Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:39:44.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case C-182/15, Proceedings Relating to the Extradition of Aleksei Petruhhin (C.J.E.U.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2017

Filippo Fontanelli
Filippo Fontanelli*
Affiliation:
Filippo Fontanelli is Lecturer in International Economic Law, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2017 , pp. 147 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of International Law 

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.)

References

ENDNOTES

1 Case C-182/15, Aleksei Petruhhin, Judgment (Sept. 6, 2016), at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=183097&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=197713 [hereinafter Judgment].

2 Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures Between Member States, 2002 O.J. (L 190) 1, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, 2009 O.J. (L 81) 24 [hereinafter Framework Decision 2002/584].

3 Convention on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, Lat.-Rus., Art. 62, Feb. 3, 1993, at http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/protection/migration/4de4edc69/convention-legal-aid-legal-relations-civil-family-criminal-cases-adopted.html.

4 See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Art. 19, 2010 O.J. (C 83) 389.

5 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 60.

6 Id. ¶ 27.

7 Case C-135/08, Janko Rottman v. Freistaat Bayern, Judgment, 2010 ECR I-1449.

8 Loïc Azoulai, The “Retained Powers” Formula in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice: EU Law as Total Law?, 4 Eur. J. Legal Stud. 192, 196 (2011) (“It seems that there are no longer any reserved domains that are not subject to the ‘reservation’ that, in exercising their powers, Member States must abide by EU law.”).

9 Bruno de Witte, A Competence to Protect: The Pursuit of Non-Market Aims Through Internal Market Legislation, in The Judiciary, the Legislature and the EU Internal Market 25, 30 (Philip Syrpis ed., 2011).

10 Filippo Fontanelli, The Implementation of European Union Law by Member States Under Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 20 Colum. J. Eur. L. 193 (2014).

11 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 38.

12 Id. ¶ 40.

13 Id. ¶ 41.

14 Framework Decision 2002/584, supra note 2, pmbl. recital 1.

15 On the fallacies of the proportionality test, see Filippo Fontanelli, The Mythology of Proportionality in Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Internet and Fundamental Rights, 36 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 630 (2016).