Search results

The concept of “national security” is often used in modern democratic societies to justify intrusive surveillance measures or other interference in an individual’s fundamental rights. A universally accepted definition of national security is lacking, however, which makes it difficult for courts to review state actions …

On 3 April 2019, the Commission registered a European citizens’ initiative called “Respect for the rule of law within the European Union.”The European citizens’ initiative is a democratic participation tool by which citizens may influence EU policy. It was introduced by the Lisbon Treaty. …

On 3 April 2019, the Commission published a Communication entitled “Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union.” The Communication aims at triggering a reflection process on how the EU toolbox for defending and maintaining the fundamental value of the rule of law in …

Polish legislation lowering the retirement age of Supreme Court judgesviolates EU law, according to the opinion of Advocate General EvgeniTanchev. The opinion was released on 11 April 2019 and concerns one of three infringement procedures that have, in the meantime, been launched by the …

The Commission has targeted another aspect of judicial reform in Poland. On 3 April 2019, the Commission launched a new infringement procedure against Poland. It addresses the recently introduced disciplinary regime for judges.The Commission believes that the disciplinary regime is contrary to the obligations …

“More countries declined than improved in overall rule of law performance for the second year in a row, continuing a negative slide toward weaker rule of law around the world.” This is one of the main findings of the annual worldwide rule of law index …

After Poland and Hungary, Romania is likely to become the third EU country that may face the consequences of the EU’s Article 7 procedure (for this procedure, see eucrim 2/2018, p. 80 and the article by Cassese, eucrim 1/2018, p. 72). After the Romanian …

If the national legislation of an EU Member State does not provide for legal remedies, by means of which the substantive reasons for an investigative measure requested by a European Investigation Order (EIO), cannot be challenged, this Member State is not entitled to use the EIO instrument. This far-reaching legal ramification was proposed by Advocate General Yves Bot in his opinion of 11 April 2019 in case C-324/17 (criminal proceedings against Ivan Gavanozov)

On 30 April 2019, AG Sánchez-Bordona presented his opinion in case C-128/18 (Dumitru-Tudor Dorobantur). The request for a preliminary ruling goes back to a demand by the Federal Constitutional Court that the referring court must ask the CJEU to further determine the factors relevant to the assessment of the detention conditions in the issuing State.

In its judgment of 12 February 2019, the CJEU dealt with the implication of non-compliance with the time limits for the decision to execute a European Arrest Warrant on maintaining the requested person’s extradition detention. The CJEU ultimately had to decide whether the Dutch law implementing Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant (FD EAW) and the case law of the Amsterdam courts could be upheld against Art. 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR).