The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

Perspective of Mutual Recognition;Challenges and Mechanisms for Implementing it in the Area of European :::::::::union::::::::: Criminal Law

Author
Javad Salehi
Payam-e-Noor University
Abstract
Abstract: Creation of new criminal law in the European ::::::::union:::::::: has led to an approximation of the criminal law of member states to each other. Compliance with this obligation for EU member states is due to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon. Main approach of the Treaty of Lisbon is to resort to the option of harmonizing the criminal laws of the member states, which is a new chapter in the history of European criminal law. However, the harmonization of the laws of new criminality is contrary to the general expectations on the national level and conflicts with the teachings of the fundamental rights of member states. The obligation of member states to reciprocally recognize the principle and the principle of harmonization of laws is an alternative to avoiding these consequences. But the principle of mutual recognition also has challenges that rely heavily on mutual trust in the legal and judicial system of each other. The study of the concept and function of the principle of mutual recognition and challenges in the area of European ::::::::union:::::::: criminal law is the subject of this paper. The findings of this research show that the principle of mutual recognition over time has led to the harmonization of criminal laws and the forging of new mechanisms for the realization of mutual legal cooperation between governments.
 
Keywords
The Principle of Mutual Recognition
European :::::::union:::::::’ Criminal Law
The Principle of Harmonization of Laws
The Principle of Unification of Laws
Treaty of Lisbon
Books:
1. Chalmers, Damian, Gareth Davies and Giorgio Monti (2015), European ::::::::union:::::::: Law, 3nd ed., Cambridge University Press.
2. Crawford, James (2012), Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University Press.
3. Der Aa, Suzan Van, Johanna Niemi, Lorena Sosa, Ana Ferreira and Anna Baldry (2015), Mapping the legislation and assessing the impact of protection orders in the European Member States, Netherland, Wolf Legal Publishers.
4. Ouwerkerk, Jannemieke (2011a), The Principle of Mutual Trust in European Asylum, Migration, and Criminal law – Reconciling Trust and Fundamental Rights, Utrecht.
5. Sanjuan, Teresa Freixes, and et al. (2015), the European Protection Order: Its Application to the Victims of Gender Violence, Madrid, Tecnos.
6. Sanjuan, Teresa Freixes and Laura Roman Martin (2014), Protection of the Gender-Based Violence Victims in the European ::::::::union::::::::, Publicacions Universitat Rovirai Virgili.
7. Vermeulen, Gert and Wendy De Bondt (2015), Justice, Home Affairs and Security: European and International and Policy Development, Antwerp, Maklu.
Articles:
8. Blackstock, Jodie (2010), ‘The European Arrest Warrant: Briefing and Suggested Amendments’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 1, pp. 16-30.
9. Canor, Iris (2013), ‘My Brother’s Keeper? Horizontal Solange: An ever Closer Distrust among the Peoples of Europe, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 50(2), pp. 383–421.
10. Cemalovic, Uros (2015), ‘Framework for the Approximation of National Legal Systems with the European ::::::::union::::::::’s Acquis: from a Vague Definition to Jurisprudential Implementation’, CYELP, Vol. 11, pp. 241-258.
11. Cullen, P. and L Buono (2007), ‘Creating an Area of Criminal Justice in the EU: Putting Principles in Practice’, ERA Forum, Vol. 8, pp. 169‐176.
12. Der Aa, Suzan Van (2011a), ‘Protection Orders in the European Member States: Where Do We Stand and Where Do We Go from here?’, European Journal of Criminal Policy Reviews, Vol. 18, pp. 183-204.
13. Der Aa, Suzan Van (2011b), ‘International (cyber) Stalking: Impediments to investigation and prosecution’, in: Rianne Letschert & Jan Van Dijk (eds.), the New Faces of Victimhood: Globalization, Transnational Crimes and Victim Rights, Dordrecht, pp.191-213.
14. Der Aa, Suzan Van and Jannemieke Ouwerkerk (2011), ‘The European Protection Order: No Time to Waste or a Waste of Time?’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 19 (4), pp. 267-287.
15. Fazekas, Mihaly and Eva Nanopoulos (2016), ‘The Effectiveness of Eu Law: Insights from the Eu Legal Framework on Asset Confiscation’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, pp. 39-64.
16. Klimek, Libor (2016), ‘European Protection Order in Criminal Matters versus European Protection Order in Civil Matters’, European Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 170-183.
17. Kostakopoulou, Dora (2007), ‘The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the European ::::::::union::::::::’s Constitutional Dialogue’, in Catherine Bernard (ed.), The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited. Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate, Oxford University Press, pp. 168-215.
18. Lang, Richard (2013), ‘The EU’s New Victims’ Rights Directive: Can Minimum Harmonization Work for A Concept Like Vulnerability?’, Nottingham Law Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 90-103.
19. Mitsilegas, Valsamis (2006), ‘The Constitutional Implications of Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters in the EU’, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 1277-1311.
20. Mitsilegas, Valsamis (2012), ‘the Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual’, Yearbook of European Law, Vol. 31(1), pp. 319-372.
21. Nicolaidis, K and Shaffer, G (2005), ‘Transnational Mutual Recognition Regimes: Governance without Global Government’, Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 68, pp. 263‐317.
22. Ouwerkerk, Jannemieke (2011b), ‘Mutual Trust in the Area of Criminal Law’, in Meijers Committee, The Principle of Mutual Trust in European Asylum, Migration and Criminal Law; Reconciling Trust and Fundamental Rights’, Utrecht, Forum, pp. 38–48.
23. Pakamanis, Mantas (2017), ‘The Need and Possibilities of Harmonisation in Criminal Law Matters in the EU’, Journal of Mykolo Romerio Universiteto Viesojo Saugumo Fakultetas, Vol. 10, pp. 164-180.
24. Tridimas, Takis (2012), ‘Competence after Lisbon: the Elusive search for Bright Lines’, in Diamond Ashiagbor, Nicola Countouris and Ioannis Lianos (eds.), The European ::::::::union:::::::: after the Treaty of Lisbon, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 47-77.
25. Weyembergh, Anne (2005), ‘The Functions of Approximation of Penal Legislation within the European ::::::::union::::::::’, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Criminal Law, Vol. 12(2), pp. 149-172.
26. Wyngaert, Van den (2004), ‘Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor in the Corpus Juris Model: Water and Fire?’, in; Walker (Ed.), Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Oxford University Press, pp. 201-239.