Search results

1

Directive 2013/48/EU and the Requested Person’s Right to Appoint a Lawyer in the Issuing Member State in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings

100%

Glerum V.

Review of European and Comparative Law

|

2020

|

vol. 41

|

issue 2

7-33

PL

Directive 2013/48/EU gives persons who are subject to European arrest warrant proceedings the right to “dual representation”: not only the right of access to a lawyer in the executing Member State but also the right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State, whose limited role it is to provide information and advice to the lawyer in the executing Member State with a view to the effective exercise of the requested person’s rights under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA. The right to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State is supposed to contribute to facilitating judicial cooperation. This article takes a closer look at that right and tries to establish whether – and, if so, to what extent – that right does indeed facilitate judicial cooperation.

2

Detention Pending Execution of the European Arrest Warrant – Dutch and Polish Experience. Some Reflection from the Human Rights Perspective

63%

Glerum V., Wąsek-Wiaderek M.

Review of European and Comparative Law

|

2023

|

vol. 54

|

issue 3

89-124

EN

This article focuses on detention pending surrender, i.e. detention of the requested person in the executing Member State on the basis of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). It defines the scope of application of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights to such detention and analyses the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on time limits of keeping the requested person in detention in the executing MS as well as on the notion of “the executing judicial authority” entitled to decide on detention pending surrender. Both issues are explored with reference to national law and practice of the Netherlands and Poland. The article provides the answer to the question whether national provisions which limit the duration of detention pending surrender properly reflect the normative content of the framework decision on the EAW. The answer to this question is given with due regard to the standard of protection of the requested person stemming from Article 5 § 1 ECHR and Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Furthermore, the analyses focus on Dutch and Polish provisions concerning the authority entitled to decide on detention pending surrender and their compliance with the CJEU’s jurisprudence on the notion of “the executing judicial authority.” Recognising that detention is the basic measure for ensuring the effectiveness of surrender, we try to define the limits of its use in the EAW procedure, stemming from the requirements of protection of human rights.

3

EAW: Next Steps, Will Pandora’s Box Be Opened?

63%

Glerum V., Kijlstra H.

Review of European and Comparative Law

|

2023

|

vol. 54

|

issue 3

125-145

EN

The authors advocate operational improvement of the European Arrest Warrant system. When applying the judicial cooperation instruments concerning criminal matters, more attention should be devoted to the requirements of proportionality, effective judicial protection, and coherence. The power to issue an EAW should be more circumscribed whereas executing authorities should be allowed more flexibility in the decision making process as far as the execution of an EAW is concerned. The authors conclude by sketching amendments to the legal and practical framework and the efforts required to implement them as well as by addressing the issue of political feasibility.

Refine search results

3 Review of European and Comparative Law

3 Glerum V.

1 Kijlstra H.

1 Wąsek-Wiaderek M.

2 2023

1 2020

Directive 2013/48/EU and the Requested Person’s Right to Appoint a Lawyer in the Issuing Member State in European Arrest Warrant Proceedings

Detention Pending Execution of the European Arrest Warrant – Dutch and Polish Experience. Some Reflection from the Human Rights Perspective

EAW: Next Steps, Will Pandora’s Box Be Opened?