Effective and Legitimate?: Learning from the Lessons of 10 Years of Practice with the European Arrest Warrant

Abstract

The article examines the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the issues which have emerged in its first 10 years of practice. After a first section explaining the choice for the principle of mutual recognition as expression of effectiveness and subsidiarity in judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the articles discusses questions such as (ab)uses of the EAW as a mutual legal assistance instrument, the question of petty crimes and the proportionality test, the relation between mutual trust, fundamental rights and judicial review, and, lastly, nationality and residence clauses. It concludes on the importance of addressing these issues in the appropriate legal setting, be it legislative or judicial, with the aim of strengthening the effectiveness and legitimacy of the EAW.

Drones and Unmanned Aerial Systems

“…The agency has been accused of engaging in push-back operations, carried out on the basis of bilateral agreements between a member state and a TC. 4 In the joint operations (JOs) Hera II and Hera III, the bilateral Spain-Senegal and Spain-Mauritania agreements enabled interception and diversion of migrants' boats (Heijer 2011;Marin 2014). Later on, the agency did not engage actively in push-back operations, but it claimed success and effectiveness for the JO Nautilus, carried out "in parallel" with the operations carried out by Italy in the same area on the basis of national bilateral agreements with Libya, where interceptions also took place.…”

“…fishermen, tourists and migrants), since drones can collect and transmit specific information to the drone operator about what happens at sea, including visual data. 19 Drones, as a sense-and-detect technology, do nothing but increase the conflict between security and privacy (Marin 2014). But what is the legal framework regulating the operation of drones?…”

Deploying Drones in Policing Southern European Borders: Constraints and Challenges for Data Protection and Human Rights

“…These practices were challenged before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (Case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, 2012). agreements enabled interception and diversion of migrants' boats (Heijer, 2011;Marin, 2014).…”

“…Later on, the agency did not engage actively in push-back operations, but it claimed success and effectiveness for the JO Nautilus, carried out 'in parallel' to the operations carried out by Italy in the same area on the basis of national bilateral agreements with Libya, where interceptions also took place. This raised criticism among scholars: though not directly involved with such practices, the agency seemed to suggest complementary of its and Member States' controversial practices (Moreno-Lax, 2014;Marin, 2014). Hence, the agency is claimed to undergo some limitations in its cooperation capacity.…”

“…information to the drone operator about what happens at sea, including visual data. 22 Drones, as a sense-and-detect technology, do nothing but increase the conflict between security and privacy (Marin, 2014). But which is the legal framework binding the operation of drones?…”