Introduction

East Meets West

“…It becomes undeniable now that criminal justice policy is affected, which necessarily include cross-border cooperation. 2594 Admittedly, the future is still uncertain despite the new form of relationship, notwithstanding the UK government talking about the many benefits brought by the EU Criminal Justice Policies after it was called to justify opting back into a list of around 35 third pillar measures (the EIO included). 2595 The willingness to remain has been expressed numerous times, such as in the following statement: "As we exit, we will therefore look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism.…”

“…2596 Prior to what has now been agreed upon, Mitsilegas discussed that there were three (3) possible consequences from the exit: (1) to enter into special agreements with the EU in the field of criminal justice matters; (2) to enter into different bilateral agreements with the different EU member states; and (3) in the absence of such agreements, fall back to admittedly outdated Council of Europe instruments to facilitate cross-border cooperation in criminal matters. 2597 It became thereafter clearer that the first option was pursued and not only that, but the same mechanism applied with the EIO shall be followed (e.g. pro-forma MLA request to be formed by specialized committee, principle of proportionality, time limits, etc.…”

“…2704 One can note at this point that the ground for refusal based on the aforementioned was to curb arbitrary or unlawful action of both issuing and executing authorities. 2705 Additionally, there was an integrated proportionality and necessity check as regards the issuing state wherein an EIO shall only be resorted to if the same is necessary and proportionate. 2706 Interestingly, this necessity and proportionality element has been importantly stressed in traditional MLA practice to ensure that the request for assistance is proportionate to the level of crime being investigated and there is necessity of the evidence in question to the investigation or proceedings, although they may have not been explicitly provided in the law.…”

Let's talk about trust, baby! Theorizing trust and mutual recognition in the EU's area of freedom, security and justice

“…In the Court's jurisprudence, mutual trust follows a teleological rationale as a means to facilitate effective horizontal cooperation through mutual recognition both in defining the scope of ne bis in idem and in determining the fault lines of recognition under the EAW. 110 The instrumental value of mutual trust lies in its capacity to create and maintain 'an area without internal borders.' 111 The wording-in reiteration of Article 3(2) TEU-squarely captures the spirit of the internal market (Article 26[2] TFEU).…”