficiencies’ test closer to the standards used by the ECtHR and encourages dialogue between the issuing and executing judicial authorities. Nevertheless, the scope of application of the new ground of postponement is not entirely clear and it is not yet sure what happens after the executing judicial authority postpones its decision due to evidence of a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the issuing Member State.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
50
K. Lenaerts, ‘The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, Fourth Annual Sir Jeremey Level Lecture (Oxford, 2015), 6, available online at https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/the_principle_of_mutual_recognition_in_the_area_of_freedom_judge_lenaerts.pdf (accessed 18 April 2016). See E. Herlin-Karnell, ‘Constitutional Principles in the eu Area of Freedom, Security an Justice’ in D. Acosta and C. Murphy (eds.) eu Security and Justice Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014); E. Brouwer, ‘Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation; Protection of Fundamental Rights in the eu and the Burden of Proof’, 9(1) Utrecht Law Review (2013) 135.
-
56
Lenaerts, loc. cit., p. 24 with reference to V. Mitsilegas, ‘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‘, 31 Yearbook of European Law (2012) 319–372, at 358.
-
58
Lenaerts, loc. cit., p. 12. See Opinion of ag Sharpston in C-396/11, Radu (2012) eu:c:2012:648, para. 60.
-
73
Klip, loc. cit., p. 356; Articles 67(3)–(4), 70, 81(1)–(2) and 82(1) tfeu; C-237/15 ppu, Lanigan, loc. cit., para. 27; C-411/10 and C-493/10, N.S. and Others, loc. cit., para. 79; Opinion 2/13, loc. cit., para. 191.
-
83
Mitsilegas, ‘The Symbiotic Relationship’, loc. cit., fn 69 et seq.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1022 | 147 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 498 | 22 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 594 | 57 | 3 |
Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: Converging Human Rights Standards, Mutual Trust and a New Ground for Postponing a European Arrest Warrant
In: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal JusticeSearch for other papers by Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
This case-note provides a critical overview of Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 ppu, Aranyosi and Căldăraru. The cjeu tries to reconcile the principles of mutual trust and recognition with the protection of the fundamental rights of the requested person. Instead of introducing a new ground of refusal for a European Arrest Warrant based on the breach of fundamental rights, the cjeu opted for a ground of postponement. Furthermore, it brings its two-tier ‘systemic deficiencies’ test closer to the standards used by the ECtHR and encourages dialogue between the issuing and executing judicial authorities. Nevertheless, the scope of application of the new ground of postponement is not entirely clear and it is not yet sure what happens after the executing judicial authority postpones its decision due to evidence of a real risk that the requested person will be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the issuing Member State.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 1022 | 147 | 14 |
| Full Text Views | 498 | 22 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 594 | 57 | 3 |
