Preventing and resolving conflicts of jurisdiction in EU criminal law : a European Law Institute instrument /
Saved in:
| Author / Creator: | Ligeti, Katalin, author, editor. |
|---|---|
| Imprint: | Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2018. ©2018 |
| Description: | xxviii, 333 pages : illustrations ; 24 cm |
| Language: | English |
| Subject: | |
| Format: | Print Book |
| URL for this record: | http://pi.lib.uchicago.edu/1001/cat/bib/11764568 |
Table of Contents:
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Part I. Instrument of the European Law Institute
- Preface to Part I
- Draft Legislative Proposals for the Prevention and Resolution of Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters in the European Union
- Part II. Preventing and Resolving Conflicts of Jurisdiction in EU Criminal Law
- Preface to Part II
- Introduction to the Articles
- 1. Report on the Field Research at Eurojust, February 2015
- Preliminary Note
- I. Introduction
- II. Summary of Field Research
- A. The legal role of Eurojust
- B. Parallel proceedings
- 1. The nature of parallel proceedings
- 2. Detection of parallel proceedings
- 3. Parallel investigations and the role of JITs in the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction
- C. Resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction
- 1. Deciding on which jurisdiction should prosecute
- 2. Criteria to determine jurisdiction
- 3. In particular: the avoidance of ne bis in idem cases
- 4. The actual transfer of proceedings
- D. Summary
- III. Annex: Questionnaire
- 2. The legal basis for preventing and resolving conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the TFEU
- I. Introduction
- II. Article 82(1)(b) TFEU-Context and Objectives
- A. Approximation of laws under Article 82(1)(b) TFEU?
- B. The notion of 'conflicts of jurisdiction'
- C. 'Negative conflicts' of jurisdiction and multiple proceedings
- III. Settlement of Conflicts via Eurojust-Article 85(1)(c) TFEU
- IV. Conclusions Regarding the Legislative Models Developed in This Project
- 3. Prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction (Spanish system)
- I. Settlement of International Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Spanish Law
- A. Traditional lack of rules about settlement of international conflicts of jurisdiction
- B. Lack of rules about transferring away of jurisdiction from Spanish courts
- II. Settlement of Internal Conflicts of Jurisdiction
- III. The Definition of Spanish Jurisdiction in Criminal Matters
- IV. The Principle of Universal Jurisdiction and Its Evolution in Spanish Law
- V. Convention No 73 of the Council of Europe on the Transfer of Proceedings
- VI. Laying of Information, Article 21 of Convention No 30 of the Council of Europe on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959
- VII. Cases of Transfer of Jurisdiction
- VIII. Framework Decision on Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Jurisdiction and Its Transposition into Spanish Law
- IX. Conclusion
- 4. Forum choice in the area of freedom, security, and justice
- I. Introduction: Jurisdiction, Conflicts, and Choices in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice
- II. Pre-Lisbon Approach and ad hoc Consultation Procedures
- III. The Current EU Legal Framework: FD 2009/948/JHA
- IV. The Current Legal Framework: The Eurojust Decision and the Eurojust Guidelines
- A. The Eurojust decision
- B. The Eurojust guidelines
- V. Assessment of the Current Legal Framework in Light of the Relevant Fundamental Rights Standards
- A. Choice of forum and the principle of the lawful judge
- B. Choice of forum as a process: the importance of procedural safeguards
- VI. Conclusion: Some Considerations on the CJCL Proposals
- 5. Fundamental rights protection between Strasbourg and Luxembourg: extending transnational ne bis in idem across administrative and criminal procedures
- I. Introduction
- II. European ne bis in idem: Legal Framework and Rationales
- III. The Conceptual Roots of Extended ne bis in idem
- A. The Engel doctrine and the concept of a 'criminal charge'
- B. The broad, factual concept of idem
- IV. The Two Courts and the Development of Extended ne bis in idem
- A. Åkerberg Fransson and Grande Stevens: applying the Engel criteria in the context of ne bis in idem
- B. Engines astern? The new approach of the ECtHR to extended ne bis in idem in A and B v Norway
- C. Case closed? The CJEU and extended ne bis in idem in the aftermath of A and B v Norway: Menci, Di Puma, and Garlsson
- V. Conclusions: Transnational Application of Extended ne bis in idem and Conflicts of Jurisdiction
- 6. Choice of forum and cybercrime
- I. Is Cyberspace Conflict-prone?
- A. Definitions of cybercrime
- B. A generator of multiple claims to jurisdiction
- II. Conflicts of Substantive Jurisdiction in Cyberspace
- A. Rules founding substantive cyber-jurisdiction
- 1. Territoriality
- 2. Extraterritorial jurisdiction
- B. Existing efforts to confront conflicts of jurisdiction
- 1. International and European initiatives
- 2. European judicial cooperation on cybercrime
- III. Improving Forum Choice in Cybercrime Cases
- A. Investigation and prosecution
- B. Defendants in cybercrime cases
- C. Victims in cybercrime cases
- 7. Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal law: Lessons from European civil procedure
- I. Introduction
- II. Scope and Limits of the Comparison: Structural Differences between Civil and Criminal Justice
- A. Procedural architecture and party impulse
- B. Relevance of the problem of inactivity
- C. Relationship between jurisdiction and applicable law
- D. The role of private autonomy
- E. The influence of fact-specificity
- III. Lessons from Private International Law in General
- A. Conflicts of jurisdiction as conflicts of sovereignty
- B. The importance of legal certainty and predictability in private international law
- C. Substance-neutrality as a cornerstone of private international law
- 1. Introduction to the notion of substance-neutrality
- 2. Application of substance-neutrality to criminal justice
- IV. Lessons from European Civil Procedure in Particular
- A. Reducing overlaps in jurisdiction
- B. Different heads of jurisdiction in the Brussels I system
- 1. General jurisdiction
- 2. Specific jurisdiction: the case of tort
- 3. Differentiation between place where the damage occurred and place of the harmful events
- 4. Cross-border events
- 5. Civil claims based on an act giving rise to criminal proceedings
- 6. Exclusive jurisdiction
- C. Putting the Us pendens mechanism in context
- D. Lessons from conflicts of jurisdiction in family and succession matters
- 1. Dealing with fact-specificity while safeguarding certainty
- 2. Ordering the criteria progressively
- 3. Lawful move and child abduction: is a comparison with arrest possible?
- 4. Exchange of information: the role of central authorities
- V. Conclusions
- 8. Mutual recognition, choice of forum, and lis pendens: a civil law threesome transposed
- I. Introduction
- II. Mutual Recognition as Principle or Goal
- III. Standard Requirements for (Mutual) Recognition of Civil Judgments
- IV. Traité Simple, Double, and Mixte
- V. The Locus Delicti in Civil Justice Case Law
- VI. Lis Pendens and Related Actions-Dealing with Parallel Proceedings under Brussels I bis
- VII. Parallel Proceedings in Civil and Criminal Law-Similarities and Differences
- 9. Choice of forum, European citizenship, and fundamental rights: the position of the defendant
- I. Introduction
- II. Choice of Forum and EU Cooperation in Criminal Matters
- A. Jurisdiction
- B. Refusal grounds in cooperation instruments
- C. Existing mechanisms for dealing with conflicts of jurisdiction
- III. Choice of Forum and European Citizenship
- IV. Choice of Forum, European Citizenship, and Fundamental Rights
- A. Lex certa
- 1. Fragmented harmonisation of criminal law jurisdiction: divergent criminal law systems
- 2. The foreseeability of the double burden
- 3. The quest for viable alternatives
- B. Tribunal established by law
- 1. The quest for reasonableness
- 2. The need to break open national law
- 3. The need to coordinate national legal systems
- C. Ne bis in idem
- V. Conclusions
- 10. What role for crime victims in the forum choice?
- I. Introduction
- II. A Preliminary Issue: Who Is a Victim?
- III. The Scope of Victims' Rights in the EU
- IV. Multiple Legitimate Jurisdictions: What Is the Problem (for Victims)?
- V. The Interests of Victims in the Choice of One Forum
- A. How are victims' interests currently considered?
- B. Towards a new instrument: what type of victims' interests?
- C. A hierarchy between different interests?
- D. What is the impact of EU citizenship?
- VI. Conclusions
- 11. Choice of forum and case allocation in the EPPO Regulation
- I. Introduction
- II. Background-Some Basic Elements of the EPPO Regulation
- A. Structure of the EPPO
- B. Legal regime applicable to EPPO investigations and prosecutions
- 1. Subsidiary application of the national law of the Member State where the investigation is conducted
- 2. Application of national law on investigative measures
- 3. Application of national law in cross-border investigations
- 4. Substantive national law
- 5. Competences of the EPPO
- III. Conflicts of Jurisdiction and Case Allocation within the EPPO and the EPPO Territory
- A. Choice of jurisdiction in a 'single office'
- B. Decision-making process and criteria foreseen in the EPPO Regulation
- C. Judicial review of EPPO decisions on case allocation and forum choices
- IV. Conflicts of Competence between the EPPO and National Authorities
- A. Possible conflicts in case of participating Member States
- B. Possible conflicts of jurisdiction in relationship between the EPPO and non-participating Member States
- V. Conclusion
- Index
