Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Security and Justice
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Content available remote

Znaczenie zasady wzajemnego zaufania w procesie tworzenia przestrzeni wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości

100%
Kamarad E.
Przegląd Zachodni
|
2020
|
issue 1 (374)
71-84
EN
The purpose of the article is to discuss the importance of mutual trust between EU Member states, which is key to the process of European integration. Without mutual trust it would be impossible to create an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ), which in this aspect applies to both the legal systems and the justice systems of the Member States. Mutual trust allows to assume that the legal system of each Member State guarantees the same level of protection of individuals and that law enforcement bodies carry out their tasks equally effectively. However, the level of mutual trust is not constant - one can observe its slow and systematic growth, but its level may as well decrease, which has recently occurred in the case of relations between Poland and other Member States. This condition has an adverse effect on the functioning of the AFSJ and causes the occurrence of many practical problems, which are presented in the article. The legal order was determined based on the formal-dogmatic method and presented using the descriptive method. The case study method was used when presenting CJEU rulings.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

The Principle of Mutual Trust in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Analysis of Selected Case Law

88%
Losy O., Podolska A.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2018
|
vol. 8
185-204
EN
The paper concerns the principle of mutual trust and its interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union as well as two other important European courts: the European Court of Human Rights and the German Constitutional Court. The paper presents the important change of direction in interpretation of the principle of mutual trust by the CJEU. Initially, the belief in the existence of mutual trust between member states was firm. Over time, however, it has turned out that even in the EU – which follows from a number of judgments of the ECtHR – violations of human rights sometimes happen. This dramatically undermines trust in foreign judicial systems. This led the CJEU to the conclusion that the principle of mutual trust is rebuttable and that in some circumstances limitations to the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust can be made. This conclusion can be treated as an answer in the specific ‘judicial dialogue’ of the CJEU with the ECtHR and the German Constitutional Court – the two latter courts seemed to notice earlier that mutual trust between member states cannot be blind and unconditional.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Interpretation of Art. 54 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement

75%
Losy O.
Adam Mickiewicz University Law Review
|
2019
|
vol. 9
EN
The paper discusses the problem of the ne bis in idem principle stipulated in the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Article 54 of the CISA makes the application of the principle ne bis in idem subject to the condition of execution of the penalty. An analogous condition is not provided for in the Charter. These differences caused doubts regardingthe application of the ne bis in idem principle and were subject of the question for preliminary ruling in the Spasic case (C-129/14 PPU). The paper contains a critical review of the reasoning of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this judgment. In addition, the article also contains an analysis of the CJEU’s decision in Case C-398/12 M. in which the CJEU has analysed the meaning of “final disposal” of the judgment in the context of the ne bis in idem principle. Based on the above judgments, the article presents arguments indicating that the reasoning of the CJEU on the conditions for the application of the ne bis in idem principle in judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is not consistent.
4
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Kryzys imigracyjny w UE w latach 2015–2017. Aspekty prawne i polityczne

45%
KOSMAN M. M.
Rocznik Integracji Europejskiej
|
2017
|
issue 11
279-294
EN
The immigration crisis that hit the European Union at the beginning of the second decadeof the 21st century, when to Europe began to come with unprecedented intensity immigrants fleeing violence or poverty, has inspired the preparation of this article. It reviews the most important international legal bases for refugees, beginning with the Geneva Convention of 1951. Particular attention has been given to the main acts of the Common European Asylum System and to the analysis of the major content of the main Council decisions on the relocation of immigrants from 2015 to 2016 as well as the agreement between the EU and Turkey on the return of illegal immigrants. The following is the statistics on the granting of international protection in the EU and the analysis of the content of Slovakia and Hungary’s complaints against relocation decisions. The article summarizes conclusions and recommendations on the management of the migration crisis.
PL
Inspiracją do przygotowania powyższego artykułu stał się kryzys imigracyjny, który dotknął Unię Europejską z początkiem drugiej dekady XXI wieku, gdy do Europy zaczęły przybywać z niespotykaną wcześniej intensywnością rzesze imigrantów uciekających przed przemocą bądź ubóstwem. Dokonano w nim przeglądu najistotniejszych podstaw prawnomiędzynarodowych dotyczących uchodźców, poczynając od konwencji genewskiej z 1951 r. Szczególna uwaga została położona na główne akty z zakresu Wspólnego Europejskiego Systemu Azylowego oraz analizę istotniejszych treści kluczowych decyzji Rady UE dotyczących relokacji imigrantów z lat 2015–2016, jak również porozumienia pomiędzy UE a Turcją na temat odsyłania nielegalnych imigrantów. W dalszej części dokonano przybliżenia danych statystycznych dotyczących przyznawania ochrony międzynarodowej w UE oraz analizy treści skarg Słowacji i Węgier przeciwko decyzjom o relokacji. Artykuł podsumowują wnioski i rekomendacje odnośnie zarządzania kryzysem migracyjnym.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.