Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:33:55.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Right to Liberty in European Union Law and Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 September 2016

Leandro MANCANO
Leandro MANCANO*
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the interaction between the application of mutual recognition in criminal matters and the right to liberty. The main argument is that the current content of the right to liberty in EU law is unsuitable for mutual recognition procedures. As for the structure of this article, firstly, the main features of mutual recognition as a method of inter-state cooperation in criminal matters are outlined. Secondly, the approach of the European Union (especially the Court of Justice) to the right to liberty is clarified. Thirdly, four mutual recognition instruments are analysed in light of the right to liberty: namely, the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant; the Transfer of Prisoners; the Probation Measures; and the European Supervision Order (ESO). The assessment confirms that the higher level of automaticity in judicial cooperation introduced by mutual recognition requires a rethink of the existing understanding of the right to liberty in EU law.

Keywords

right to libertymutual recognitioncriminal lawtransfer of persons
Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 18 , December 2016 , pp. 215 - 238
Copyright
© Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

For the completion of this article, I benefited from a fellowship at Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa. I wish to thank Alberto di Martino and Giuseppe Martinico for their wholehearted support. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

1 See MSS v Belgium and Greece, (Application no. 30696/09) (2011) 53 EHRR 2; NS v Secretary of State for the Home Department, C-411/10, and ME and Others v Refugee Applications Commissioner and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, C-493/10, EU:C:2011:865. See Brouwer, E, ‘Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation: Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof’ (2013) 9 (1) Utrecht Law Review 135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitsilegas, V, ‘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’ (2012) 31 (1) Yearbook of European Law 319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Mitsilegas, V, ‘Mutual Recognition, Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights After Lisbon’ in V Mitsilegas et al (eds), Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law (Edward Elgar, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitsilegas, V, ‘The Symbiotic Relationship Between Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice’ (2015) 7 (4) New Journal of European Criminal Law 457 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan, C-237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474, para 28; Melvin West, C-192/12 PPU, EU:C:2012:404, para 54; Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, C-399/11, EU:C:2013:107, para 36; Jeremy F. v Premier ministre, C-168/13 PPU, EU:C:2013:358, para 34.

4 Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 584/2002 [2002] OJ L190/1; Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 909/2008 [2008] OJ L327/27; Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 947/2008 [2008] OJ L337/102; Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 829/2009 [2009] OJ L294/20.

5 Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (Cassis de Dijon), C-120/78, EU:C:1979:42; Armstrong, K ‘Mutual Recognition’ in C Barnard and J Scott (eds), The Law of the Single European Market. Unpacking the Premises, (Hart Publishing, 2002)Google Scholar; Snell, J ‘The Internal Market and the Philosophies of Market Integration’ in C Barnard and S Peers (eds), European Union Law (Oxford University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

6 Rosas, A ‘Life after Dassonville and Cassis: Evolution but No Revolution’ in M Maduro and L Azoulai (eds), The Past and Future of EU Law: The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty (Hart Publishing, 2010)Google Scholar; Barnard, C, The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms, 4th ed (Oxford University Press, 2013), 171–177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Janssen, C, The Principle of Mutual Recognition in EU Law, (Oxford University Press, 2013), p 31 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Council Draft Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters [2001] OJ C12/1, p 2 ff.

8 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters [1968] OJ L299/32.

9 For a diachronic analysis, see Miettinen, S, ‘Onward Transfer under the European Arrest Warrant: Is the EU Moving Towards the Free Movement of Prisoners?’ (2013) 5 (1) New Journal of European Criminal Law 99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Fichera, M, ‘The European Arrest Warrant and the Sovereign State: A Marriage of Convenience?’ (2009) 15 (1) European Law Journal 79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Platcha, M, ‘Non-Extradition of Nationals: A Never-Ending Story?’ (1999) 13 (1) Emory International Law Review 77 Google Scholar; Deen-Racsmány, Z and Blekxtoon, R, ‘The Decline of the Nationality Exception in European Extradition? The Impact of the Regulation of (Non-) Surrender of Nationals and Dual Criminality under the European Arrest Warrant’ (2005) 13 (3) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen, G et al (eds), The Future of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the European Union (Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2009)Google Scholar; Mitsilegas, V, ‘The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU’ (2006) 43 (5) Common Market Law Review 1277 Google Scholar; Peers, S, ‘Mutual Recognition and Criminal Law in the European Union: Has the Council Got It Wrong?’ (2004) 41 (1) Common Market Law Review 5 Google Scholar; Lavenex, S, ‘Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy’ (2007) 14 (5) Journal of European Public Policy 762 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 On mutual recognition and extraterritoriality, see Nicolaidis, K and Shaffer, G, ‘Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government’ (2005) 68 (3) Law and Contemporary Problems 263 Google Scholar.

13 WJG Bauhuis v The Netherlands State, C-46/76, EU:C:1977:6; Criminal proceedings against Esther Renée Bouchara, née Wurmser, and Norlaine SA, C-25/88, EU:C:1989:187; The Queen v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Hedley Lomas (Ireland), C-5/94, EU:C:1996:205.

14 N Luhmann, La Fiducia (il Mulino, 2002); Fukuyama, F, Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity (Penguin, 1995)Google Scholar; G Majone (ed), Regulating Europe (Routledge, 1996).

15 Flore, D, ‘La Notion de Confiance Mutuelle: L’ ‘alpha’ Ou L’ ‘oméga’ D’une Justice Pénale Européenne?’ in G De Kerchove and A Weyembergh (eds), La Confiance Mutuelle Dans L’espace Pénal Européen - Mutual Trust in the European Criminal Area (Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 2005)Google Scholar; Mitsilegas, see note 1 above.

16 Douglas-Scott, S, ‘The European Union and Human Rights after the Treaty of Lisbon’ (2011) 11 (4) Human Rights Law Review 645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fabbrini, F, Fundamental Rights in Europe (Oxford University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 See, among many, Knook, A, ‘The Court, the Charter and the Vertical Division of Powers in the European Union’ (2005) 42 (2) Common Market Law Review 367 Google Scholar; Lenaerts, K, ‘Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2012) 8 (03) European Constitutional Law Review 375 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weiler, JHH, ‘The Transformation of Europe’ (1991) 100 (8) Yale Law Journal 2403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eeckhout, P, ‘The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Federal Question’ (2002) 39 (5) Common Market Law Review 945 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal, EU:C:2013:107; Åklagaren v Hans Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, EU:C:2013:105; Cruciano Siragusa v Regione Sicilia - Soprintendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo, C-206/13, EU:C:2014:126. Fontanelli, F, ‘Implementation of EU Law through Domestic Measures after Fransson: the Court of Justice Buys Time and ‘Non-preclusion’ Troubles Loom Large’ (2014) 39 (5) European Law Review 782 Google Scholar; Besselink, L, ‘The Parameters of Constitutional Conflict after Melloni’ (2014) 39 (4) European Law Review 531 Google Scholar; Pérez, A Torres, ‘Melloni in Three Acts: From Dialogue to Monologue’ (2014) 10 (2) European Constitutional Law Review 308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cavallone, G, ‘European Arrest Warrant and Fundamental Rights in Decisions Rendered in Absentia: The Extent of Union Law in the Case C-399/11 Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal’ (2014) 4 (1) European Criminal Law Review 19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; de Boer, N, ‘Addressing Rights Divergences under the Charter: Melloni’ (2013) 50 (4) Common Market Law Review 1083 Google Scholar.

19 See in particular Criminal proceedings against Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge, C-187/01 and C-385/01, EU:C:2003:87, para 33.

20 See NS and ME, EU:C:2011:865, para 190. Mitsilegas, see note 1 above, p 327 ff.

21 Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:198.

22 De Burca, G, ‘After the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: The Court of Justice as a Human Rights Adjudicator?’ (2013) 20 (2) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fontanelli, F, ‘National Measures and the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – Does curia.eu Know iura.eu?’ (2014) 14 (2) Human Rights Law Review 231 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fontanelli, F, ‘The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States Under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2014) 20 (2) Columbia Journal of European Law 194 Google Scholar.

23 Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, C-303/05, EU:C:2007:261, paras 53, 59. Geyer, F, ‘European Arrest Warrant: Advocaten Voor de Wereld VZW v. Leden van de Ministerraad’ (2008) 4 (1) European Constitutional Law Review 149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Leczykiewicz, D, ‘Constitutional Conflicts and the Third Pillar’ (2008) 33 (2) European Law Review 230 Google Scholar; Cloots, E, ‘Germs of Pluralist Judicial Adjudication: Advocaten Voor de Wereld and Other References from the Belgian Constitutional Court’ (2010) 47 (3) Common Market Law Review 645 Google Scholar; Sarmiento, D, ‘European Union: The European Arrest Warrant and the Quest for Constitutional Coherence’ (2008) 6 (1) International Journal of Constitutional Law 171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Art 52(7) CFREU.

25 White, R and Ovey, C, Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights, 5th ed (Oxford University Press, 2010), p 122 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grabenwarter, C, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: A Commentary (Beck/Hart Publishing, 2014), p 60 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mowbray, A, Cases and Materials on The European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd ed (Oxford University Press, 2007), p 245 ffGoogle Scholar.

26 Vogel, J and Spencer, JR, ‘Proportionality and the European Arrest Warrant’ (2010) 56 (6) Criminal Law Review 474 Google Scholar; Herlin-Karnell, E, The Constitutional Dimension of European Criminal Law (Hart Publishing, 2012)Google Scholar; Keijzer, N and van Sliedregt, E (eds), The European Arrest Warrant in Practice (TMC Asser Press, 2005)Google Scholar; Xanthopoulou, E, ‘The Quest for Proportionality for the European Arrest Warrant’ (2015) 5 (1) New Journal of European Criminal Law 32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Helenius, D, ‘Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters and the Principle of Proportionality. Effective Proportionality or Proportionate Effectiveness?’ (2014) 5 (3) New Journal of European Criminal Law 349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. 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, Brussels, 11.4.2011 COM (2011) 175 final; Council doc 17195/1/10 REV1, 17 December 2010; 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, Brussels, 11.4.2011 COM(2011) 175 final.

27 Eg Germany, Italy, Sweden, Croatia, Poland.

28 Eg Belgium, France, The Netherlands and the UK.

29 Weyembergh, A et al ‘European Added Value Assessment: The EU Arrest Warrant. Annex 1. Critical Assessment of the Existing European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision’, (EU, 2014) Research Paper, doi: 10.2861/44748, p 35 Google Scholar.

30 Council Directive (EU) No 2014/41 [2014] OJ L130/1.

31 Amuur v France (Application no. 19776/92) (1996) 22 EHRR 533, paras 50–54.

32 A di Martino, ‘La Disciplina Dei CIE è Incostituzionale’ (Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, 11 May 2012).

33 However, other instruments of this kind can also be find outside the judicial cooperation within the EU; eg the Nordic Arrest Warrant: Mathisen, G, ‘Nordic Cooperation and the European Arrest Warrant: Intra-Nordic Extradition, the Nordic Arrest Warrant and Beyond’ (2010) 79 (1) Nordic Journal of International Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Art 66 of the 1990 Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement refers to the possibility for Member States to extradite their nationals without extradition formalities (as long as the surrendered has agreed before a court and s/he has been informed of his/her right to the extradition procedure). Also the 1996 EU Convention on Extradition between Member States was aimed at limiting the possibility of application of the nationality ban.

35 Concerning the factors leading to the prioritisation of the EAW, scholars also mention the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which distinguishes the state-to-state extradition from the surrender to the ICC, with the latter excluding the possibility of a nationality exception.

36 However, this view has been strongly criticised. See in this respect Impalà, F, ‘The European Arrest Warrant in the Italian Legal System. Between Mutual Recognition and Mutual Fear within the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2005) 1 (2) Utrecht Law Review 56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 For a comparison of the English and French systems, see Spencer, JR, ‘Implementing the European Arrest Warrant: A Tale of How Not to Do It’ (2009) 30 (3) Statute Law Review 184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a specific analysis of the Italian case, see Marin, L, ‘The European Arrest Warrant in the Italian Republic’ (2008) 4 (2) European Constitutional Law Review 251 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Komárek, J, ‘European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: In Search of the Limits of Contrapunctual Principles’ (2007) 44 (1) Common Market Law Review 9 Google Scholar; Deen-Racsmány, Z, ‘The European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender of Nationals Revisited: The Lessons of Constitutional Challenges’ (2006) 14 (3) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 584/2002 [2002] OJ L 190/1, Art 1(3) and (2).

40 Ibid, Arts 17, 23 and 24.

41 Ibid, Art 12.

42 Ibid, Art 26.

43 Ibid, Art 18.

44 Ibid, Art 3.

45 This provision has given rise to a number of highly discussed preliminary rulings, on the part of the Court. See Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski, C-66/08, EU:C:2008:437; Dominic Wolzenburg, C-123/08, EU:C:2009:616; Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, C-42/11, EU:C:2012:517. For comment, see Herlin-Karnell, E, ‘European Arrest Warrant Cases and the Principles of Non-Discrimination and EU Citizenship’ (2010) 73 (5) The Modern Law Review 824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitsilegas, see note 1 above, p 338 ff; Marguery, TP, ‘EU Citizenship and European Arrest Warrant: The Same Rights for All?’ (2011) 27 (73) Merkourios 84 Google Scholar; Janssen, see note 6 above, p 207 ff.

46 See, eg Gaetano Mantello, C-261/09, EU:C:2010:683; Melvin West, EU:C:2012:404; Jeremy F v Premier ministre, EU:C:2013:358.

47 Proceedings relating to the execution of European arrest warrants issued against Ciprian Vasile Radu, C-396/11, EU:C:2013:39.

48 Radu, AG’s Opinion, EU:C:2012:648, para 83. The AG proposed this test instead of that of the ECtHR, according to which execution may be opposed in the case of ‘flagrant denial’ of fair trial in the requested country, or where a potential breach is established ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

49 Radu, EU:C:2013:39, para 43.

50 Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan, C-237/15 PPU, EU:C:2015:474.

51 Ibid, para 50.

52 Ibid, para 53 ff.

53 Aranyosi and Căldăraru, EU:C:2016:198.

54 Melloni, EU:C:2013:107.

55 Aranyosi and Căldăraru, EU:C:2016:198, para 101.

56 Mancano, L, ‘Another Brick in the Whole. The Case-Law of the Court of Justice on Free Movement and Its Possible Impact on European Criminal Law’ (2016) 8 (1) Perspectives on Federalism 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p 12 ff.

57 Weyembergh et al, see note 29 above.

58 Ibid, p 50 ff.

59 Aranyosi and Căldăraru, AG’s Opinion, EU:C:2016:140, paras 30–34.

60 However, ECtHR case law has significantly improved over the years, and has lowered the threshold required especially with regard to the burden of proof. See on this Moreno-Lax, V, ‘Dismantling the Dublin System: M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece’ (2012) 14 (1) European Journal of Migration and Law 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mallia, P, ‘Case of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece: A Catalyst in the Re-thinking of the Dublin II Regulation’ (2011) 30 (3) Refugee Survey Quarterly 107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Chahal v The United Kingdom (Application no. 22414/93) (1996), 23 EHRR 413, para 74.

62 The FD on the Transfer of Prisoners has been also subject to a reference for a preliminary ruling. See, Criminal proceedings against Atanas Ognyanov, C-554/14 [2015] OJ C73/11.

63 Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 909/2008 [2008] OJ L327/27, Rec 5, Art 4.

64 Ibid, Art 3.

65 Ibid, Art 6.

66 For an historical analysis, see Neveu, S, ‘Probation Measures and Alternative Sanctions in Europe: From the 1964 Convention to the 2008 Framework Decision’ (2013) 4 (1–2) New Journal of European Criminal Law 134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 947/2008 [2008] OJ L337/102, Rec 8.

68 For consideration on probation in Europe, see Durnescu, I, ‘The Future of Probation in Europe: Common in the Middle and Diverse at the Edge’ (2013) 60 (3) Probation Journal 316 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Durnescu, I and Stout, B, ‘A European Approach to Probation Training: An Investigation into the Competencies Required’ (2011) 58 (4) Probation Journal 395 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 See note 67 above, Arts 13–16.

70 Cape, E et al (eds), Suspects in Europe. Procedural Rights at the Investigative Stage of the Criminal Process in the European Union (Intersentia, 2007)Google Scholar; van Kalmthout, A M et al (eds), Pre-trial Detention in the European Union. An Analysis of Minimum Standards in Pre-trial Detention and the Grounds for Regular Review in the Member States of the EU (Wolf Legal Publishers, 2009)Google Scholar.

71 Council Framework Decision (JHA) No 829/2009 [2009] OJ L294/20, Rec 3.

72 Ibid, Art 16.

73 Ibid, Art 18.

74 For critical considerations on this aspect, see Mitsilegas, V, ‘The Third Wave of Third Pillar’ (2009) 34 (4) European Law Review 523 Google Scholar, p 541 ff.

75 Council Directive (EU) No 2010/64 [2010] OJ L280/1. Vogler, R, ‘Lost in Translation: Language Rights for Defendants in European Criminal Proceedings’ in S Ruggeri (ed), Human Rights in European Criminal Law (Springer, 2014)Google Scholar.

76 Council Directive (EU) No 2012/13 [2012] OJ L142/1. S Quattrocolo, ‘The Right to Information in EU Legislation’ in Ruggeri (ed), ibid.

77 Council Directive (EU) No 2013/48 [2013] OJ L294/1. See L Bachmaier Winter, ‘The EU Directive on the Right to Access to a Lawyer: A Critical Assessment’, in Ruggeri (ed), ibid.

78 See Spronken, T et al, EU Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings (Maklu, 2009)Google Scholar; Guild, E and Marin, L (eds), Still Not Resolved? Constitutional Issues of the European Arrest Warrant (Wolf Legal Publishers, 2009)Google ScholarPubMed.

79 See note 67 above, Art 12 (2) and note 71 above, Art 12 (3).

80 However, the FD on Probation Measures states that a new time limit should be established by the authority of the executing state (see note 67 above, Art 12 (2)).

81 On the state of play of implementation of these FDs at national level, see the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions on custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty, on probation decisions and alternative sanctions and on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention, Brussels, 5.2.2014 COM(2014) 57 final.