Pisani Archivi -

Processo penale e diritti sovranazionali | Criminal Procedure and supra-national Rights

PISANI M. | Brexit: la notifica di recesso ai sensi dell’art. 50 TUE non può diventare motivo di rifiuto d’esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo. Cambiano le regole di cooperazione giudiziaria?

Autore dell’articolo/Author
Maria Mercedes Pisani

Abstract

While the content of the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union still remains unknown (and the termination period will be possibly postponed), concerns raises around the applicable criteria to the judicial cooperation, especially regarding the execution of the European arrest warrant decision. The European arrest warrant was adopted to facilitate the extradition of individuals between Member States to face prosecution for a crime or to serve a sentence. In R.O. case it is questioned if a possible violation of human rights may come from the removal of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on the application of the instruments of mutual recognition and while primacy of EU law and its direct effect will be no longer applicable. The Court considered extensively human rights and how they are protected in international law, and stated that mutual confidence, related to the participation in the Council of Europe and to the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition of 1957 cannot be affected, in the European Union framework, by the sole notification of recess as per article 50 of TUE. However as the reversion to international agreements can significantly slow down the extradition proceedings, it would be desirable to negotiate a transitional arrangement similar to the ones applicable to non Member States that participate to Schengen area. It seem that Brexit will produce new criteria for judicial cooperation criteria in an European space. […]

1. Lo spazio giudiziario europeo, il reciproco riconoscimento, uno scenario europeo.- La data del 29 marzo 2019, termine indicato per il recesso del Regno Unito dall’Unione europea, si avvicina sempre più, senza alcuna certezza riguardo alle modalità di realizzazione della Brexit; al momento della redazione di questo commento è probabile una proroga del termine per negoziare un accordo di recesso, giacché l’alternativa, che da più parti si cerca di scongiurare, è una “no deal Brexit”. Lo scenario invita a speculare filosoficamente sulle molteplici ipotesi che si delineano, ed innanzitutto a considerare gli effetti di un “no deal”, con l’improvvisa cessazione dell’applicazione dei Trattati e del diritto dell’Unione europea, l’uscita dal mercato unico, la fine della libera circolazione e la cessazione della competenza giurisdizionale della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea (CGUE).

PISANI M.- Mandato d’arresto europeo: se vi è rischio di trattamento inumano e degradante l’Autorità Giudiziaria d’esecuzione può decidere di porre fine alla procedura di esecuzione

Autore dell’articolo/Author
Maria Mercedes Pisani

Abstract

In its decision on the cases Aranyosi (C-404/15) and Căldăraru (C-659/15 PPU), The Court of Justice of the European Union (EUCJ) stated that, although Member States are obliged to respect the mutual recognition principle and cannot introduce non-execution mechanisms which are not provided in the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), they are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the requested persons.
The Court of Luxemburg made it clear that fundamental rights, such as the prohibition of torture and ill treatments set out in Article 3 ECHR and in Article 4 of the EU Charter are absolute not derogable rights, thus Member States have the obligation to respect and protect them in every circumstance.
The decision supports the application of the proportionality principle in European criminal cooperation, that means that the European procedure on EAW should be activated when the scope is proportionate to the instrument and resources involved. The EUCJ considered some decisions of the ECHR relevant precedents in order to establish that there was a real risk that the requested persons, if surrendered to the requesting State, would be subjected to detention conditions that infringe their fundamental rights.
The decision requires national Judicial Authorities to defer the execution of an European Arrest Warrant until the requesting State provides sufficient information to ensure that the requested persons’ fundamental rights are effectively protected. If such information is insufficient or is not given within a reasonable period of time, it remains upon the Judicial Authority of the requested State to decide whether or not to complete the procedure. […]

La Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea si pronuncia ancora una volta in relazione alla procedura di esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo1, con una sentenza che mette nuovamente in risalto (ove ve ne fosse ancora il bisogno) la straordinaria rilevanza del dialogo tra le Corti internazionali e sovranazionali e quanto il diritto interno possa essere governato anche attraverso l’influenza di organismi diversi da quelli appartenenti strettamente al sistema dell’Unione europea.