Guest Editorial
| Author | Simone White |
| Published date | 01 December 2010 |
| Date | 01 December 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/203228441000100401 |
| Subject Matter | Guest Editorial |
New Journal of Eur opean Crimina l Law, Vol. 1, Issue 4, 2010 421
GUEST EDITORIAL
S W*
is issue collects some of the contributions made during t wo seminars held under
the auspices of the Institute of Adva nced Legal Studies in May and June 2010. Six
papers are presented around three themes: changing relationships or dynamics under
the Lisbon Treaty;1 the r ights of the defence and the impact on investigators/
prosecutors.
Mitsilegas and White focus on changi ng relationships or dynamics under the new
legal framework. Mitsilegas explores Member State resistance to the
‘communautarisation’ of crimi nal law. He suggests that the new legal framework wi ll
in turn attract new str ategies of resistance by the Member States. White looks at the
new dynamic emerging between the Counci l of Europe and the EU, triggered by the
cal l for the ac cess ion of the EU to th e Cou ncil o f Eur ope Co nvent ion on Hu man Righ ts
in the Treaty of Lisbon.
Spencer a nd Blackstock focus on the r ights of the defence. Spencer argue s that
progress is being made at last in this area. Blackstock critica lly examines the proposal
for a European Investigation Order. She argues that a number of amendments are still
necessary to ensure that fu ndamental rights are respected. Farries addres ses the issue
of how practitioners – and particularly those investigat ing and prosecuting suspected
fraud – will nd their provisions aected by the implementation of t he cha nges
brought about by the Lisbon Treaty.
Reecting on the evolution of European Crim inal Law, one could be forgiven for
venturing that this evolution has been, on t he whole, an untidy process – sometimes
called a laboratory – even if it seems to point to greater underst anding of each others’
systems and to increase d cooperation. Various approaches have been tried over time:
mutual assis tance, harmonisation, mutua l recognition, and now mutual recognition
backed by minima l approximation. Mutual assistance has not been supersed ed by
mutual recognition and so it persists, especia lly where mutual recognition leads to
inconsistencies. For ex ample, the Framework Decision on Freezing Property or
Evidence creates a system under which the EU Member States automatically recognise
‘freezing orders’ issued by each other’s courts. With the European Arrest Warrant, the
double criminality requi rement is largely suppressed. e Member States have argued
that this Framework Decision is seldom used in practice, as it co-exists with other
traditional inst ruments of cooperation. In any case, it was restricted to the freezing of
* is guest ed itorial does not reect t he views of the Europea n Commission.
1 Editors’ note: e order in which the contribution s are discussed here is not the order in which they
appear in the b ody of the journal.
To continue reading
Request your trial