Search results

At the JHA Council meeting of 7 June 2019, the EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator (EU CTC) updated ministers on the implications of the new generation of wireless technology 5G on law enforcement and judicial operations.

In a statement of 29 May 2019, the CCBE looks into the impact of the CJEU’s judgements of 27 May 2019 on the concept of judicial authority on the debated proposal for a Regulation on European Production and Preservation Orders for e-evidence in criminal matters. The CCBE argues that the exclusion of public prosecution offices not possessing the necessary independence to be a judicial authority underpins the arguments against the legality of the e-evidence proposal.

Following a request to the EP LIBE Committee, the EDPB and the EDPS adopted a joint initial legal assessment of the impact of the US CLOUD Act on the EU legal data protection framework and the mandate for negotiating an EU-US agreement on cross-border access to electronic evidence for judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The legal assessment focuses on compliance of the US CLOUD Act with the requirements of Arts. 6, 48, and 49 of the GDPR.

After the respective recommendations put forward by the Commission (see eucrim 1/2019, p. 41), the Council gave two mandates to the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the EU agreements on access to e-evidence. The mandates endorsed on 6 June 2019 refer to:Conclusion of …

The European Parliament and the Council have established the legal framework that will facilitate the exchange of information on past convictions of third-country nationals (TCNs). The new legislation responds to the problem that the current ECRIS, which was put in place in 2012, does not sufficiently address the particularities of requests concerning third-country nationals.

In a judgement delivered on 24 June 2019 in case C-573/17, the CJEU made fundamental statements on consequences of the primacy of Union law, the importance of interpretation in conformity with Union law, and the extent of limits to these principles. The legal background …

Following the judgments of the CJEU in the case C-509/18 (PF) and Joined Cases C-508/18 (O.G.) & C-82/19 PPU (P.I.) - clarifying the criteria as to when public prosecution offices can be regarded as judicial authority within the meaning of Art. 6(1) FD EAW - Austria, Denmark, Italy, and Sweden issued notes clarifying the status of their public prosecution offices, which are to be regarded as judicial authorities in the opinion of these Member States.

On 25 July 2019, the Commission sent reasoned opinions to Ireland for having failed to transpose a number of framework decisions strengthening judicial cooperation in criminal matters and implementing the principle of mutual recognition.

The Romanian Council Presidency continued the debate on the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters. Following the Council conclusions on mutual recognition in December 2018, it compiled a report giving an overview of the current challenges in EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

The Finnish Council Presidency, which began on 1 July 2019, continued discussions initiated by previous Presidencies on how more effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters can be ensured and how current obstacles to the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition can be overcome. One particular focus is on alternatives to detention.