Therefore, the CJEU considers its case law on the concept of “issuing judicial authority” to be transferable. This, however, requires that they act independently in the exercise of their responsibilities and carry out their tasks under a procedure that complies withthe requirements of effective judicial protection. It is not restricted to designated judges or courts but also covers judicial authorities which participate in the administration of criminal justice in the Member State concerned. 6(2) FD EAW requires an autonomous interpretation of EU law. It first states that, like the concept of “issuing judicial authority,” the concept of executing judicial authority as defined in Art. 27 FD EAW), as a consequence of which a defendant could be prosecuted and convicted for offences other than those for which he had previously been surrendered to Belgium (for the facts of the case C-510/19 ( AZ v Openbaar Ministerie and YU And ZV) and the opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona → eucrim 2/2020, 112). The case at issue dealt with the question of whether the Dutch public prosecutor was empowered to consent to an exception to the speciality rule (Art. Accordingly, Dutch public prosecutors are not an “executing judicial authority,” as they may be subject to individual instructions from the Minister of Justice. 6(2) of Framework Decision (FD) 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). On 24 November 2020, in its judgment in Case C-510/19, the CJEU further defined the notion “executing judicial authority” pursuant to Art.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |