search

… . …

… referred to in Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1), are applicable to the European investigation order. 26 According to the referring court, Directive 2014/41 and Framework Decision 2002/584 are based on the same principles of mutual recognition and . …

… for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, and in Member States’ constitutions in their respective fields of application. …’ 4 Under the heading ‘The European Investigation Order and obligation to execute it’, Article 1 of that directive states: ‘1. …

… The existence of a reasoned proposal may indeed have an impact on and mutual recognition within the area of freedom, security and justice, in particular, in the context of the execution of , but such an impact is certainly not limited to that area of law. 111. …

… Accordingly, any application for asylum made by a national of a Member State may be taken into consideration or declared admissible for processing by another Member State only in the following cases: (a) if the Member State of which the applicant is a national proceeds after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, availing itself of the provisions of Article 15 of the European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, to take measures derogating in its territory …

… Third, it affects the execution of instruments of cooperation between Member States, such as . 25. Furthermore, the applicant is of the view that the contested resolution sets out the Parliament’s definitive position. The subsequent involvement of the Parliament in the course of the procedure under Article 7 TEU, by giving consent to the Council to make a determination, is different from its initial proposal. …

… According to settled case-law of the ECtHR, the ‘Engel criteria’ must be used in order to determine whether or not there was a ‘criminal charge’ within the meaning of Article 4 (‘Right not to be tried or punished twice’) of Protocol No. 7 to the for the of and Fundamental Freedoms. See, inter alia, judgments of 10 February 2009, Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia, CE:ECHR:2009:0210JUD001493903, § 53, and of 15 November 2016, A and B v. …

… As a concluding footnote on that proposed answer, I note that such a solution would also be systematically consistent with EU internal instruments governing similar issues, such as Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order (‘EIO’) in criminal matters, (46) or Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the (‘EAW’). (47) 99. …

… That requires that the relevant competent authorities of the second Contracting State accept at face value a final decision communicated to them which has been given in the first Contracting State. (39) 86. …

… According to settled case-law, the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter and also in Articles 6 and 13 of the European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the ECHR’). (60) Under the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter, everyone has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. …

… For, according to the case-law of the Court, exceptions to the principle of mutual recognition may indeed be made, but at most in ‘exceptional circumstances’. (49) In this regard, the Court has recognised, in the context of the execution of a , that a real risk that a legal interest of fundamental importance will be breached as a result of systemic deficiencies may constitute such an exceptional circumstance. …

… The principle of mutual recognition expressed in that provision is based on the principle of . (22) This states that the legality of a measure adopted in accordance with the rules of the home Member State is not to be reviewed by the authorities and courts of the host Member State. (23) 56. …

… Strengthening requires detailed rules on the protection of the procedural rights and guarantees arising from the Charter, the [European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950,] and the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and which entered into force on 23 March 1976]. …

… It also requires, by means of this Directive and by means of other measures, further development within the [European] Union of the minimum standards set out in the Charter and in the [European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms]. … (19) Member States should ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right of access to a lawyer without undue delay in accordance with this Directive. …

… Troosters, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 November 2019, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3(2) of Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to …

… The case originated in an application (no. 10926/09) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the for the of and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ”) by a German national, Mr Michael Rinau (“the first applicant”) and a Lithuanian and German national, Ms Luisa Rinau (“the second applicant”), on 24 February 2009. 2.  The applicants were represented by Ms N. Bümlein, a lawyer practising in Berlin. …

… Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 131 and the case-law cited therein; as to fundamental rights and the principle of within the EU, see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, §§ 46-49, ECHR 2016). 186.   …

… The Lithuanian prosecutors subsequently issued a in respect of the first applicant but cancelled that warrant on 20 November 2008. 117.  On 18 November 2008 the Klaipėda Regional Court quashed the order for the detention of the first applicant. The court noted that the German courts’ decisions of 14 August 2006 and 20 June 2007 (see paragraphs 12 and 92 above) had never been invalidated, and should therefore have been executed. …

… According to the case-law of the ECtHR, the circumstances of the present case would not fall within the of Article 7 of the European on (‘ECHR’). …

… However, is based on the opposite assumption: the modus operandi of the Framework Decision strives for a balance between, on the one hand, , and on the other, minimal residual control. Trust is placed in the issuing authorities on the assumption that they strictly comply with the material requirements that underlie the EAW system. …

… A may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least 4 months. 2. …

… National law could therefore also be contrary to Article 5(3) of the European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (ECHR). 11. The referring court also notes that national law does not set a maximum duration for continued pre-trial detention or prescribe a periodic review of the court’s own motion. 12. …

… Morgenstern (eds.), Pre-trial Detention in the European Union, Wolf Legal Publishers 2009, p. 994. 3 OJ 2016 L 65, p. 1. 4 To borrow the expression used by the European Parliament in paragraph 5 of its resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the (P7_TA(2014)0174). 5 ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0827JUD003263109. 6 Nonetheless, as the Commission pointed out at the hearing, the wording of Article 270 of the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure …

… There can be judicial cooperation in criminal matters only if between Member States is strengthened and that trust cannot be soundly established if such contrasting standards are applied by Member States, especially in respect of pre-trial detention, which, I repeat, constitutes an exception, which must remain as limited as possible, to the keystone of our legal civilisation that is the right to liberty. 23. …

… Legal context The ECHR 3 Under the heading, ‘Prohibition of torture’, Article 3 of the European for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (‘the ECHR’), provides: ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.’ …

… Consequently, the Romanian judicial authority cancelled that and issued a new on 1 August 2018 for the purposes of executing that custodial sentence (‘the of 1 August 2018’). …

… As regards, in particular, the personal space available to each detainee, the executing judicial authority must, in the absence, currently, of minimum standards in that respect under EU law, take account of the minimum requirements under Article 3 of the for the of and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights. …

… Seen in this light, Article 53 of the , which permits States to provide a higher level of than flow from the minimum guarantees of the , has limited, if any, direct application in this context. III. …

… The case originated in an application (no. 8351/17) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the for the of and Fundamental Freedoms (“the ”) by five Spanish nationals (“the applicants”), on 16 January 2017. The applicants’ personal details are set out in the Appendix. 2. The applicants were represented by Ms M.L. García Blanco, a lawyer practising in Madrid. …

… Lastly, the Government argued that the presumption of protection of human rights which underpinned the system of between EU member States, of which the formed a part, was not an “irrebuttable presumption”. …