Quid pro quo? : a comparative law perspective on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters / Jannemieke Ouwerkerk.
2011
KJE3795 .O93 2011 (Map It)
Available at Cellar
Formats
| Format | |
|---|---|
| BibTeX | |
| MARCXML | |
| TextMARC | |
| MARC | |
| DublinCore | |
| EndNote | |
| NLM | |
| RefWorks | |
| RIS |
Items
Details
Author
Title
Quid pro quo? : a comparative law perspective on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters / Jannemieke Ouwerkerk.
Published
Cambridge ; Portland, Or. : Intersentia, [2011]
Distributed
Portland, Or. : Distribution for the USA and Canada, International Specialized Book Services
Copyright
©2011
Call Number
KJE3795 .O93 2011
ISBN
9789400001763 (pbk.)
9400001762 (pbk.)
9400001762 (pbk.)
Description
xx, 318 pages ; 24 cm
System Control No.
(OCoLC)707230248
Bibliography, etc. Note
Includes bibliographical references (pages 301-313).
Record Appears in
Gift
Purchased from the income of the Szladits Fund
Gift
The Arthur W. Diamond Law Library
Purchased from the income of the Szladits Fund
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
v
List of Abbreviations
xix
Introduction
1.
What is this book about?
1
2.
Reasons to research
3
3.
Central question
5
4.
The structure of this book
6
5.
Research methods
10
5.1.
Internal comparison
11
5.2.
External comparison
11
5.3.
Terminology
14
pt. I
DEFINING MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: BETWEEN COMMUNITY LAW AND UNION LAW
ch. 1
The Principle of Mutual Recognition in European Community Law
17
1.
Introduction
17
2.
Mutual recognition in the internal market
19
2.1.
The introduction of mutual recognition in the context of goods markets
19
2.1.1.
The Cassis de Dijon judgment
20
2.1.2.
Exceptions to the rule of mutual recognition
21
2.2.
Mutual recognition in the context of the other internal market freedoms
23
2.2.1.
Recognition of diplomas
25
2.2.2.
Recognition of companies
25
2.2.3.
Recognition of driving licences
26
2.3.
Mutual trust, equivalence and harmonisation of legislation
28
2.4.
Defining mutual recognition in the internal market
30
2.4.1.
Consequential meaning
30
2.4.2.
Methodical meaning
31
3.
Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in civil and commercial matters
33
3.1.
Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
33
3.1.1.
The Brussels I Regulation
35
3.1.2.
The Brussels II-bis Regulation
36
3.1.3.
The Regulation on insolvency proceedings
38
3.1.4.
The European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
38
3.2.
The public policy exception
40
3.3.
Mutual trust and harmonisation of legislation
40
3.4.
Defining mutual recognition in civil and commercial matters
42
3.4.1.
Consequential meaning
42
3.4.2.
Methodical meaning
43
4.
Concluding remarks
43
ch. 2
The Principle of Mutual Recognition in European Union Law
45
1.
Introduction
45
2.
Mutual recognition in the Third Pillar: from Tampere to Lisbon
46
2.1.
Mutual recognition before Tampere
47
2.2.
From Tampere to Lisbon
49
2.3.
Flanking developments: mutual trust and harmonisation of legislation
51
3.
The analogy between mutual recognition in different fields of competence
54
3.1.
Criminal law and legislative competences in the European Union
55
3.2.
Towards a constitutional basis for mutual recognition in criminal matters
57
3.2.1.
A constitutional basis in the erstwhile Third Pillar?
58
3.2.1.1.
The Third Pillar as "complementary" to the First Pillar
60
3.2.2.2.
Mutual recognition in the Third Pillar: teleological deduction
61
3.2.2.3.
Tackling the absence of a reference in the former EU Treaty
63
3.2.2.
A constitutional basis in the Lisbon Treaty
64
4.
Defining mutual recognition in the context of criminal law
65
4.1.
Three examples of mutual recognition instruments
65
4.1.1.
Recognition in the pre-trial phase: Framework Decision on the European supervision order
65
4.1.2.
Recognition during the trial phase: Framework Decision on taking account of previous convictions
66
4.1.3.
Recognition in the post-trial phase: Framework Decision on mutual recognition of financial penalties
67
4.2.
Consequential meaning
68
4.3.
Methodical meaning
68
5.
Implementing mutual recognition in criminal matters: the need for a specific approach
69
5.1.
Restrictive impact on individuals
69
5.2.
A bigger need for mutual trust
72
5.3.
The condition of equivalence and the absence of a public policy exception
73
5.4.
Mutual recognition of evidence obtained abroad: the risk of a disturbed balance
76
6.
Concluding remarks
77
TRANSITIONAL PART. THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN UNION LAW: THE IDENTIFICATION OF OBSTACLES AND BOTTLENECKS
ch. 3
Implementing Mutual Recognition: Obstacles and Bottlenecks
81
1.
Introduction
81
2.
Implementing the principle of mutual recognition: an overview of legal instruments
82
2.1.
Mutual recognition of European arrest warrants
82
2.2.
Mutual recognition of European evidence warrants
83
2.3.
Mutual recognition of European supervision orders
85
2.4.
Mutual recognition of financial penalties
86
2.5.
Mutual recognition of confiscation orders
87
2.6.
Mutual recognition of custodial sanctions
88
2.7.
Mutual recognition of probation decisions and alternative sanctions
88
2.8.
Mutual recognition of the consequences of previous convictions
89
2.9.
Mutual recognition of protection orders
90
3.
The scope of mutual recognition in the light of the parameters
91
3.1.
The seriousness or "trans-borderness" of the underlying offence
91
3.2.
Requiring double criminality
93
3.3.
Specific arrangements for third parties, victims, and suspects to safeguard their rights in the context of mutual recognition proceedings
95
3.3.1.
Suspects
95
3.3.2.
Third parties
98
3.3.3.
Victims
98
3.4.
Common minimum standards to facilitate the mutual recognition of judicial decisions
99
3.5.
Direct or indirect enforcement of foreign judicial decisions
100
3.6.
Grounds to refuse recognition of foreign judicial decisions
102
3.7.
Liability arrangements in the event of acquittal
111
4.
Obstacles and bottlenecks in implementing mutual recognition
111
4.1.
The requirement of double criminality
111
4.2.
Common minimum standards
112
4.3.
Direct enforcement or exequatur
112
4.4.
Grounds for refusal
112
4.4.1.
Incoherency
113
4.4.2.
Ne bis in idem
113
4.4.2.1.
Ne bis in idem provisions
113
4.4.2.2.
Legislative initiatives
117
4.4.2.3.
Towards a uniform notion: ECJ case law
117
4.4.2.4.
Ne bis in idem and the mutual recognition instruments
124
5.
Concluding remarks
126
pt. II
RECOGNITION OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS IN CRIMINAL MATTERS IN THE FEDERATIONS OF SWITZERLAND AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: LESSONS FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION
ch. 4
Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters: the Case of Switzerland
129
1.
Introduction
129
2.
The federation of Switzerland
130
2.1.
Historical developments
130
2.2.
Political institutions
131
2.3.
Direct democracy and cooperative federalism
132
2.4.
The relationships between the Bund and the cantons
133
3.
The Swiss criminal justice system
136
3.1.
Basic principles
136
3.2.
Sources of law
136
3.2.1.
Federal sources of law
137
3.2.2.
Cantonal sources of law
138
3.3.
Judicial authorities
140
3.3.1.
Investigating authorities
140
3.3.2.
Prosecuting authorities
141
3.3.3.
Judiciary
142
3.3.4.
Federal and cantonal jurisdiction
143
4.
Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters?
144
4.1.
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters: from request to direct intervention
144
4.2.
Traditional judicial cooperation: mutual recognition of arrest warrants, orders to appear, and judgments
146
4.2.1.
Federal jurisdiction
148
4.2.2.
The principle of locus regit actum
149
4.2.3.
Refusal grounds
150
4.3.
The inter-cantonal Concordat
151
4.3.1.
General rules facilitating mutual legal assistance between cantons
153
4.3.2.
The simplified procedure on request: facilitating the inter-cantonal recognition of evidence warrants
154
4.3.3.
Direct intervention: beyond mutual recognition
155
4.4.
Judicial cooperation and mutual recognition in the single Code of Criminal Procedure
156
5.
Assessing the EU parameters
157
5.1.
The seriousness or "trans-bordemess" of the underlying offence
158
5.2.
Requiring double criminality
159
5.3.
Specific arrangements for third parties, victims and suspects to safeguard their rights in the context of mutual recognition proceedings
160
5.3.1.
Suspects
160
5.3.2.
Third parties
162
5.3.3.
Victims
162
5.4.
Common minimum standards to facilitate the mutual recognition of judicial decisions
162
5.4.1.
The unification process of substantive criminal law
163
5.4.2.
Towards a uniform code of criminal procedure
166
5.5.
Direct or indirect enforcement of foreign judicial decisions
168
5.6.
Grounds to refuse recognition of foreign judicial decisions
168
5.6.1.
Refuse a request for extradition
168
5.6.2.
Refusal as consequence of the locus regit actum principle
170
5.7.
Liability arrangements in the event of acquittal
171
6.
Concluding remarks
172
ch. 5
Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters: the Case of America
175
1.
Introduction
175
2.
The United States of America
176
2.1.
Historical developments
176
2.2.
Political institutions
178
2.3.
American federalism
179
2.4.
Federal and state relationships
181
3.
The American criminal justice system
182
3.1.
Basic principles
182
3.2.
Sources of law
184
3.2.1.
Federal sources of law
184
3.2.2.
State sources of law
185
3.3.
Judicial authorities
186
3.3.1.
Investigating authorities
187
3.3.2.
Prosecuting authorities
188
3.3.3.
Judiciary
189
3.3.4.
Federal and state jurisdiction; overlapping jurisdiction
190
4.
Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters?
191
4.1.
Interstate extradition
192
4.1.1.
Extradition based on federal law
193
4.1.1.1.
Fugitive from justice
195
4.1.1.2.
Mandatory extradition and gubernatorial discretion
195
4.1.1.3.
No rule of specialty
199
4.1.2.
The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act
199
4.1.2.1.
Requisition documents and authorities involved
200
4.1.2.2.
Fugitives and non-fugitives
201
4.1.2.3.
Arrest prior to extradition demand and warrantless arrest
202
4.1.2.4.
Waiver of extradition proceedings
202
4.1.2.5.
Revising efforts
203
4.2.
Interstate Agreement on Detainers
203
4.3.
Admissibility of evidence obtained in another US jurisdiction
206
4.4.
Rendition of witnesses
211
4.5.
Inter-jurisdictional transfer of prisoners
213
4.5.1.
Transfer of prisoners and due process requirements
216
4.6.
Interstate transfer of supervision
219
4.7.
Taking account of prior convictions from other US jurisdictions
221
5.
Assessing the EU parameters
222
5.1.
The seriousness or "trans-borderness" of the underlying offence
223
5.2.
Requiring double criminality
223
5.3.
Specific arrangements for third parties, victims and suspects to safeguard their rights in the context of mutual recognition proceedings
224
5.3.1.
Suspects
225
5.3.2.
Third parties
228
5.3.3.
Victims
228
5.4.
Common minimum standards to facilitate the mutual recognition of judicial decisions
229
5.5.
Direct or indirect enforcement of foreign judicial decisions
231
5.6.
Grounds to refuse recognition of foreign judicial decisions
232
5.7.
Liability arrangements in the event of acquittal
237
6.
Concluding remarks
238
ch. 6
Analysis: The European Union, Switzerland and the United States of America Compared
241
1.
Introduction
241
2.
The obstacles and bottlenecks in implementing mutual recognition: the European Union, Swiss and American approaches side by side
242
2.1.
Refusal grounds
242
2.2.
The double criminality requirement
245
2.3.
The exequatur procedure
246
2.4.
Common minimum standards
247
2.5.
Ne bis in idem and mutual recognition
248
2.6.
Provisional conclusion
249
3.
The fundamental similarities and differences explained and assessed
250
3.1.
Explaining the Swiss characteristics
250
3.2.
Value of the EU context
254
3.3.
Explaining the American characteristics
258
3.4.
Value in the EU context
264
4.
Lessons for the future of mutual recognition in the European Union
266
4.1.
Coherency
267
4.2.
The very existence of refusal grounds
269
4.3.
The positive effect of harmonised rules on the functioning of the mutual recognition principle should not be overestimated
270
4.4.
An EU-wide ne bis in idem principle should be accompanied by strong efforts to avoid and solve conflicts of jurisdiction
274
4.5.
Mutual legal assistance: the advantages of traditional solutions
277
4.6.
Who pays the bill? Money issues should not be underestimated
281
5.
Concluding remarks
285
Epilogue
287
Summary
291
Bibliography
301
Table of Cases
315