Načelo vzajemnega priznavanja v okviru EU kot slaba utilitaristična rešitev
Izvleček
Avtor v prispevku problematizira koncept vzajemnega prizna-vanja kot nosilca kazenskopravnega sodelovanja znotraj eu. Tako po eni strani prikazuje trenutno stanje uporabe tega koncepta, ki je pripeljalo do izrazito neenakomernega razmerja med pristojnost-mi organov pregona na eni strani in pravicami posameznika na drugi strani, v škodo slednjih. Hkrati ima ta koncept tudi bistveno sistemsko napako uporabe znotraj nekaterih diametralno naspro-tnih ureditev v okviru eu, čeprav vse izhajajo vsaj iz minimalnih zahtev eSČP. Tako je območje svobode, varnosti in pravice zgolj virtualna resničnost v smislu koherentnega pravnega sistema in v dejanskosti deluje na podlagi utilitarističnega pristopa poskusov in napak. Hkrati pa skozi analizo sistema v zDA nazorno pokaže, da je takšno stanje nevzdržno in bo dolgoročno pripeljalo do ab-solutnega poenotenja nekaterih temeljnih konceptov (pravic ob-dolženca v kazenskem postopku in njegove strukture, kakor tudi opredelitve vseevropskega osebnega statusa).
References
Monografije, članki in strokovni prispevki
Ackerman Bruce: We the People, Volume 1: Foundations in Volume 2: Transformations, Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 1993 in 2000.
Ackerman Bruce: »The Living Constitution«, 120 Harvard Law Review 7 (2007), 1737–1812.
Berger Raul: Government by Judiciary, Government by Judiciary, Liberty Fund, 1997.
Bošnjak Marko in drugi: Izhodišča za nov model kazenskega postopka, Inštitut za kriminologijo pri
Pravni fakulteti, 2006.
Coenan Dan T.: Constitutional Law: The Commerce Clause, Foundation Press, 2003.
Costello Cathryn: Metock: Free Movement and »Normal Family Life« in the Union, Common Market
Law Review, 46 (2009), 587–662.
Dworkin Ronald: Law’s Empire, Harvard University Press, 2001.
Fijnaut Cyrille, Ouwerkerk Jannemieke et al.: The Future of Police and Judicial Cooperation in the EU,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010.
Lööf Robin: Shooting from the hip: proposed minimum rights in criminal proceedings throughout
the EU, European Law Journal, 12 (2006) 3, 421–430.
Pollicino Oreste: European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: a Case
Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems,
German Law Journal, (2008) 10, 1313–1355.
Sarmiento Daniel: European Union: The European Arrest Warrant and the quest for constitutional
coherence, 6 International Journal of Constitutional Law 171 (2008), 171–183.
Steiner Jospehine, Woods Lorna in Twigg-Flesner Christian: EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen Gisele et al.: The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the
European Union, Universite de Bruxelles, 2009.
Weyembergh Anne: »Approximation of Criminal Laws, The Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme
«, 42 Common Market Law Review (2005), 1576–1577;
Zupančič B.M., Pravo in prav, Cankarjeva založba, 1990.
Judikatura
ECJ, 120/78, Rewe Zentral AG.
ECJ, C-159/90, Grogan v. SPUC.
ECJ, C-76/90, Säger.
ECJ, C-415/93, Bosman.
ECJ, C-55/94, Gebhardt.
ECJ, C-224/98, D'Hoop v. Office National de l'emploi .
ECJ, C-413/99, Baumbast, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department.
ECJ, C-184/99, Grzelczyck.
ECJ, C-122/99 in C-125/99, D. in Švedska proti Svetu.
ECJ, C-187/01 in C-385/01, Gözütok in Brugge.
ECJ, C-117/01, K.B. v. NHSPA.
ECJ, C-98/01, Komisija proti Združeno kraljestvu.
ECJ, C-148/02 Garcia Avello.
ECJ, C-200/02, Catherine Zhu, Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department.
ECJ, C-467/04, Gasparini in drugi.
ECJ, C-303/05, Advocaten de Wereld.
ECJ, C-267/06, Maruko.
ECJ, C-297/07, Klaus Bourquain .
ECJ, C-127/08, Matock .
Vrhovno sodišče Irske, MJELR v. Rettinger, [2010] IESC 45, sodba z dne 23. julija 2010.
ESČP, Orchowski proti Poljski, št. 17885/04, sodba z dne 22. oktobra 2009.
ESČP, Gäfgen proti Nmečiji, št- 22978/05, sodbi z dne 30. junija 2008 in z dne 1. junija 2010.
ESČP, Schalk in Kopf proti Avstriji, št. 30141/04, sodba z dne 24. junija 2010.
VS ZDA, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60. U.S. 393(1856).
VS ZDA, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
VS ZDA, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
VS ZDA, Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
VS ZDA, Escobedo v. Illinois 78 U.S. 478 (1964).
VS ZDA, Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
VS ZDA, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Zakonodaja
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih
predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, 17.7.2002, str. 1).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2005/214/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
denarnih kazni (UL L 76, 22.3.2005, str. 16).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2006/783/PNZ z dne 6. oktobra 2006 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
odredb o zaplembi (UL L 328, 24.11.2006, str. 59).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/978/PNZ z dne 18. decembra 2008 o evropskem dokaznem nalogu za namene
pridobitve predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih (UL L
350, 30.12.2008, str. 72)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/947/PNZ z dne 27. novembra 2008 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
sodb in pogojnih odločb zaradi zagotavljanja nadzorstva nad spremljevalnimi ukrepi in
alternativnimi sankcijami (UL L 337, 16.12.2008, str. 102)
Internet
Statewatch, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/aug/tampere.pdf.
Adam Gorski: The European Arrest Warrant, http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/~kpk/eaw/other/220_EAW.
pdf.
EU Council, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/114859.pdf.
Natasha Simonsen: Is Torture ever justified?, http://www.ejiltalk.org/‘is-torture-ever-justified’-the-european-
court-of-human-rights-decision-in-gafgen-v-germany/.
U.S. courts, https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf.
Ackerman Bruce: We the People, Volume 1: Foundations in Volume 2: Transformations, Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press, 1993 in 2000.
Ackerman Bruce: »The Living Constitution«, 120 Harvard Law Review 7 (2007), 1737–1812.
Berger Raul: Government by Judiciary, Government by Judiciary, Liberty Fund, 1997.
Bošnjak Marko in drugi: Izhodišča za nov model kazenskega postopka, Inštitut za kriminologijo pri
Pravni fakulteti, 2006.
Coenan Dan T.: Constitutional Law: The Commerce Clause, Foundation Press, 2003.
Costello Cathryn: Metock: Free Movement and »Normal Family Life« in the Union, Common Market
Law Review, 46 (2009), 587–662.
Dworkin Ronald: Law’s Empire, Harvard University Press, 2001.
Fijnaut Cyrille, Ouwerkerk Jannemieke et al.: The Future of Police and Judicial Cooperation in the EU,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010.
Lööf Robin: Shooting from the hip: proposed minimum rights in criminal proceedings throughout
the EU, European Law Journal, 12 (2006) 3, 421–430.
Pollicino Oreste: European Arrest Warrant and Constitutional Principles of the Member States: a Case
Law-Based Outline in the Attempt to strike the Right Balance between Interacting Legal Systems,
German Law Journal, (2008) 10, 1313–1355.
Sarmiento Daniel: European Union: The European Arrest Warrant and the quest for constitutional
coherence, 6 International Journal of Constitutional Law 171 (2008), 171–183.
Steiner Jospehine, Woods Lorna in Twigg-Flesner Christian: EU Law, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen Gisele et al.: The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the
European Union, Universite de Bruxelles, 2009.
Weyembergh Anne: »Approximation of Criminal Laws, The Constitutional Treaty and the Hague Programme
«, 42 Common Market Law Review (2005), 1576–1577;
Zupančič B.M., Pravo in prav, Cankarjeva založba, 1990.
Judikatura
ECJ, 120/78, Rewe Zentral AG.
ECJ, C-159/90, Grogan v. SPUC.
ECJ, C-76/90, Säger.
ECJ, C-415/93, Bosman.
ECJ, C-55/94, Gebhardt.
ECJ, C-224/98, D'Hoop v. Office National de l'emploi .
ECJ, C-413/99, Baumbast, R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department.
ECJ, C-184/99, Grzelczyck.
ECJ, C-122/99 in C-125/99, D. in Švedska proti Svetu.
ECJ, C-187/01 in C-385/01, Gözütok in Brugge.
ECJ, C-117/01, K.B. v. NHSPA.
ECJ, C-98/01, Komisija proti Združeno kraljestvu.
ECJ, C-148/02 Garcia Avello.
ECJ, C-200/02, Catherine Zhu, Man Lavette Chen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department.
ECJ, C-467/04, Gasparini in drugi.
ECJ, C-303/05, Advocaten de Wereld.
ECJ, C-267/06, Maruko.
ECJ, C-297/07, Klaus Bourquain .
ECJ, C-127/08, Matock .
Vrhovno sodišče Irske, MJELR v. Rettinger, [2010] IESC 45, sodba z dne 23. julija 2010.
ESČP, Orchowski proti Poljski, št. 17885/04, sodba z dne 22. oktobra 2009.
ESČP, Gäfgen proti Nmečiji, št- 22978/05, sodbi z dne 30. junija 2008 in z dne 1. junija 2010.
ESČP, Schalk in Kopf proti Avstriji, št. 30141/04, sodba z dne 24. junija 2010.
VS ZDA, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60. U.S. 393(1856).
VS ZDA, Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).
VS ZDA, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
VS ZDA, Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
VS ZDA, Escobedo v. Illinois 78 U.S. 478 (1964).
VS ZDA, Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964).
VS ZDA, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Zakonodaja
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih
predaje med državami članicami (UL L 190, 17.7.2002, str. 1).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2005/214/PNZ z dne 24. februarja 2005 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
denarnih kazni (UL L 76, 22.3.2005, str. 16).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2006/783/PNZ z dne 6. oktobra 2006 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
odredb o zaplembi (UL L 328, 24.11.2006, str. 59).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/978/PNZ z dne 18. decembra 2008 o evropskem dokaznem nalogu za namene
pridobitve predmetov, dokumentov in podatkov za uporabo v kazenskih postopkih (UL L
350, 30.12.2008, str. 72)
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2008/947/PNZ z dne 27. novembra 2008 o uporabi načela vzajemnega priznavanja
sodb in pogojnih odločb zaradi zagotavljanja nadzorstva nad spremljevalnimi ukrepi in
alternativnimi sankcijami (UL L 337, 16.12.2008, str. 102)
Internet
Statewatch, http://www.statewatch.org/news/2008/aug/tampere.pdf.
Adam Gorski: The European Arrest Warrant, http://www.law.uj.edu.pl/~kpk/eaw/other/220_EAW.
pdf.
EU Council, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/jha/114859.pdf.
Natasha Simonsen: Is Torture ever justified?, http://www.ejiltalk.org/‘is-torture-ever-justified’-the-european-
court-of-human-rights-decision-in-gafgen-v-germany/.
U.S. courts, https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf.
Objavljeno
2019-06-20
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors are confirming that they are the authors of the submitting article, which will be published (print and online) in journal Dignitas by Nova univerza, Fakulteta za slovenske in mednarodne študije. Author’s name will be evident in the article in journal. All decisions regarding layout and distribution of the work are in hands of the publisher.
- Authors guarantee that the work is their own original creation and does not infringe any statutory or common-law copyright or any proprietary right of any third party. In case of claims by third parties, authors commit their self to defend the interests of the publisher, and shall cover any potential costs.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. - Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
