This book develops a conceptual framework of the principle of mutual trust in EU criminal law. Mutual trust is a household term in the EU criminal law vocabulary and is widely regarded to be a prerequisite for a successful application of mutual recognition. But despite its importance, the parameters of the concept are not clear. The book demonstrates that mutual trust is multi-faceted: combining the elements essential to a successful EU criminal law, as part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The book approaches trust from multiple angles. First, a study of social science literature. Second, a meticulous assessment of mutual trust in EU criminal law. Third, a study of trust in US interstate criminal justice cooperation. Finally, the book identifies a comprehensive approach to tackle trust related difficulties in EU criminal law. This timely book will be of great interest to anyone looking to gain a full picture of this core principle in EU criminal law.

Examining the principle of mutual recognition in the EU legal order, this book takes a cross-policy approach to focus on the principle in the internal market and in the criminal justice area. It asks whether the principle of mutual recognition, as developed in relation to the free movement provisions (internal market), can equally be applied in judicial cooperation in criminal matters (the area of freedom, security, and justice), and if such a cross-policy application is desirable. Divided into three parts, the book first looks at the way this principle functions in the internal market. Part II examines how the principle works in judicial cooperation in criminal matters, with the final part answering the book's central questions. In each part, further related questions are asked: What is the object of the principle of mutual recognition? Who are the main actors involved? How does the mechanism of mutual recognition operate (with an emphasis on the existing limits to mutual recognition)? How does mutual recognition relate to harmonization and to mutual trust? What is the relevance of equivalence requirements and the distribution of competence between the home (issuing) State and the host (executing) State? What are the main characteristics of the principle of mutual recognition? And is it a workable principle? Through an in-depth analysis of the relevant Treaty provisions, EU legislation, EU case law, and EU policy documents, the book comes to the conclusion that a cross-policy application of the principle of mutual recognition is both feasible and desirable.

. . . this book fills a significant gap in the English-language literature and must be read by all who seek to understand why profound reflection is needed on the theoretical underpinnings of EU criminal justice. Samuli Miettinen, Journal of Common Market Studies The book contains a number of interesting arguments and comments on the development of EU criminal law. . . the authors efforts to provide a generalist book in this ever-growing, increasingly important and still under-researched field of EU law must be welcomed. Valsamis Mitsilegas, The Edinburgh Law Review Today, EU criminal law and justice constitutes a significant body of law potentially affecting most aspects of criminal justice. This book provides a comprehensive, accessible yet analytically challenging account of the institutional and legal developments in this field to date. It also includes full consideration of the prospective changes to EU criminal law contained in the recent Lisbon Treaty . While, broadly speaking, the authors welcome the objectives of EU criminal law, they call for a profound rethinking of how the good of criminal justice however defined is to be delivered to those living in the EU. At present, despite sometimes commendable initiatives from the institutions responsible, the actual framing and implementation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) suffers from a failure to properly consider the theoretical implications of providing the good of criminal justice at the EU level. Written shortly before the recent entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, EU Criminal Law and Justice comprises a full overview of the key legal developments and debates and includes a user-friendly guide to the institutional changes contained in the Treaty. This timely book will be of interest to both undergraduate and postgraduate students, as well as to legal practitioners and policy makers at national and EU levels.

Mutual recognition in the EU is both a goal and a principle in of itself, constructed and operationalised through individual provisions. The principle of mutual recognition is regarded as fundamental in enabling cooperation between Member States both in civil and criminal matters. The principle of mutual recognition has long ago outgrown the Internal Market and seeped through into judicial matters between Member States in the AFSJ. The accompanying realisation that the EU is not just an economic area is therefore evident. Since the inception of the idea of a Europe free of classical border checks facilitating freedom of movement was manifested, the fear of circumventing the application of judicial decisions became evermore real. Therefore, monumental changes in the fields of international criminal and international private law were expected and implemented in the European union (EU), through the principle of mutual trust and mutual recognition. Subsequently, classical concepts of private international and international criminal law gave way to Europeanised concepts of exequatur, the public policy exception, the principle of reciprocity, the principle of double criminality and the principle of specialty to name a few. It should be noted that these rules had been reserved to be enacted by the Member States. However, by loosening those principles the guarantees and freedoms which they either explicitly or implicitly guard are in danger of being sidestepped in order to enable mutual recognition. Therefore, at the forefront of the debate of mutual recognition of judicial decisions is the question of protecting fundamental rights and legal principles enshrined both in European and domestic legislation of the Member States. The balancing act that the EU preforms has to be careful enough to facilitate mutual recognition while not jeopardizing mutual trust between Member States. Today both EU private international law and EU criminal law work on the basis of the provisions which facilitate mutual recognition and limit it within the AFSJ. Since the basic idea behind mutual recognition is the same, i.e. free movement of judicial decisions, both their manifestations and their limits should strive to respect the basic framework of the field of law form which they stand. While the principle of mutual recognition has been slowly and methodically evolving, there is a sense of urgency with the development of the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters.

This book explores the relationship of mutual trust and fundamental rights in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) of the European Union and asks whether there is any role for proportionality. Mutual trust among Member States has long been presumed by the Court in a manner that mutual recognition was prioritised in regard to, but to the detriment of, the protection of fundamental rights. After thoroughly reviewing this relationship, this book offers a comprehensive framework of proportionality and explores its impact on the protection of fundamental rights in a mutual trust environment. It applies a theoretical and a normative framework of proportionality to two case studies (EU criminal and asylum law) by reference to several fundamental rights, enabling a carefully constructed analysis with useful parallels. The book argues that such analysis, based on proportionality, is not always desirable and helpful for the protection of fundamental rights in this area and thoroughly explores its impact on the protection of fundamental rights vis-à-vis mutual trust.

This thesis examines the principle of mutual trust in European Union (EU) law - a nascent legal principle gradually trying to find its place in the EU legal and structural architecture and perhaps even in its constitutional hierarchy. In addition to exploring the principle from a doctrinal standpoint, the work investigates whether the way in which mutual trust has come to function in the Union legal order has the potential to foster actual trust in the EU, and between actors and subjects in the EU legal order. In order to do so, it draws on trust theories proposed by a wide range of social scientists. The doctrinal level of the thesis tracks the historical development and transformation of mutual trust and compartmentalises case law into four distinct jurisprudential generations, each with its specific set of characteristics, terminology, and functions. It does so in a broad manner, touching upon specific policy issues but not constrained by them. In this way, the thesis demonstrates how a principle first deployed in the internal market domain, aiming to encourage Member States to recognise each other's product inspections not to second guess or duplicate them, became a broad Article 2 value adherence presumption that Member States would live up to ideals such as democracy, rule of law, freedom, and equality, respect for human dignity and human rights. The thesis finds that the prevailing conception of mutual trust as a broad EU law and fundamental rights compliance presumption fails to satisfy even the objective parameters of trust as a concept, meaning that the contexts in which mutual trust is raised are usually not situations which would require an attitude of trust but rather compliance, legality, accountability, and judicial control. The way in which mutual trust has come to operate in the EU is more akin to an undemocratic institutionalisation of trust than the institutionalisation of mistrust the latter being more typical of free and democratic societies. In addition to its critique of the current functioning and understanding of the principle of mutual trust, the thesis offers novel insights toward rethinking and reconstructing the principle in order to better achieve its aspirations.