Search results

On 25 July 2018, the CJEU rendered an important judgment on the obligations of the executing authority in the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. Furthermore, the judgment interprets the refusal grounds of Art. 3 No. 2 and Art. 4 No. 3 FD EAW.

On 25 July 2018, the CJEU delivered its judgment on the non-execution of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) in cases of systemic deficiencies regarding the independence of the judiciary (Case C-216/18 PPU [“LM”]).

On 25 July 2018, the CJEU rendered afurther landmark judgment on the question as to which extent judicial authorities in the executing Member State can refuse surrender after a European Arrest Warrant if detention conditions in the issuing Member State risk violating the fundamental right against inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 4 CFR).

On 19 September 2018, the European Court of Justice (CJEU) decided on the impact of Brexit on the execution of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) issued by the UK (Case C-327/18 PPU).

On 2 May 2018, the CJEU rendered a judgment in Case C-574/15 (criminal proceedings against Mauro Scialdone). The case concerns the interpretation of Art. 4(3) TEU and Art. 325 TFEU, Council Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax (the “VAT Directive”) and the PIF Convention of 26 July 1995.

On 5 June 2018, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered its judgment in Case C-612/15– criminal proceedings against Nikoley Kolev, Stefan Kostadinov.

On the occasion of the reference for a preliminary ruling drafted by the Irish High Court, questioning recognition of a EAW issued by Poland because of the fundamental rights situation in the country, the Council of Bars and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) and the Federation of European Bars (FBE) issued a joint statement on the rule of law and the principle of mutual recognition.

On 3 May 2018, Advocate General (AG) Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe delivered a notable opinion on the scope of data protection in criminal law enforcement situations. According to the AG, Union law does not preclude investigative measures by which national authorities seek identification data from certain mobile phones held by electronic communication service providers, even if the criminal offense is not of a serious nature.

On 11 April 2018, the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party (WP29) adopted its opinion on the Commission proposals to establish a framework of interoperability between the EU information systems in the field of borders and visas and police and judicial cooperation, asylum and migration. The opinion must be seen in the context of other, nearly parallel statements issued by the EDPS and the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights.

On 16 April 2018, the EDPS presented his concerns on the recent Commission’s legislative proposals on establishing a framework to ensure interoperability between existing and future EU information systems. The EDPS’ contribution (Opinion 4/2018) follows up the reflection paper issued in November 2017, in which the EDPS already eyed the plans of the EU institutions on interoperability.