The Influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Issuance of European Arrest Warrants in Lithuania

Saulė Milčiuvienė 1  and Edita Gruodytė 2
  • 1 Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Law, Lithuania
  • 2 Vytautas Magnus University, Faculty of Law, Lithuania

Abstract

The European arrest warrant system is one of the greatest achievements in the development of cooperation in judicial matters among EU Member States. However, its implementation has raised many questions, resulting in referrals by national courts to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for preliminary rulings. This article analyses the impact of the CJEU’s preliminary rulings on Lithuanian law concerning European arrest warrants. Specifically, the focus of the paper is institutional configuration and corresponding regulation in this field because/after the CJEU decided that (1) the Ministry of Justice cannot be considered a judicial authority because as part of the executive branch it cannot guarantee the protection of the parties’ fundamental rights; (2) however, the Prosecutor General of Lithuania can be considered a judicial authority because it participates in the administration of criminal justice and is independent of executive governance, and because its decisions to issue European arrest warrants are subject to judicial review.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Carrera, Sergio, and Valsamis Mitsilegas. “Upholding the Rule of Law by Scrutinising Judicial Independence: The Irish Court’s Request for a Preliminary Ruling on the European Arrest Warrant” (2018) // https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/upholding-rule-law-scrutinising-judicial-independence-irish-courts-request-preliminary/.

  • 2. Human Rights Monitoring Institute. “Beyond Surrender: The Practice of the European Arrest Warrant in Lithuania” (2018) // http://hrmi.lt/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Beyond-Surrender_2018_HRMI.pdf.

  • 3. Letsas, George. “The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR.” European Journal of International Law 15 (2004): 279–305.

  • 4. Mancano, Leandro. “Judicial Harmonisation through Autonomous Concepts of European Union Law: The Example of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision.” European Law Review 43 (2018): 69–88.

  • 5. Mitsilegas, Valsamis. “Managing Legal Diversity in Europe’s Area of Criminal Justice: The Role of Autonomous Concepts”: 125–59. In: Renauld Colson and Stewart Field, eds. EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity: Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

  • 6. Molnar, Tamas. “The Concept of Autonomy of EU Law from the Comparative Perspective of International Law and the Legal Systems of Member States.” Hungarian Yearbook of International Law and European Law (2015): 433–59.

  • 7. “Report to the Lithuanian Government on the Visit to Lithuania Carried Out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 21 to 30 April 2008” (2009) // https://rm.coe.int/1680697335.

  • 1. Asselbourg and 78 Others and Greenpeace Association-Luxembourg v Luxembourg. European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), 1999 Reports 1999-VI.

  • 2. Beyler v Italy. ECtHR, 2000 Reports 2000-I.

  • 3. Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette, 2002, no. 37–1341.

  • 4. Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States. OJ L 190, 18 July 2002, 1–20.

  • 5. Draft Agreement Providing for the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Opinion 2/13 ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454.

  • 6. Eriksen v Norway. ECtHR, 1997 Reports 1997-III.

  • 7. Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. CJEU, Case 6–64, ECLI:EU:C:1964:66.

  • 8. Minister for Justice and Equality v LM. CJEU, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

  • 9. Minister for Justice and Equality v OG and PI. CJEU, C -508/18 and C -82/19 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2019:456.

  • 10. Minister for Justice and Equality v PF. CJEU, C-509/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:457.

  • 11. NV Algemene Transporten Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration. CJEU, Case 26–62, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1.

  • 12. Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik. CJEU, C-453/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:860.

  • 13. Openbaar Ministerie v Krzysztof Marek Poltorak. CJEU, C -452/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:858.

  • 14. Openbaar Ministerie v Krzysztof Marek Poltorak. Opinion of Advocate General. CJEU, C -452/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:782.

  • 15. Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas. CJEU, C -477/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:861.

  • 16. Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas. Opinion of Advocate General. CJEU, C -477/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:784.

  • 17. Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen. CJEU, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:198.

  • 18. Pellegrin v France. ECtHR, 1999 Reports 1999-VIII.

  • 19. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal C 326, 26 October 2012, P.0001–0390.

  • 20. X v Germany. ECtHR, 1972 Collection 40, 11–14.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search