09.02.2015 Views

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)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!