Author presents and analyses the principle of mutual recognition of judgements, which as an alternative to harmonisation of rules at EU level, enforces automatic validity and applicability of judgements from one member Stare in all other States with minimal formalities. First, the author examines, whether the EU exceeded its powers when applying mutual recognition instruments. The focus of the analysis is on the first and most effective mutual recognition instrument, i.e. European Arrest Warrant. The instrument limits numerous grounds for refusal, which were applied in extradition proceedings, one of the most controversial elements of the European Arrest Warrant being that human rights violations are not set as grounds for refusal. The author critically considers the status of constitutional guarantees within the system of mutual recognition instruments. While assessing the level of protection of some of the most crucial guarantees, such as a right to judicial protection, the principle of legality and double jeopardy, ne bis in idem principle, the author considers the protection of rights of an individual in criminal proceedings. The main objective of the work is to evaluate, whether the principle of mutual recognition is a successful alternative to harmonisation of criminal law at EU level and whether it provides sufficient protection of an individual in criminal proceedings.
|
