Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T00:26:55.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mutual Trust in Criminal Matters: the European Court of Justice gives a first interpretation of a provision of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement

Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 11 February 2003 in Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Nadine Thwaites

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It is common knowledge that the Internal Market is based on the notion of free movement which, in turn, rests on four basic freedoms (goods, persons, services and capital). The European Court of Justice (hereinafter “Court”) has always interpreted these freedoms broadly while construing the exceptions to these freedoms strictly. This approach was to no small extent based on a presumption of mutual trust and mutual recognition among Member States. It allowed the Court, in many cases, to ensure free movement within the Internal Market without having to await the adoption of harmonised European Community measures.

Type
European & International Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , 01 March 2003 , pp. 253 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (hereinafter “TEC”).Google Scholar

2 For information purposes, Article 35 of the TEU allows the Court, under certain conditions, to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation and the validity of framework decisions, decisions and conventions concluded by Member States according to Title VI of the TEU, and on the interpretation and the validity of their measures of application. Such a preliminary ruling allows the Court to appreciate not only the uniform interpretation of these instruments, but also their conformity with any superior norm in the European Union's juridical order, except for conventions concluded between Member States for which the preliminary reference determining validity is not foreseen. See LENAERTS, K., et JADOUL, L., “Quelle contribution de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes au développement de l'espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice?”, in de KERCHOVE, G., and WEYEMBERGH, A., eds., L'espace pénal européen: enjeux et perspectives, Bruxelles, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2002, p. 201.Google Scholar

3 Signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, Luxembourg.Google Scholar

4 Please note that the Court uses “Contracting Party” in some sections of the preliminary ruling, while “Member State” in others. We will use the expression “Member State” throughout the text.Google Scholar

5 We will expose the most important points of the Court's preliminary ruling. However, it should be mentioned that the Court answers – and rejects – a series of additional questions raised by the Belgian as well as the German governments regarding the wording, the object and the purpose of Article 54 of the CISA; the exceptions to the ne bis in idem principle set out in Article 55 of the CISA; the intention of the Member States; the fact that settlements in criminal proceedings are likely to prejudice the rights of the victim; etc. (see §§ 41-47 of Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, European Court of Justice, 11.03.2003, Gözütok and Brügge, § 48 (hereinafter Gözütok and Brügge)).Google Scholar

6 Id., § 48.Google Scholar

7 Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Opinion presented on 19 September 2002.Google Scholar

8 Gözütok and Brügge, § 26.Google Scholar

9 Id., § 28.Google Scholar

10 Id., § 31.Google Scholar

11 Signed on 14 June 1985 at Schengen, Luxembourg.Google Scholar

12 Gözütok and Brügge, § 32.Google Scholar

13 Id., § 33 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

14 This protocol is annexed to the TOA.Google Scholar

15 Gözütok and Brügge, § 40.Google Scholar

16 Id., § 33 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

17 Case 120/78, European Court of Justice, 20.02.1979, Rewe v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein (“Cassis de Dijon”), § 14.Google Scholar

18 Gözütok and Brügge, § 39 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

19 STESSENS, G., “The Principle of Mutual Confidence between Judicial Authorities in the Area of Freedom, Justice and Security”, in de KERCHOVE, G., and WEYEMBERGH, A., eds., L'espace pénal européen: enjeux et perspectives, Bruxelles, Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 2002, p. 93.Google Scholar

20 Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States, Official Journal L 190/1, 18.07.2002, preamble §§ 6 and 10.Google Scholar