Search Results

This chapter recalls that the principle of mutual recognition has been introduced in the two contexts for similar reasons. It is then sustained that despite the different objectives that underpin both areas of law and the so-called ‘special’ nature of criminal law, the principle of mutual recognition is suitable to fulfil its role in both contexts. It is argued that not so much the nature of the objectives is decisive but rather the balancing mechanism that the ECJ applies. The internal market and the area of freedom, security, and justice should not be seen as two totally different areas, but rather as complementary areas in which the free movement of persons and the protection of human rights take a central position. With regard to the ‘special’ nature of criminal law, one should bear in mind the EU integration process which prompts a reconsideration of concepts such as ‘sovereignty’ and ‘territoriality’

This chapter examines the interactions between the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) and development cooperation, and the external dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ). It suggests that the emerging picture is one of considerable congruence, both in terms of objectives and techniques. This creates a process of osmosis between different policies which has become so pronounced as to impinge upon their main character.

This chapter analyses the ECJ's ne bis in idem case law. First of all, this chapter assesses to what extent the ECJ balances the three elements that underpin the area of freedom, security, and justice – namely: freedom, security and justice – against each other. Then, attention is paid to the relationship between mutual recognition and mutual trust and the relationship between mutual recognition and harmonization. Subsequently, a terminological issue is being discussed, namely which concept(s) correspond(s) best to the ne bis in idem principle: ‘equivalence’, ‘mutual recognition’, and/or ‘the country of origin’. Finally, the chapter rounds up with an overview of the limits to the principle of mutual recognition, in particular the criteria included in Article 54 CISA, the margin of control for the Member States involved.

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) aims at offering its citizens an area without internal frontiers. That Treaty objective is a recent one—the 1957 ToR does not refer to any such concept. However, the steadily growing dynamics of European integration, notably the creation of the internal market as an area where the free movement of persons—in addition to goods, services, and capital—is ensured, has triggered the political wish and the practical need to provide citizens with a high level of security and justice in that area. The Union’s priorities were no longer focusing exclusively on economic goals, but also on how to safeguard the (fundamental) rights of its citizens across the Union (e.g. by preventing and combating cross-border crime). Therefore, Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters came into the Union’s focus, since the absence of controls of persons when crossing borders called upon compensation measures, as not only workers, students, and tourists enjoyed travelling freely across borders, but also perpetrators of crime.