2. Genesis

Fontaine (2006), p. 5.

Full version of the declaration see: Salmon and Nicoll (1997), pp. 44–46; or Hill and Smith (2000), pp. 13–15 ; In spite of the fact the Schuman Declaration is entitled by R. Schuman, it was J. Monnet who originally suggested to R. Schuman the idea of beginning with the two basic industries of coal and steel. See: Thody (1997), pp. 3–4.

Recital 5 of the Schuman Declaration.

Hahn (2008), pp. 24–26.

Craig and De Búrca (2011), p. 4 .

Dedman (1996), p. 7.

Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, Paris (France), 18th April 1951.

Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Rome (Italy), 25th March 1957.

Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, Rome (Italy), 25th March 1957; it should be noted that all three mentioned treaties are known as ‘Founding Treaties’.

Dedman (1996), p. 7; Karas and Králik (2012), p. 7 et seq .

Recitals (No. 3 and 5) to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.

Majone (2005), p. 5.

Folsom (2005), p. 3.

Reynolds (2000), p. 288.

Guild and Geyer (2008), p. 1.

Vermeulen and De Bondt (2015), p. 119.

Cryer et al. (2010), p. 102.

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 30 [1959], Strasbourg, 20th April 1959. It has been supplemented by two additional protocols in 1978 and 2001—see European Treaty Series No. 99 [1978] and No. 182 [2001].

Article 1(1) of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14th June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders . Official Journal of the European Communities, C 239/19 of 22nd September 2000.

Fijnaut (1993), p. 37; see also: Horváth (2009), pp. 104–108.

See Article 51 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

See Article 53(1) of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement.

Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of European Communities, C 197/3 of 12th July 2000. The Convention has been supplemented by the Protocol established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of European Communities, C 326/2 of 21st November 2001. In addition, the EU has concluded international agreements on mutual assistance with non-EU Member States, for example: Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America. Official Journal of the European Union, L 181/34 of 19th July 2003; Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, L 39/20 of 12th February 2010.

Bachmaier-Winter (2010), p. 581.

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. 2.

Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice’, COM(2005) 184 final, p. 11.

Klip (2012), p. 336 et seq.

Klimek and Klimek (2013), p. 273.

European Convention on the Punishment of Road Traffic Offences. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 052 [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.

Treaty on European Union, also known as the Treaty of Maastricht, was signed on 7th February 1992 in Maastricht (The Netherlands) and came into force on 1st November 1993; original version—Official Journal of the European Communities, C 191/1 of 29th July 1992; current version as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon —Official Journal of the European Union, C 83/13 of 30th March 2010.

Asp (2002), p. 16.

Baratta (2002), p. 64; Kassim (2007), p. 172; Curtin and Decker (2011), p. 162 ; Peers (2011a), p. 6; Schütze (2012), p. 29; Avbejl (2012), p. 395; Blanke and Mangiameli (2013), p. 81 ; Kaczorowska (2013), p. 19; Schütze (2015), p. 23; Baker and Schnapper (2015), p. 50 .

Articles J-J.11 of the Treaty on European Union (original version of 1992)—Title V—‘Provisions on a Common Foreign and Security Policy’.

Articles K-K.9 of the Treaty on European Union (original version of 1992)—Title VI—‘Provisions on Co-operation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs’.

Article K.1 of the Treaty on European Union. Ivor et al. (2013), p. 69; Klimek (2014), p. 262.

Peers (2011b), p. 293.

Perron (2005), p. 6.

Craig (2010), pp. 332–334.

Craig (2010), p. 334.

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997. The Treaty was signed on 2nd October 1997 in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) and came into force on 1st May 1999. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997.

Articles 29–42 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam—Title VI—‘Provisions on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters’. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997; similarly later in the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Nice. Official Journal of the European Union, C 321 of 29th December 2006.

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

Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon (Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/231 of 13th December 2006), which performed the third revision of the Treaty on the European Union, the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice concept has appeared as the second objective of the Treaty on European Union. Nowadays, pursuant to Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, ‘[t]he Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime’.

Wessel et al. (2011), p. 274.

Tomášek (2015), p. 19.

Monar (2005), p. 110.

Tomášek et al. (2009), p. 341.

Eckes and Konstadinides (2011), p. 1.

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

Gless (2006) p. 124.

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).

Klimek and Klimek (2013), p. 275; Klimek (2015), p. 19.

Mitsilegas (2009), pp. 117 and 118.

European Council (1998): ‘Cardiff European Council, 15th and 16th June 1998, Presidency Conclusions’, document No. SN 150/1/98 REV 1, para 39.

Harmonisation is frequently mentioned in relation to EU policy in the Third Pillar (1993–2009). However, in the political or scientific debate it is frequently confused and no clear distinction appears. See: Calderoni (2010), p. 2 et seq.

Mitsilegas (2009), p. 116.

Asp (2005), p. 31; Ligeti (2006), p. 146.

Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on How Best to Implement the Provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Text adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council of 3rd December 1998. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 19/1 of 23rd January 1999.

Point 17 of the Vienna Action Plan.

Point 45(f) of the Vienna Action Plan.

European Council (1999): ‘Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council 15th-16th October 1999, European Council’, available in: Vermeulen (2005), pp. 327–341.

Díez (2015), p. 35.

Apap and Carrera (2004), pp. 11 and 12 .

Convention drawn up on the basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on a simplified extradition Procedure between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 78/2 of 30th March 1995.

Convention drawn up on the basis of Art. K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 313/12 of 23rd October 1996.

Mackarel (2007), p. 43.

Details see: Balzacq and Carrera (2006), p. 5 .

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.

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. 2.

Mitsilegas (2009), p. 117.

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. 4.

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.

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, pp. 6 and 7.

In 2000 an initiative of Germany launched the creating of a unit to facilitate the proper co-ordination of national prosecuting authorities and of supporting criminal investigations—see: Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council Decision on setting up a Eurojust team. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 206/1 of 19th July 2000. The Initiative foresaw a role for the European Union’s Judicial Co-operation Unit (also known as Eurojust) with regard to the European criminal registry. Under the Initiative ‘in order to reinforce co-operation, Member States shall network their national procedural and criminal records so that requests can be passed on via Eurojust to the bodies responsible for the national records’ (Article 6(1) of the Initiative). However, this approach was not successful. These days, the national member of Eurojust shall have access to the criminal records at national level (Article 9(3)(a) of the Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28th February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime as amended by the Decision 2009/426/JHA. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 63/1 of 6th March 2002; see also: the 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.

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.

Recital (No. 5) of the Introduction to the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Recital (No. 6) of the Introduction to the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 2 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 3 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 6 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 7 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 8 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 9 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 10 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 14 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 15 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 17 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 18 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 22 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Measure No. 23 of the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Spencer (2005), p. 202.

Plachta and Van Ballegooij (2005), p. 33 .

Commission of the European Communities (2001): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States’, COM(2001) 522 final/2.

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.

Wahl (2009), p. 138.

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

Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13th June 2002 on joint investigation teams. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 162/1 of 20th June 2002; see: Klimek (2012c), pp. 63–67; Rijken (2006), pp. 99–118; Rijken and Vermeulen (2006).

Article 1(1) of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant.

Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 340 of 10th November 1997; Article 34(2)(b) of the 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. Details see: Chap. 1.

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.

Mitsilegas (2009), p. 115.

Peers (2011b), p. 293.

Fletcher et al. (2008), p. 11.

Klimek (2015), pp. 17 and 323.

Bomberg et al. (2008), p. 150.

See: Alegre and Leaf (2004), pp. 200–217 .

Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to adopting a Council Decision on increasing cooperation between European Union Member States with regard to disqualifications. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 223/17 of 19th September 2002.

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

Article 4(3) of the Framework Decision 2003/568/JHA on combating corruption in the private sector.

Directive 2011/92/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.

Offences concerning sexual abuse, offences concerning sexual exploitation, offences concerning child pornography, and solicitation of children for sexual purposes.

Article 10(1) of the Directive 2011/92/EU on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

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

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.

Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14th June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 239/19 of 22nd September 2000.

Under the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement ‘[a] person whose trial has been finally disposed of in one Contracting Party may not be prosecuted in another Contracting Party for the same acts provided that, if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party’ (Article 54 of the Convention). Details see: Klimek (2001), pp. 12–33.

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, para. 33.

Janssens (2013), p. 133.

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.

Article 3(1) of the Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence.

As a consequence in 2002 was introduced the Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of a Council Framework Decision on the execution in the EU of confiscation orders. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 184/8 of 2nd August 2002.

Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Green paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union’, COM(2004) 334 final.

Apart from the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 1983, which signed and ratified all then Member States of the EU. See: European Treaty Series No. 112 [1983], Strasbourg, 21st March 1983.

Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Green paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the European Union’, COM(2004) 334 final, pp. 45 and 46.

Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Official Journal of the European Union. C 310/1 of 16th December 2004. The Treaty was signed in Rome (Italy) on 29th October 2004. In-depth analysis see: Kielhorn (2005). As regards criminal law matters, see: Monar (2008), pp. 79–104.

Article I-42(1)(b) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Article III-257(3) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Article III-270(1) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Article III-270(1)(a) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Article III-270(2) of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe.

Council of the European Union (2004): ‘Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption by the Council of a framework decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children’, 14207/04.

Article 1(1)(2) of the Initiative with a view to adopting a Framework Decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children.

Council of the European Union (2004): ‘Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium with a view to the adoption by the Council of a framework decision on the recognition and enforcement in the European Union of prohibitions arising from convictions for sexual offences committed against children’, 14207/04, ADD 1, p. 3.

Initiative of the United Kingdom, the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. Official Journal of European Communities, C 278/4 of 2nd October 2001.

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.

The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 53/1 of 3rd March 2005. See also: Action Plan implementing The Hague Programme. Official Journal of the European Union, C 198/1 of 12th August 2005.

Point 3 of The Hague Programme.

Commission of the European Communities (2004): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union’, COM(2004) 328 final. The objective of the Proposal was to set common minimum standards as regards certain procedural rights applying in criminal proceedings throughout the EU. It highlighted some rights identified as basic, many of which had existed in some form in the criminal justice systems of the Member States. These include the right to legal advice, the right to free legal advice, the right to free interpretation, the right to free translation of relevant documents, the right to specific attention, the right to communicate and the right to communicate with consular authorities. See also: Council of the European Union (2006): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union’, 16874/06, and Council of the European Union (2007): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union’, 10287/07. However, the proposed Framework Decision has never been adopted. On the other hand, in 2009 was introduced the Resolution of the Council of 30th November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings (Official Journal of the European Union, C 295/1 of 4th December 2009). It became the basis for new EU directives strengthening procedural rights in criminal proceedings as well as in European arrest warrant proceedings. Details see Chap. 15.

Point 3.3.1 of The Hague Programme.

Commission of the European Communities (2003): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters’, COM(2003) 688 final.

Point 3.3.2 of The Hague Programme.

Recital (No. 6) of the Introduction to the Mutual Recognition Programme.

Point 3.2 of The Hague Programme.

Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2005) 195 final, p. 6.

Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years – The Partnership for European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2005) 184 final, p. 11.

Commission of the European Communities (2009): ‘Justice, Freedom and Security in Europe since 2005: an evaluation of The Hague Programme and Action Plan’, communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2009) 263 final, pp. 12 and 14.

Initiative of the Kingdom of Denmark with a view to the adoption of a Council Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of confiscation orders. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 184/8 of 2nd August 2002.

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.

Initiative of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the European enforcement order and the transfer of sentenced persons between Member States of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 150/1 of 21st June 2005.

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.

Initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the French Republic with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision (2007/…/JHA) of … on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences . Official Journal of the European Union, C 147/1 of 30th June 2007.

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.

Commission of the European Communities (2003): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant for obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters’, COM(2003) 688.

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.

Commission of the European Communities (2006): ‘Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union’, COM(2006) 468 final.

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.

Initiative of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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. Official Journal of the European Union, C 52/1 of 26th February 2008.

Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26th February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Official Journal of the European Union, L 81/24 of 27th March 2009.

Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty Establishing the European Union and the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Official Journal of the European Union, C 306/231 of 13th December 2006. It was signed on 13th December 2007 in Lisbon (Portugal) and came into force on 1st December 2009.

Title V—Articles 67–89 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon. Moreover, the Preamble to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union declares that the EU ‘places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing the citizenship of the Union and by creating an area of freedom, security and justice’ (Recital 2 of the Preamble to the Charter—Official Journal of the European Union, 83/389 of 30th March 2010).

Sommermann (2013), p. 169.

See: Piris (2010), p. 177; Piris (2010), p. 46; Halpérin (2014), p. 130.

Treaty on European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon . Official Journal of the European Union C 83/13 of 30th March 2010. In-depth analysis see: Blanke and Mangiameli (2013) .

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 on the Functioning of the European Union).

See: Horváth (2004), pp. 1–18; Horváth (2007), 137 pp; Horváth (2008a), pp. 502–507; Horváth (2008b), pp. 55–97.

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 cooperation 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 on the Functioning of the European Union as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon).

Baca (2014), p. 478.

European Commission (2010): ‘Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens: Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme’, communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM(2010) 171 final, p. 5.

Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens. Official Journal of the European Union, C 115/1 of 4th May 2010.

Herlin-Karnell (2014), p. 26.

Point 3.1 of the Stockholm Programme.

Point 3.1 of the Stockholm Programme.

See for example: Gless (2006), pp. 121–130; Allegrezza (2010), pp. 569–579; Murphy (2011), pp. 224–248; Klimek (2012b), pp. 919–936; Klimek (2012a), pp. 250–290.

Namely: the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Council of Europe, European Treaty Series No. 30 [1959], Strasbourg, 20th April 1959; and the Convention of 29th May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the EU. Official Journal of the European Communities, C 197/1 of 12th July 2000.

Point 3.1.1 of the Stockholm Programme.

Point 3.1.1 of the Stockholm Programme.

Point 3.1.1 of the Stockholm Programme.

Point 3.3 of the Stockholm Programme.

Point 3.2 of the Stockholm Programme.

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

Guild and Carrera (2010), pp. 2 and 12 .

Council of the European Union (2010): ‘Follow-up of the Mutual recognition instruments’, document 13405/1/10, REV 1, p. 3.

Point 1.2.2 of the Stockholm Programme.

Council of the European Union (2010): ‘Follow-up of the Mutual recognition instruments’, 13405/1/10, REV 1, p. 3.

Point 3.2.5 of the Stockholm Programme.

Council of the European Union (2010): ‘Applicability of EU instruments in the area of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Member States and their overseas territories and regions, i.e. the outermost regions (OMR), the overseas countries and territories (OCT) and other Special Member State territories’, 11590/10, pp. 1 and 2.

Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Protection Order. Official Journal of the European Union, C 69/5 of 18th March 2010.

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.

Commission of the European Communities (2005): ‘Communication on the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters and the strengthening of mutual trust between Member States’, communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, COM(2005) 195 final, p. 3.

Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of … regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. Official Journal of the European Union, C 165/22 of 24th June 2010.

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.