1. Definition of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters

See, for example Armstrong (2002), pp. 225–268; Schmidt (2008); Kerber and Van den Bergh (2012), pp. 121–146; Janssens (2013).

At the time of proceedings the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 20th February 1979—case 120/78—Cassis de Dijon (Rewe-Zentral AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein). In-depth analysis see, for example : Armstrong (2002), p. 7 et seq.; Barnard (2007), p. 111 et seq.; Craig and De Búrca (2015), p. 674 et seq.

Details see, for example: Weiss and Kaupa (2014), Reich et al. (2015) and Funta (2015).

Ghosh (2014), p. 190.

Nebbia (2004), p. 96.

Commission of the European Communities (1999): ‘Mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 299 final, p. 3.

Díez (2015), p. 34.

Klamert (2014), p. 22.

Klimek (2012), p. 1361.

Ivor et al. (2013), p. 515; Romža (2015), p. 79 ; Vermeulen and De Bondt (2015), p. 119.

Záhora (2009), p. 1053.

Calderoni (2010), p. 17.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 4.

Mitsilegas (2006b), p. 279.

Allegrezza (2010), p. 572.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2000) 495 final, p. 5.

For example: Point 35 of the Tampere conclusions. See: European Council (1999): ‘Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council 15th–16th October 1999, European Council’, available in: Vermeulen (2005), pp. 327–341.

For example: Recital 6 of the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18th June 2002; Recital 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. Official Journal of the European Union, L 195/45 of 2nd August 2003; Recital 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24th February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 76/16 of 22nd March 2005; Recital 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6th October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/59 of 24th November 2006; Recital 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 327/27 of 5th December 2008; Recital 2 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 337/102 of 16th December 2008; Recital 1 of the Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 350/72 of 30th December 2008; Recital 2 of the Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3rd April 2014 regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130/1 of 1st May 2014.

For example: Commission of the European Communities (1999): ‘Mutual recognition in the context of the follow-up to the Action Plan for the Single Market’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 299 final, p. 2; Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 3; Programme of Measures to Implement the Principle of Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Criminal Matters. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 12/10 of 15th January 2001; European Commission (2010): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the right to information in criminal proceedings – Impact assessment’, Commission staff working document accompanying the Proposal, SEC(2010) 907, p. 7; European Commission (2011): ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights of access to a lawyer and of notification of custody to a third person in criminal proceedings – Impact assessment’, Commission staff working paper accompanying the Proposal, SEC(2011) 686, p. 3; European Commission (2013): ‘Proposal for measures on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings – Impact assessment’, Commission staff working document accompanying the Proposal, SWD(2013) 478 final, p. 9; European Commission (2013): ‘Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Proposal for a on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings – Impact assessment’, Commission staff working document accompanying the Proposal, SWD(2013) 480 final, pp. 7 and 17.

For example: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 4; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 1st December 2008—case C-388/08 PPU—Criminal proceedings against Artur Leymann and Aleksei Pustovarov, para. 49; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West, paras 8 and 55; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 6; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 6; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier minister, para. 36.

For example: Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—case C-288/05—Staatsanwaltschaft Augsburg v Jürgen Kretzinger, para. 10; View of Advocate General Bot—case C-66/08—Criminal Proceedings against Szymon Kozłowski, paras 13 and 93; Opinion of Advocate General Yves Bot—case C-123/08—Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Dominic Wolzenburg, paras 16 and 130; Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston—case C-396/11—Ministerul Public—Parchetul de pe lângă Curtea de Apel Constanţa v Ciprian Vasile Radu, para. 34; Opinion of Advocate General Bot—case C-216/14—Criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci, para. 30.

Recital (No. 5) of the Introduction to the Programme of Measures to Implement the Principle of Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Criminal Matters. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 12/10 of 15th January 2001.

Miettinen (2013), p. 177.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 17.

Asp (2005), p. 31. It should be noted that also contrary approach can be observed. For example, De Bondt and Vermeulen argue that mutual recognition and harmonisation are not to be seen as alternatives, but rather as complementary. See: De Bondt and Vermeulen (2009), p. 94.

Murphy (2011), p. 225.

Kaczorowska (2008), p. 123.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/47 of 30th March 2010.

Article 67(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. In comparison, as regards judicial co-operation in civil matters , the Treaty stipulates that the EU ‘shall facilitate access to justice, in particular through the principle of mutual recognition of judicial and extrajudicial decisions in civil matters’ (Article 67(4) of the Treaty).

Article 70 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon.

Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. In comparison, as regards judicial co-operation in civil matters , the Treaty stipulates that the EU ‘shall develop judicial co-operation in civil matters having cross-border implications, based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and of decisions in extrajudicial cases. Such co-operation may include the adoption of measures for the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States’ (Article 81(1) of the Treaty).

Baca (2014), p. 478.

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Article 81(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Article 82(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Article 82(2)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

See: Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315/57 of L 14th November 2012. The purpose of the Directive is to ensure that victims of crime receive appropriate information, support and protection and are able to participate in criminal proceedings. Member States of the EU shall ensure that victims are recognised and treated in a respectful, sensitive, tailored, professional and non-discriminatory manner, in all contacts with victim support or restorative justice services or a competent authority, operating within the context of criminal proceedings (Article 1(1) of the Directive).

Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 280/1 of 26th October 2010.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/389 of 30th March 2010. In-depth analysis see: Peers et al. (2014).

Recital 32 of the Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 142/1 of 1st June 2012.

Recital 40 of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the right to information in criminal proceedings.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello, para. 36; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge, para. 29; Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre, para. 36.

Sommermann (2013), p. 169.

Hamuľák (2011), p. 35.

Mitsilegas (2009), p. 119; see also: Mitsilegas (2006a), pp. 1281–1282.

Peers (2004), p. 5.

Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997.

Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321/E/5 of 29th December 2006.

Article 31(a)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam; Article 31(a)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Nice; now repealed by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Klučka et al. (2004), p. 371.

Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam; Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Nice; now repealed by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam; Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Nice; now repealed by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Klimek (2015), p. 241.

Calderoni (2010), p. 5.

Grzelak (2008), p. 127.

Treaty Establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997; also the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321/E/37 of 29th December 2006.

Pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.

Borgers (2007), pp. 1364 and 1365.

For example: European Convention on the Punishment of Road Traffic Offences. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 52 [1964], Strasbourg, 30th November 1964; European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 70 [1970], The Hague, 28th May 1970; Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 112 [1983], Strasbourg, 21st March 1983.

Calderoni (2010), p. 8.

Calderoni (2010), pp. 8 and 9.

Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22nd June 2002.

Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24th October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. Official Journal of the European Union, L 300/42 of 11th November 2008.

Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25th October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/8 of 11th November 2004.

Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA of 19th July 2002 on combating trafficking in human beings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 203/1 of 1st August 2002. However, it was repealed by the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101/1 of 15th April 2011.

Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA of 22nd December 2003 on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. Official Journal of the European Union, L 13/44 of 20th January 2004. However, it was repealed by the Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/1 of 17th December 2011.

Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector. Official Journal of the European Union, L 192/54 of 31st July 2003.

Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26th February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States. Official Journal of the European Union, L 93/23 of 7th April 2009.

Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15th March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 82/1 of 22nd March 2001. However, it was repealed by the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315/57 of 14th November 2012.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 16th June 2005—case C-105/03—Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino.

Fenyk and Svák (2008), p. 77.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Firenze by order of that Court of 3rd February 2003 in the criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino.

Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15th March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 82/1 of 22nd March 2001. The Framework Decision was repealed by the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315/57 of 14th November 2012.

Klimek (2015), p. 245.

Judgment Pupino, paras 43 and 61. It should be noted that the doctrine of indirect horizontal direct effect was established by the case of Von Colson—Judgment of the Court Justice of the European Communities of 10th April 1984—case 14/83—Sabine von Colson and Elisabeth Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen. The Court of Justice emphasised that national judges are obliged to interpret national law in the light of the text and objectives of Community law, which in this particular case was a directive; see: Kaczorowska (2013), p. 331.

Opinion of Advocate General Kokott—case C-105/03—Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino, para. 36.

Hamuľák (2011), p. 35.

Zurek (2012), p. 68.

Fletcher et al. (2008), pp. 35 and 37.

Cano (2008), p. 60.

For example: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 4th December 1974—case 41–74—Yvonne van Duyn v Home Office.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad.

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18th July 2002.

Sarmiento (2008), p. 171.

Act of 19th December 2003 on the European arrest warrant [French: Loi du 19 décembre 2003 relative au mandat d’arrêt européen; Dutch: Wet van 19 December 2003 betreffende het Europees aanhoudingsbevel]; details on national legislation available in English—Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Evaluation report on the fourth round of mutual evaluations: “The practical application of the European arrest warrant and corresponding surrender procedures between Member States”: Report on Belgium’, document No. 16454/2/06, REV2.

Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997.

Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13th July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld and the Council of Ministers. Official Journal of the European Union, C 271/14, 29.10.2005.

Pollicino (2008), p. 1338.

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad, para. 30.

Van Sliedregt (2007), p. 251.

Geyer (2008), p. 151.

Herlin-Karnell (2007), p. 1153.

Guild and Geyer (2008), p. 11.

Geyer (2008), p. 151.

Geyer (2008), p. 153.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd September 2009—case C-166/07—European Parliament v Council of the European Union.

Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Article 81(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon .

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13th June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 190/1 of 18th July 2002.

Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. Official Journal of the European Union, L 195/45 of 2nd August 2003.

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24th February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 76/16 of 22nd March 2005.

Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6th October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 328/59 of 24th November 2006.

Article 1 of the Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA.

Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 327/27 of 5th December 2008.

Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27th November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions as amended by the Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 337/102 of 16th December 2008.

Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on mutual recognition of probation measures and alternative sanctions.

Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA of 18th December 2008 on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 350/72 of 30th December 2008.

Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23rd October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/20 of 11th November 2009.

Article 1 of the Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA on mutual recognition of supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.

Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on the European protection order. Official Journal of the European Union, L 338/2 of 21st December 2011. It should be mentioned that as far as the civil co-operation is concerned, in 2013 was introduced the ‘European protection order in civil matters ’—see: the Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12th June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 181/4 of 29th June 2013.

Article 1 of the Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order.

Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3rd April 2014 regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 130/1 of 1st May 2014.

Article 1(1) of the Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European investigation order in criminal matters

Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the EU shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at EU level—see: Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30th March 2010. The institutions of the EU shall apply the principle of subsidiarity as laid down in the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/206 of 9th May 2008.

Under the principle of proportionality, the content and form of EU action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties—see: Article 5(4) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30th March 2010. The institutions of the EU shall apply the principle of proportionality as laid down in the Protocol (No 2) on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/206 of 9th May 2008.

For example: the Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA of 13th June 2002 on combating terrorism as amended by the Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 164/3 of 22nd June 2002; the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101/1 of 15th April 2011; the Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography , and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/1 of 17th December 2011; the Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA of 25th October 2004 laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/8 of 11th November 2004; the Council Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA of 22nd July 2003 on combating corruption in the private sector. Official Journal of the European Union, L 192/54 of 31st July 2003; the Council Framework Decision 2001/413/JHA of 28th May 2001 on combating fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 149/1 of 2nd June 2001; the Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12th August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 218/8, 14th August 2013; the Council Framework Decision 2008/841/JHA of 24th October 2008 on the fight against organised crime. Official Journal of the European Union, L 300/42 of 11th November 2008.

Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway. Official Journal of the European Union, L 292/13 of 21st October 2006.

Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20th October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 280/1 of 26th October 2010.

Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Official Journal of the European Union, L 142/1 of 1st June 2012.

Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22nd October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. Official Journal of the European Union, L 294/1 of 6th November 2013.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 3rd May 2007—case C-303/05—Advocaten voor de Wereld VZW v Leden van de Ministerraad.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 18th July 2007—case C-288/05—Criminal proceedings against Jürgen Kretzinger.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17th July 2008—case C-66/08—Proceedings concerning the execution of a European arrest warrant issued against Szymon Kozłowski.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 1st December 2008—case C-388/08 PPU—Criminal proceedings against Artur Leymann and Aleksei Pustovarov.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 12th August 2008—case C-296/08 PPU—Extradition proceedings against Ignacio Pedro Santesteban Goicoechea.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 6th October 2009—case C-123/08—Dominic Wolzenburg.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16th November 2010—case C-261/09—Gaetano Mantello.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 21st October 2010—case C-306/09—I. B.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 28th June 2012—case C-192/12 PPU—Melvin West.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 5th September 2012—case C-42/11—João Pedro Lopes Da Silva Jorge.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29th January 2013—case C-396/11—Ciprian Vasile Radu.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 26th February 2013—case C-399/11—Stefano Melloni v Ministerio Fiscal.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30th May 2013—case C-168/13 PPU—Jeremy F v Premier ministre.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 14th November 2013—case C-60/12—Marián Baláž.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 15th October 2015—case C-216/14—Gavril Covaci.

European Commission (2014): ‘Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation by the Member States of the Framework Decisions 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions on custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty, on probation decisions and alternative sanctions and on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention’, COM(2014)57 final, p. 12.

Protocol (No 36) on transitional provisions annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/322 of 9th May 2008.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, pp. 11 and 12.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 12.

The same age has been set in EU criminal law legislative measures in definition of the term child, namely in Article 2(6) of the Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5th April 2011 on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 101/1 of 15th April 2011; Article 2(a) of the Directive 2011/93/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13th December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 335/1 of 17th December 2011; Article 2(c) of the Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25th October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315/57 of 14th November 2012.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 10.

Details see, for example: Van Bockel (2000); Klimek (2011), pp. 12–33.

Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/389 of 30th March 2010. Under Article 50 of the Charter no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the EU in accordance with the law. It should be noted that cited Article is not entitled ‘Ne bis in idem’, but ‘Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence’.

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 11th February 2003—joined cases C-187/01 and C-385/01—Criminal proceedings against Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge.

Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer—cases C-187/01 Criminal proceedings against Hüseyn Gözütok and C-385/01 Criminal proceedings against Klaus Brügge, para. 25.

Miettinen (2013), p. 181.

Commission of the European Communities (2000): ‘Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(1999) 495 final, p. 8.

See, for example: Stefanou and Xanthaki (2008).

Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26th February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States. Official Journal of the European Union, L 93/23 of 7th April 2009. See also: European Commission (2016): ‘Report on the implementation of Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from criminal record between Member States’, COM(2016) 6 final.