Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure?

Michaël Meysman

doi:10.5771/2193-5505-2016-2-186

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 113–114 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 113–114
- 115–116 Editorial 115–116
- 117–227 Articles 117–227
  - 117–142 Positive Fault Requirements in EU Criminal Law Juho Rankinen Juho Rankinen 117–142
  - 143–160 The Last Imperative of Criminal Policy: Nullum Crimen Sine Confiscatione Vittorio Manes Vittorio Manes 143–160
  - 161–185 The Legality Principle: An Effective Way to Minimise the European Prosecutors’ Influence on Substantive Criminalisation? Marie-Lena Marstaller Marie-Lena Marstaller 161–185
  - 186–210 Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure? Michaël Meysman Michaël Meysman 186–210
  - 211–227 Res Judicata in Criminal Matters and the European Courts – A Comparison Between Germany and Italy (Part II) Anne Schneider Anne Schneider 211–227
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
Access

EuCLR European Criminal Law Review , page 186 - 210

Belgium and the European Arrest Warrant: Is European Criminal Cooperation Under Pressure?

Autoren

Michaël Meysman

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2016-2-186
- ISSN: 2191-7442
- ISSN online: 2193-5505
Abstract

In its judgment of the 19th of November 2013, Belgium’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, confirmed an earlier judgment of the so-called kamer van inbeschuldigingstelling (KI) of the Court of Appeal in Ghent in response to a surrender demanded in accordance with a number of European arrest warrants issued by Spain. This surrender was brushed off the table by the KI on the basis of a motivation basedon themutual trust concerning thecompliance with fundamental rights within the context of European cooperation in criminal matters.This motivation seems bound to raise eyebrows amongst those who advocate this classic tenet of cross-border cooperation.This article frames this recent judgement within a European context, and investigates whether there is indeeda European tendency to step away from blind trust in lieu of (successfully) invoking fundamental rights to refuse cooperation. The case under scrutiny already seems to be pointing in that direction as far as the member states are concerned. Moreover, it seems to be confirmed by recent statements within the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the Advocates General, as well as through the new procedural wind blowing through the Union with the Procedural Roadmap. On the other hand, the ECJ shows itself more reluctant than expected, giving rise to a situation in which member states and involved individuals remain in the dark with regard to a consistent line on the complex relation between smooth European cooperation in criminal cases and respect for fundamental rights. The Union moreover appears to be increasingly moving away from cooperation in criminal cases - despite the fact that it concerns a competence enshrined in treaty law - in exchange for a harmonisation of national (minimum) standards. A noble motive, which in this case however carries the potential to further complicate, or even undermine, the necessary trust and guarantees for fundamental rights in criminal cases. The recent judgement by the Court of Cassation also demonstrates that the matter of human rights requires an adequate response, not only to permanently ensure and improve the protection of fundamental rights, but also to avoid that more and more spanners are thrown in the works of smooth European cooperation in criminal matters.
Share