The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
development <strong>of</strong> the single market - as an alternative. 691 <strong>The</strong> Commission followed up on<br />
this idea submitting that,<br />
“… borrowing from concepts that have worked very well in the creation <strong>of</strong> the Single<br />
Market, the idea was born that judicial co-operation might also benefit from the concept<br />
<strong>of</strong> mutual recognition which, simply stated, means that once a certain measure, such as<br />
a decision taken by a judge in exercising his or her <strong>of</strong>ficials powers in one Member<br />
State, has been taken, that measure – in so far as it has extranational implicationswould<br />
automatically be accepted in all other Member States, and have the same or at<br />
least similar effects there.” 692<br />
<strong>The</strong> Commission continued by explaining that this automaticity was possible because<br />
there was mutual trust between Member States’ <strong>criminal</strong> justice systems,<br />
“Mutual recognition is a principle which is widely understood as being based on the<br />
thought that while another state may not deal with a certain matter in the same or even<br />
similar way as one’s own state, the results will be such that they are acceptable as<br />
equivalent to decisions by one’s own state. Mutual trust is an important element, not<br />
only trust in the adequacy <strong>of</strong> one’s partners’ rules, but also trust that these rules are<br />
correctly applied.<br />
Based on the idea <strong>of</strong> equivalence and the trust it is based on, the results the other state<br />
has reached are allowed to take effect in one’s own sphere <strong>of</strong> legal influence. On this<br />
basis, a decision taken by an authority in one state could be accepted as such in another<br />
state, even though a comparable authority may not even exist in that state or could not<br />
take such decisions, or would have taken an entirely different decision in a comparable<br />
case.” 693<br />
691 UK Delegation, Note from UK Delegation to the K4 Committee, Document 7090/99<br />
submitted to the K4 Committee, Brussels, 29 March 1999, para 7 and 8.<br />
692 <strong>European</strong> Commission, Commission Communication to the Council and the <strong>European</strong><br />
Parliament on Mutual Recognition <strong>of</strong> Final Decisions in Criminal Matters, COM(2000)495final,<br />
Brussels, 26.7.2000, 2.<br />
693 Ibid., 4. In 2001 the Commission released a very extensive Programme <strong>of</strong> measures<br />
envisaging the application <strong>of</strong> mutual recognition to a wide range <strong>of</strong> areas <strong>of</strong> the <strong>criminal</strong> justice<br />
process, from pre-trial orders, extradition, prison sentences, among others, <strong>European</strong><br />
Commission, Programme <strong>of</strong> Measures to implement the principle <strong>of</strong> mutual recognition <strong>of</strong><br />
decisions in <strong>criminal</strong> matters, OJ C 12/10 (2001). <strong>The</strong> idea <strong>of</strong> mutual recognition and mutual<br />
trust was further reinforced by the Commission in 2005 in the Green PaperCOM(2004)334final,<br />
see supra note 573, 12.<br />
187