دانلود کتاب The Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future

فهرست مطالب :

Acknowledgements\nContents\nList of Contributors\nAbbreviations\nPart I:\rIntroduction\n 1: Introduction by Vera Jourova, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality\n 2: Introduction by Minister Koen Geens, Minister of Justice, Belgium\n 3: Introduction by Minister Félix\r Braz, Minister of Justice, Luxembourg\n 4: Introduction: About ECLAN and the Balances that Need to be Struck in EU Criminal Law\n I. A Brief History of the Network\n II. Striking Much Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law\n III. Conclusion\nPart II:\rThe Quest for the Right Balance in the Institutional Design/Between the EU\rand the Member States and Between\rthe EU Institutions\n 5: The Evolution of Competence Distribution Between the European Union and the Member States in the Criminal Field\n I. Introduction\n II. Overviews from Academia\n III. Evolution of the Union\'s Competence in Criminal Matters\n IV. Future Outlook/Conclusion\n 6: \'The Evolution of Competence Distribution Between the EU and the Member States in the Criminal Field\' (by Samuli Miettinen)—A (Short) Reaction\n I. Preliminary Issues: EU Jurisdiction (\'Competence\') Over Criminal Matters; Responsibility; Three Streams of Legal Interests\n II. The Treaties and the Relationship Between Jurisdiction and Responsibility: How the Third Pillar Logic Hijacked the Penal Protection of First Pillar Legal Interests\n III. Reshaping the EU\'s Jurisdiction Over Criminal Offences and Penalties\n 7: The Principle of Subsidiarity in EU Criminal Law\n I. Introduction\n II. The Problem of the Allocation of Powers: Performance (Efficiency), Normative and Political Values Criteria\n III. Power Allocation Within the EU Legal Order: Subsidiarity and other Criteria\n IV. Subsidiarity as a Performance (Efficiency-Based) Criterion and its Implication for the Role of the EU\n V. Subsidiarity and EU Criminal Law: When is the EU More Efficient in the Criminal Justice Field?\n VI. Subsidiarity and EU Criminal Law: The Efficiency Dimension in Policy and Treaty Language\n VII. Subsidiarity and EU Criminal Law: The Normative Dimension in Legislative Texts\n VIII. Subsidiarity and EU Criminal Law: What is the Envisaged Role for the EU in the Area of Criminal Justice?\n IX. Conclusions\n 8: Challenges Facing the Academic Community: A Practitioner\'s Point of View in Reaction to Irene Wieczorek\'s Paper\n 9: Stepping into Uncharted Waters No More: The Court of Justice and EU Criminal Law\n I. Introduction\n II. Procedural Aspects of the Court\'s Involvement in EU Criminal Law\n III. Enforcement of EU Criminal Law at the National Level\n IV. Validity and Interpretation of EU Criminal Law Instruments\n V. Conclusions\n 10: The Evolution of the Relationship and Balance Between the Different EU Institutions\n I. Introduction\n II. Complex Division of Powers within the EU Institutional Design\n III. Is the New Post-Lisbon Era a Reality?\n IV. A Virtual \'Google Map\' of the EU Institutions Six Years after Lisbon\n V. Conclusion\nPart III: The Quest for the Right Balance Between Diversity and Unity\n 11: The Issue of Mutual Trust and the Needed Balance Between Diversity and Unity\n I. The Milestones\n II. Elements of Mutual Trust\n III. Mutual Trust as Seen by the ECJ (First Phase)\n IV. Mutual Trust as Seen by the Legislator\n V. Mutual Trust as Seen by the ECJ (Second Phase)\n VI. Concluding Remarks\n 12: The Sensitive Relationship Between the Different Means of Legal Integration: Mutual Recognition and Approximation\n I. Introduction\n II. Approximation (or Harmonisation) of Criminal Laws\n III. Mutual Recognition\n IV. The Relationship between Mutual Recognition and Harmonisation\n V. The Principles Behind Legislation\n VI. What does this Entail for the Future?\n 13: Mutual Recognition in EU Criminal Law and Fundamental Rights—The Necessity for a Sensitive Approach\n I. Introduction\n II. Overview of Existing Mutual Recognition Instruments\n III. The European Investigation Order (EIO) as an Example of a \'Good\'/Balanced Mutual Recognition Instrument\n IV. Harmonisation—A Question of Level\n V. About the EPPO—A Lesson not Learned\n VI. The United States\' Experience as an Example of Cross-Border Cooperation\n VII. Conclusions\nPart IV:\rThe Quest for the Right Balance\rBetween Liberty and Security\n 14: The External Dimension of Mutual Trust: The Coming of Age of Transatlantic Counter-terrorism Cooperation\n I. Introduction\n II. Transatlantic Counter-Terrorism Cooperation: A Typology of EU—US Agreements and their Impact on European Values\n III. The Quest for Mutual Trust in Transatlantic Counter-Terrorism Cooperation\n IV. Conclusion\n 15: The Role of the Data Protection Authorities in Supervising Police and Criminal Justice Authorities Processing Personal Data\n I. Introduction\n II. Three-Pillar Structure of the EU Data Protection Legal Framework\n III. Role of the Supervisory Authorities\n IV. Independence of the Supervisory Authorities\n V. Can the Supervisory Authorities Supervise Judges and Prosecutors? (Article 45 of the Directive)\n VI. The Powers of the Supervisory Authorities (Article 47 of the Directive)\n VII. Complaint Handling (Articles 52–55 of the Directive)\n VIII. Conclusion: Emphasised Importance of Data Protection in the Area of Criminal Law\n 16: \'Foreign Terrorist Fighters\'—De-Radicalisation and Inclusion vs Law Enforcement and Corrections in Denmark\n I. The Dual Challenge with Responding to the Phenomenon of Foreign Fighters\n II. Denmark as an Actor in the Theatre of International Terrorism\n III. The Aarhus De-Radicalisation and Rehabilitation Model\n IV. Outline of Danish Criminal Law Concerning Terrorism and Foreign Fighters\n V. Updating the Treason Provisions\n VI. Amending the Passport Code and the Foreigners Act\n VII. The UN Security Council—Adopting Resolutions 2170 and 2178 (2014)\n VIII. The Council of Europe—Adopting an Additional Protocol\n IX. The European Union—Proposing a New Directive\n X. Introducing a Ban on Travelling to and Remaining in Conflict Zones\n XI. The First Conviction by Danish Courts of a Syrian-Traveller\n XII. Looking Back—Looking Forward\n 17: A New Hope? The Court of Justice Restores the Balance Between Fundamental Rights Protection and Enforcement Demands in the European Arrest Warrant System\n I. Introduction\n II. Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition\n III. The European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision\n IV. The Court of Justice and the EAW Framework Decision. Two Eras towards a Restored Balance\n V. Concluding Remarks\n 18: Mutual Recognition and Cross-Border Interception of Communications: The Way Ahead for the European Investigation Order\n I. Introduction\n II. Interception of Communications with Technical Assistance of Another Member State\n III. Interception of Communications without Technical Assistance of Another Member State\n IV. Conclusions\n Mutual Recognition and Cross-Border Interception of Communications: The Way Ahead for the European Investigation Order\nPart V:\rThe Quest for Balance Regarding\rCriminal Justice Actors and in Their\rMutual Relations\n 19: A Comparison of the Evolution and Pace of Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters: A Race Between Europol and Eurojust?\n I. About Roles and Functions\n II. Mission Accomplished—Where does One Go Now?\n III. Challenges for the Future—Law in Action\n IV. Conclusion\n 20: The Cooperation Between Police and Justice at the EU Level: The Representative Example of Joint Investigation Teams\n I. Introduction\n II. The Evolution of Europol and Eurojust\'s Competences in JITS and their Necessary Cooperation\n III. Aspects of the JITS Functioning where a Problematic Blur can be Witnessed between the Authorities Involved in JITS\n IV. Conclusion\n 21: The Draft Regulation on the Establishment of the European Public Prosecutor\'s Office—Issues of Balance Between the Prosecution and the Defence\n I. Introduction\n II. Main Elements of the EPPO\n III. Five Issues in Respect of Striking a Balance between the Prosecution and the Defence\n IV. Conclusion\n 22: The Material Scope of Competence of the European Public Prosecutor\'s Office: Lex uncerta and unpraevia?\n I. Introduction\n II. The Treaty Frame\n III. The Eppo-Proposal of the European Commission and its Versions under Negotiations\n IV. Substantive Harmonisation of the PIF-Offences\n V. Conclusion\nPart VI:\rConclusion\n 23:\rAfterword(s) on Mutual Recognition and the Respect for Fundamental Rights Revisited—Following the Judgment in Aranyosi and Căldăraru\n I. Introduction\n II. The Principle of Mutual Recognition Based on Mutual Trust\n III. The M.S.S.–N.S. Jurisprudence and its Potential Extension\n IV. After Aranyosi and Căldăraru\n V. A Fundamental Disagreement on Fundamental Rights Between the Two European Courts?\n VI. Where the Shoe Still Pinches\nIndex