Search results

On 9 December 2020, the European Commission published a Communication on the Counter-Terrorism Agenda of the EU. It sets out a four-pillar strategy to anticipate, prevent, protect, and respond to terrorist threats.(1) Anticipation of terrorist threatsThe strategy underlines the importance of the …

On Friday 19 February, FRA will present and discuss the results of the first-ever EU-wide survey on crime victimisation. It promises key insights that will guide policy-makers in shaping their victim support measures.

Alongside conclusions on internal security ( → separate news item under “Security Union”), the Council adopted conclusions on 14 December 2020 pointing the ways towards enhancing cross-border law enforcement/police cooperation.

The CJEU ruled that the German public prosecutor's offices may issue European Investigation Orders (EIOs) despite being contingent upon individual instructions from the executive. In the context of the EIO Directive the situation is different as to the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, the CJEU argued.

Backing two constitutional complaints, the German Federal Constitutional Court reproached two courts for not having adequately applied the CJEU's test in Arranyosi & Căldăraru regarding insufficient detention conditions in Romania. The decision is remarkable because the FCC accepts for the first time in relation to European criminal law that the fundamental rights of the German constitution are not the yardstick for examination but instead the fundamental rights of the CFR.

According to the CJEU, Dutch public prosecutors are not an “executing judicial authority,” as they may be subject to individual instructions from the Dutch Minister of Justice. Therefore, the Dutch public prosecutor was not entitled to consent to an exception to the speciality rule (Art. 27 FD EAW). Herewith, the CJEU clarifies its case law on the requirements of independence, so that prosecution services can be ragarded "judicial authority" within the FD EAW.

On 17 December 2020, the CJEU decided that a court executing an EAW is not entitled to refuse surrender if the issuing state does not fulfil the requirements of Directive 343/2016 on the defendant’s right to be present at trial. The sole yardstick is Art. 4a FD EAW.

EU Member States may not impose a general ban on surrender, despite growing doubts about the independence of the Polish judiciary. The CJEU ruled on 17 December 2020 that the execution of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) may still only be refused if the person concerned runs a real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial.

On 1 December 2020, the Council agreed on conclusions how to meet the current challenges and move forward regarding the European Arrest Warrant and extradition procedures. They set out how the effectiveness of the main instrument of judicial cooperation within the EU on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition could be improved. The conclusions deal with five main topics