Jurisdiction Collisions In The Criminal Proceedings Of European Union Member States

1. “Laisvas prekių judėjimas” [Free Movement of Goods] (2011) // http://circa.europa.eu/irc/opoce/fact_sheets/info/data/market/market/article_7191_lt.htm.Search in Google Scholar

2. “Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės veiklos Europos integracijos srityje 2006 m. apžvalga” [The Overview of Lithuanian Republic Government activity In European Integration 2006] (2007) // http://www.euro.lt/documents/es_dokumentai/apzvalga%2020070319.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

3. Ažubalytė, Rima, and Karolina Vozbutaitė. “Baudžiamojo proceso europeizacija: kai kurie konstituciniai ir procesiniai Europos arešto orderio reglamentavimo ir taikymo aspektai“ [Europeization of Criminal Procedure: some Issues of Constitutional and Procedural Aspects of European Arrest Warrant Regulation and Application]: 82–138. In: Raimundas Jurka, et al. Baudžiamojo proceso tarptautiškumas: patirtis ir iššūkiai [The Internationalization of Criminal Procedure: Experience and Challenges. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

4. De Capitani, Emilio, and Steeve Peers. “The European Investigation Order: A New Approach to Mutual Recognition in Criminal Matters.” Eulawanalysis.blogspot.com (Friday, 23 May 2014) // http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-european-investigation-order-new.html.Search in Google Scholar

5. Eeckhout, Piet. “The Growing Influence of European Union Law.” Fordham International Law Journal 33(5) (2011): 1490–1521.Search in Google Scholar

6. Grigienė, Jurgita. “Forum Non Conveniens doktrina ir jos taikymas teismų praktikoje“ [The Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens and its Application in Court Practice]. Jurisprudencija 51(43) (2004): 80–89.Search in Google Scholar

7. Gruodytė, Edita. “Teisingumas baudžiamajame procese Europos Teisingumo Teismo akimis: atskiri non bis in idem principo aspektai” [Justice in Criminal procedure in the Eyes of the European Court of Justice: Some Aspects of the Principle non bis in idem]: 10–36. In: Baudžiamasis procesas: teisingumo garantas ar kliūtis? [Criminal Procedure: the Guarantee of Justice or the Barrier?]. Vilnius: UAB “Vilniaus panda”, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

8. Herlin-Karnell, Ester. “The Lisbon Treaty and the Area of Criminal Law and Justice“. European Policy Analysis 3 (2008): 1-10.Search in Google Scholar

9. Hilson, Chris. “The Europeanization of English Administrative Law: Judicial Review and Convergence.” European Public Law 9 (1) (2003): 125–145.10.54648/EURO2003009Search in Google Scholar

10. Hoppe, Nils. “On the Europeanization of Health Law.” European Journal of Health Law 17 (2010): 323–328.10.1163/157180910X516330Search in Google Scholar

11. Hunter, Mark D. “SEC/DOJ Parallel Proceedings: Contemplating the Propriety of Recent Judicial Trends.” Missouri Law Review 68 (2003): 149–178.Search in Google Scholar

12. Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar. “European Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters.” European Law Journal 9(5) (2003): 614–630.10.1046/j.1468-0386.2003.00195.xSearch in Google Scholar

13. Jurka, Raimundas “Tarptautinis bendradarbiavimas baudžiamajame procese: įrodymai ir jų priimtinumas Europos Sąjungoje” [International Cooperation in Criminal Procedure: Evidence and Its Acceptability]: 89–128. In: Vidmantas Egidijus Kurapka, et al. Baudžiamasis procesas: nuo teorijos iki įrodinėjimo (prof. dr. Eugenijaus Palskio atminimui) [Criminal Procedure: from Theory towards Evidence making procedure (in memoriam prof. Eugenijus Palskys)]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2011.Search in Google Scholar

14. Jurka, Raimundas. “Europos teisės įtaka Lietuvos baudžiamajam procesui” [The Influence of European Law into Lithuanian Criminal Procedure]: 11–81. In: Raimundas Jurka, et al. Baudžiamojo proceso tarptautiškumas: patirtis ir iššūkiai [The Internationalization of Criminal Procedure: Experience and Challenges]. Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas, 2013.Search in Google Scholar

15. Karsai, Krisztina. “The Principle of Mutual Recognition in the International Cooperation in Criminal Matters”. Zbornik radova Pravnogo fakulteta u Novom Sadu 1-2 (2008): 941–954.Search in Google Scholar

16. Kaufmannn-Kohler, Gabrielle. “How to Handle Parallel Proceedings: a Practical Approach to Issues such as Competence and Anti-Suit Injunctions.” Dispute Resolution International 2 (1) (2008): 110–113.Search in Google Scholar

17. Kristen, François. “Special Issue on Changing Approaches and Power in Criminal Justice.” Utrecht Law Review 7 (3) (2012): 1–7.10.18352/ulr.169Search in Google Scholar

18. Lathram, J. Brook., David S. Mitchell, Jr. “Permissible Parameters of Parallel Proceedings.” Tennessee Bar Journal (2012) // http://www.tba.org/journal/permissible-parameters-of-parallel-proceedings.Search in Google Scholar

19. Lavenex, Sandra. “Mutual Recognition and the Monopoly of Force: Limits of the Single Market Analogy.” Journal of European Policy 14 (5) (2007): 762–779.10.1080/13501760701428316Search in Google Scholar

20. Lewis, Tony. “Double Trouble.” The Lawyer 17 (2008): 32.10.12968/sece.2008.7.1247Search in Google Scholar

21. Loughlin, Walter P. “Fighting On Two Fronts: Parallel Proceedings and Challenges at the Intersection of Criminal and Civil Law.” The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (October, 2006): 32.Search in Google Scholar

22. McLachlan, Campbell. Lis pendens in International Litigation. Hague: Academy of International Law, 2009.10.1163/9789047441441Search in Google Scholar

23. Mitsilegas, Valsamis. “The Symbiotic Relationship between Mutual Trust and Fundamental Rights in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice.” Legal Studies Research Paper 207 (2015) // http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632892.Search in Google Scholar

24. Panayides, Polyvios. “Conflicts of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings: Analysis and Possible Improvements to the EU Legal Framework.” Revue internationale de droit penal 77 (1) (2006): 113–119.10.3917/ridp.771.0113Search in Google Scholar

25. Radaelli, Claudio, M. The Europeanization of Public Policy. The Politics of Europeanization. Oxford University Press, 2003.10.1093/0199252092.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

26. Schopenhauer, Arthut. Gyvenimo išminties aforizmai [The Aphorisms of the Wisdom of Life]. Vilnius: Tyto Alba, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

27. Sittermann, Birgit M. “Nachwuchsgruppe Europäische Zivilgesellschaft und Multi-Level Governance” [Europeanisation – A Step Forward in Understanding Europe?] (Münster, 1021) // http://nez.uni-muenster.de/download/Sittermann_Literature_Review_Europeanisation_FINAL2006.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

28. Smbatyan, Anait Sergejevna. “Parallel judicial proceedings problem in international law.” Russian Juridical Journal 81 (6) (2011): 23–30.Search in Google Scholar

29. Smits, Jan M. “The Europeanisation of National Legal Systems: Some Consequences for Legal Thinking in Civil Law Countries”: 229–245. In: Mark Van Hoecke, ed. Epistemology and Methodology of Comparative Law. Hart Publishing, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

30. Spencer, John R. “EU Fair Trial Rights – Progress at Last.” New Journal of European Criminal Law 1 (4) (2000): 2032–2844.10.1177/203228441000100405Search in Google Scholar

31. Vervaele, John A. E. “The Transnational ne bis in idem Principle in the EU Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights.” Common Market Law Review 41 (2004): 795–812.Search in Google Scholar

32. Vervaele, John A. E. “The Transnational ne bis in idem Principle in the EU Mutual Recognition and Equivalent Protection of Human Rights”. Utrecht Law Review 1 (2) (2005): 100–118.10.18352/ulr.10Search in Google Scholar

33. Vilpišauskas, Ramūnas. “Teisės integravimas į Europos integracijos tyrimus Lietuvoje: teisinio reguliavimo problematika stojant į ES” [Integration of Law into European Integration Researches in Lithuania: Problems of Legal Regulation while Accessing to EU]. Teisės problemos 4(42) (2003): 41–61.Search in Google Scholar

34. Younger, Stephen P., and Jenya Moshkovich. “Parallel Proceedings in Securities Enforcement Actions: The Growing Trend against Automatic Grants of Government Requests for Stays of Civil Cases.” Journal of Securities Law, Regulation & Compliance 3 (4) (2010): 307–314.Search in Google Scholar

1. Bourquain. Court of Justice Judgment of 11 December 2008, C-297/07.Search in Google Scholar

2. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. OL C 326, 2012 10 26: 391-407.Search in Google Scholar

3. Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 Regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters. OJ L 130, 1.5.2014: 1–36.Search in Google Scholar

4. Gasparini and Others. Court of Justice Judgment of 28 September 2006, C-467/04.Search in Google Scholar

5. Green Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of ne bis in idem in Criminal Proceedings (COM/2005/0696 final). Bulletin/2005/12/1.4.18, JO C/2006/70/5.Search in Google Scholar

6. Jurgen Kretzinger. Court of Justice Judgment of 18 July 2007, C-288/05.Search in Google Scholar

7. M. Court of Justice Judgment of 5 June 2014, C-398/12.Search in Google Scholar

8. Norma Kraaijiebrink and Others. Court of Justice Judgment of 18 July 2007, C-367/05.Search in Google Scholar

9. Opinion of Advocate General Bot Delivered on 7 September 2010 in Case C-261/09, Gaetano Mantello // http://www.infolex.lt/estzv2/default.aspx?pg=31&crd=34047&lng=LT.Search in Google Scholar

10. Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston Delivered on 6 February 2014 in Case C-398/12, Procura della Repubblica v M. // http://www.infolex.lt/estzv2/default.aspx?pg=31&crd=16150&lng=LT.Search in Google Scholar

11. Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol No. 11 // http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/117.htm.Search in Google Scholar

12. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the Implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Exercise of Jurisdiction in Criminal Proceedings (COM(2014)313 final) (2014) // http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/law/files/report_conflicts_jurisdiction_en.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

13. Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC]. Eur Court HR, no. 14939/03, § 83, ECHR 2009.Search in Google Scholar

14. The Schengen acquis – Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders. OJ L 239, 22.9.2000: 19–62.Search in Google Scholar

15. Van Esbroeck. Court of Justice Judgment of 9 March 2006, C-436/04.Search in Google Scholar

16. Van Straaten. Court of Justice Judgment of 28 September 2006, C-150/05.Search in Google Scholar

17. Vladimir Turansky. Court of Justice Judgment of 22 December 2008, C-491/07.Search in Google Scholar