INSTITUTES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS WITHIN CRIMINAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

  • Miodrag N. Simović criminal law
  • Amna Hrustic
Keywords: European Arrest Warrant, European Evidence Warrant, Schengen Information System, European Criminal Record, Interpol

Abstract

The criminal law of the European Union in its development primarily aims to protect the financial interests of the European Union. Given that this is a single area and a single legal order, within which Member States still retain clearly defined competences, and in order to effectively protect the interests of the Union, it was necessary to introduce certain institutes that allow or facilitate a greater degree of cooperation and cohesion among the Member States in the fight against crime, which in this case also has a cross-border element. The intention was to improve existing mechanisms of cooperation between the states within the framework of international criminal law, in such a way that they become faster and more efficient. The most important institutes for the implementation of this cooperation are the European Arrest Warrant, the European Evidence Warrant, the Schengen Information System and the European Criminal Record. The paper presents the characteristics and manner of application of each of the aforementioned institutes, with a brief overview of other forms of cooperation.

References

a) Books
1. Đorđević, S. (2011). Evropski nalog za hapšenje-deset pitanja deset odgovora. Beogradski centar za bezbjedonosnu politiku, Beograd.
2. Fichera, M. (2011). The implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in the European Union. Cambrige-Antwerp-Portland: Law, Policy and Practice. Antwerp, Intersentia.
3. Hržina D. (2019). Međunarodna pravna pomoć i pravosudna suradnja u kaznenim stvarima - teorijski i praktični aspekti. Pravosudna akademija, Zagreb.
4. Jones C. (2019). Data Protection, Immigration Enforcement and Fundamental Rights: What the EU's Regulations on Interoperability Mean for People with Irregular Status. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, Centre for European Policy Studies and European Migration Law.
5. Racsmany D. & Blekxtooon Z.R. (2004). The Decline of the Nationality Exception in European Extradition? The Impact of the Regulation of (Non-)Surrender of Nationals and Dual Criminality under the European Arrest Warrant. Asser Institute, the Hague, the Netherlands, 2004.
6. Simović M.N., Blagojević M. & Simović V.M (2013). Međunarodno krivično pravo, 2. izd. Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Istočnom Sarajevu, Istočno Sarajevo.
b) Articles
1. Anagnostopulos, I. (2014). “Criminal justice cooperation in the European Union after the first few steps, a defencee view”. ERA Forum Journal of the Academy of European Law, vol. XV, 1, 9-24.
2. Burić Z. (2007). „Europski uhidbeni nalog“. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu. vol.14, (1), broj 1, Zagreb, 217-266.
3. Filipović H. (2012). „Implementacija Evropskog naloga za hapšenje u pravni poredak RH“. Policija i sigurnost, godina 21, (1), Zagreb, 188-203.
4. Galiot M. (2017). „Oduzimanje imovinske koristi u kontekstu međunarodne pravne stečevine i suzbijanja podmićivanja“. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, v. 38, br. 1, Rijeka, 547-572.
5. Haggenmüller, S. (2012). “The Principle of Proportionality and the European Arrest Warrant”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 3(1), 95–106.
6. Ivanović A.R. & Ivanović A.B. (2015). „Evropski dokazni nalog i Evropski nalog za istragu u krivičnim stvarima“. Pravne teme, Naučni časopis Departmana za pravne nauke Univerziteta u Novom Pazaru, broj 5, Novi Pazar, 199-217.
7. Ivanović A.R. &Totić M. (2017). „Evropski nalog za hapšenje kao instrument borbe protiv organizovanog kriminala na teritoriji Evropske unije“. Strani pravni život, Beograd, 127-145.
8. Klimek L. (2012). “Free Movement of Evidence in Criminal Matters in the EU”. The Lawyer Quarterly, vol. 2, no. 4, 250-290.
9. Krbec I. (2014). „Priznanje i izvršenje stranih odluka prema zakonu o pravosudnoj suradnji u kaznenim stvarima s državama članicama Europske unije“. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, vol. 21, broj 2, Zagreb, 401-438.
10. Lukić T. (2011). „Borba protiv organizovanog kriminala i terorizma na međunarodnom nivou“. Pravni život, broj 12., Kopaonička škola prirodnog prava - Slobodan Perović, Beograd, 542.
11. Medić I. (2017). „Priznanje i ovrha na području EU“. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu, god. 54, broj 1, Split, 283-300.
12. Ostroploski, T. (2014). “The principle of proportionality under the european arrest warrant, with an excursus on Poland”. New Journal of Criminal law, vol. V, nr. 2, 167-191.
13. Pajčić M. (2017). „Europski uhidbeni nalog u praksi Vrhovnog suda Republike Hrvatske“, Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, vol. 24, broj 2, Zagreb, 553-581.
14. Reljanović, M. (2009). “Evropski nalog za hapšenje”, Zbornik radova Pravo i politika Evropske unije iz perspektive domaćih autora, Centar za unapređenje pravnih studija (CUPS), Beograd, 71-89.
15. Spencer, J. (2010). “Proportionality and the European arrest warrant”. Criminal Law Review, no. 6, 474–482.
16. Stojanovski V., „The European evidence warrant“, Dny prava – 2009 – Days of Law: The Conference Proceedings, 1. Edition. Masaryk University; https://www.law.muni.cz/sbo rniky/dny_prava_2009/... · PDF file,
17. Turudić I., Borzić T.P. & Bujas I. (2015). „Odnos načela uzajamnog priznavanja - povjerenja i provjere dvostruke kažnjivosti“. Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, 1991., v. 36, broj 2, Rijeka, 1075-1098.
18. Van der Mei A.P. (2017). „The European Arrest Warrant system: Recent developments in the case law of the Court of Justice“. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Vol. 24(6), 882-904.
19. Vuletić, I. (2016). „Pravo EU u kaznenom i kaznenom procesnom pravu“. Procesnopravni aspekti prava EU, Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta Josipa Jurja Strossmayera u Osijeku, Pravos, 66-87.
Published
2021-11-26
Section
Criminalistic and Criminal Justice Aspects in Solving and Proving of Criminal Of