Convergence between the ECtHR and the CJEU regarding the risk of vulneration of fundamental rights as ground for nonexecution of European arrest warrants. An analysis on the judgment of the ECtHR of 9 July 2019, Romeo Castaño.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18042/cepc/rdce.65.05Keywords:
Cooperation in criminal matters, principle of mutual recognition, European Arrest Warrant, risk of violation of fundamental rights.Abstract
In its judgment in the case Romeo Castaño, the ECHR has determined that Belgium violated Article 2 of the ECHR under its procedural aspect by failing to uphold its obligation to cooperate in criminal matters and, more specifically, by denying the execution of a European Arrest Warrant without a proper justification of the risk of violation of fundamental rights of the person requested in case of being transferred to Spain. Along with a review of the main aspects of this case, the present analysis frames the reasoning of the ECHR within the recent changes made by the CJEU regarding the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters, and finally concludes that there the approach between these two courts may facilitate to overcome the obstacles created by Opinion 2/13 to the accession of the EU to the ECHR.Downloads
References
Anagnostaras, G. (2016). Mutual confidence is not blind trust! Fundamental rights protection and the execution of the European arrest warrant. Common Market Law Review, 53, 1675-1704.
Bárd, P. y Van Ballegooij, W. (2018). Judicial independence as a precondition for mutual trust? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 9 (3), 353-365.
Blázquez Peinado, M.D. (2019). La UE ante las vulneraciones del Estado de Derecho por parte del Estado polaco: panorámica general y estado actual de la cuestión. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 48, 1-44.
Bribosia, E. y Weyembergh, A. (2016). Confiance mutuelle et droits fondamentaux: "Back to the future". Cahiers de droit européen, 52 (2), 469-521.
Cortés Martín, J.M. (2018). Estado de Derecho y confianza mutua en el Espacio de Libertad, Seguridad y Justicia. En D. J. Liñán Nogueras, y P.J. Martín Rodríguez (dirs.). Estado de derecho y Unión Europea (pp. 365-384). Madrid: Tecnos.
Jacqué, J.P. (2015). Pride and/or prejudice? Les lectures posibles de l’avis 2/13 de la Cour de Justice. Cahiers droit européen, 51 (1), 19-45.
Lenaerts, K. (2017). La vie après l'avis: Exploring the principle of mutual (yet not blind) trust. Common Market Law Review, 54, 805-840.
López Aguilar, J.F. (2016). El caso de Polonia en la UE: retrocesos democráticos y del Estado de Derecho y “Dilema de Copenague”. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 38, 101-142.
Mangas Martín. A. (2018). Polonia en el punto de mira: ¿solo riesgo de violación grave del Estado de Derecho? Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 44, 1-12.
Mitsilegas, V. (2016). Conceptualising Mutual Trust in European Criminal Law: the Evolving Relationship Between Legal Pluralism and Rights-Based Justice in the European Union. En E. Brouwer. y D. Gerard. (eds.). Mapping Mutual Trust: Understanding and Framing the Role of Mutual Trust in EU Law (pp. 23-36). EUI Working Papers.
Muñoz De Morales Romero, M. (2017). “Dime cómo son tus cárceles y ya veré yo si coopero”. Los casos Caldararu y Aranyosi como nueva forma de entender el principio de reconocimiento mutuo. Indret, 1, 1-26.
Peers, S. (2015). The EU's Accession to the ECHR: The Dream Becomes a Nightmare. German Law Journal, 16 (1), 213-222.
Punset Blanco, R. (2017). Derechos Fundamentales y Primacía del Derecho Europeo antes y después del caso Melloni. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 39, 189-212.
Ruiz Yamuza, F-G. (2017). ¿Réquiem por el principio de confianza mutua? Reconocimiento mutuo y tutela judicial de derechos fundamentales en la jurisprudencia del TJUE a propósito de la Orden de Detención Europea. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, 43, 201-245.
Sarmiento, D. (2018). A comment on the CJEU’s judgment in LM. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 25 (4), 385-387.
Torres Muro, I. (2013). La condena en ausencia: Unas preguntas osadas (ATC 86/2001, de 9 de junio) y una respuesta contundente - Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 26 de febrero de 2013. Revista española de Derecho Constitucional, 97, 343-370.
Ugartemendía Eceizabarrena, J.I. y Ripol Carulla, S. (2013). La euroorden ante la tutela de los derechos fundamentales. Algunas cuestiones de soberanía iusfundamental (A propósito de la STJ Melloni, de 22 de febrero de 2013, C-399/10). Revista Española de Derecho Europeo, 46, 151-197.
Uría Gavilán, E. (2018). La adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Barcelona: Bosch.
Vervaele, J. (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Applicable Standards of Fundamental Rights in the EU. Review of European administrative law, 37-54.
Zamboni, M. (2019). Romeo Castaño v Belgium and the Duty to Cooperate under the ECHR. EJIL: Talk! [blog], 19-08-2019. Disponible en:
https://www.ejiltalk.org/romeo-castano-v-belgium-and-the-duty-to-cooperate-under-the-echr/
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright
Submission of a manuscript to the RDCE implies having read and accepted the journal's editorial guidelines and instructions for authors. When a work is accepted for publication, it is understood that the author grants the RDCE exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution and, where appropriate, sale of his manuscript for exploitation in all countries of the world in printed version, as well as any other magnetic, optical and digital media.
Authors shall transfer the publishing rights of their manuscript to RDCE so that it may be disseminated and capitalised on Intranets, the Internet and any web portals and wireless devices that the publisher may decide, by placing it at the disposal of users so that the latter may consult it online and extract content from it, print it and/or download and save it. These activities must comply with the terms and conditions outlined on the website hosting the work. However, the RDCE authorises authors of papers published in the journal to include a copy of these papers, once published, on their personal websites and/or other open access digital repositories. Copies must include a specific mention of RDCE, citing the year and issue of the journal in which the article was published, and adding a link to the RDCE website(s).
A year after its publication, the works of the RDCE will be under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivative 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and its first publication is indicated, without the right to commercial exploitation and the elaboration of derivative works.
Plagiarism and scientific fraud
The publication of work that infringes on intellectual property rights is the sole responsibility of the authors, including any conflicts that may occur regarding infringement of copyright. This includes, most importantly, conflicts related to the commission of plagiarism and/or scientific fraud.
Practices constituting scientific plagiarism are as follows:
1. Presenting the work of others as your own.
2. Adopting words or ideas from other authors without due recognition.
3. Not using quotation marks or another distinctive format to distinguish literal quotations.
4. Giving incorrect information about the true source of a citation.
5. The paraphrasing of a source without mentioning the source.
6. Excessive paraphrasing, even if the source is mentioned.
Practices constituting scientific fraud are as follows:
1. Fabrication, falsification or omission of data and plagiarism.
2. Duplicate publication.
3. Conflicts of authorship.
Warning
Any breach of these Rules shall constitute a ground for rejection of the manuscript submitted.
