Request edit access
Online Workshop "Rule of Law Challenges to Mutual Trust and Judicial Cooperation under the European Arrest Warrant Mechanism"
University of Florence, 27-28 May 2021, 2.30-5.30 pm (only afternoons)

Workshop offered within the European Commission’s funded project "TRIIAL - TRust, Independence, Impartiality and Accountability of judges and arbitrators safeguarding the rule of Law under the EU Charter" (Horizon 2020, project no. 853832, JUST-JTRA-EJTR-AG-2018).

The TRIIAL Project provides training activities and tools for judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and arbitrators
on the European rule of law, mutual trust, judicial independence, impartiality and accountability: https://cjc.eui.eu/projects/triial/
Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
Background
Pursuant to Article 2 TEU, the Union is founded on a set of values, including the rule of law. The Union is based “on the fundamental premiss that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognises that they share with it, the values under Article 2 TEU” (Court of Justice, Opinion 2/13, point 168). In turn, “this premiss implies and justifies the existence of mutual trust between the Member States” (ibid.). The scrupulous observance of the Article 2 TEU’s values is thus a precondition for the correct functioning of EU law instruments based on horizontal cooperation between judicial authorities across the Member States.
Respect for the rule of law requires that national judicial authorities can ensure, in cases pending before them, an effective judicial protection to the individuals concerned, in line with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU CFR). Since its judgment known as LM or Celmer (Case C-216/18, Minister for Justice and Equality), the Court of Justice acknowledged that the national court requested to execute a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) coming from a Member State where there are rule of law problems may be under a duty to refuse such an execution. However, before coming to this conclusion, that same court may be under a duty to cooperate with the judicial authority issuing the warrant, in order to establish whether the person requested runs a real risk of violation of Article 47 EU CFR. In other words, the decision to suspend judicial cooperation still implies a phase in which judicial cooperation must take place. The importance of such an individual assessment has been recently re-affirmed by the Court of Justice in its judgement L and P (Case C-354/20 PPU, Openbaar Ministerie).
Provisional Agenda
The training will consist of two afternoon sessions (2.30 pm – 5.30 pm, CET), on 27 and 28 May. It will host a combination of short lectures, followed by Q&A/debate sessions, and a group-exercise on a hypothetical case.
The following topics will be addressed by guest speakers:
• The evolution of the Court of Justice’s case law
• The implementation of the Court of Justice’s case law at the national level and the dilemmas/difficulties faced by legal practitioners
• The role of the ECHR and the Strasbourg Court in defining the standard for mutual trust
• End of mutual trust? Judicial cooperation with the UK and Northern Ireland after Brexit
First Name *
Last Name *
Nationality *
E-mail address *
Professional role *
Did you already participate to trainings organised by the European University Institute? *
If the answer to the previous question is "Yes", please specify the workshops you were involved in.
Do you already have an experience with the application of the European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision? *
If the answer to the previous question is "Yes", please specify.
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This form was created inside of Università degli Studi di Firenze.

Does this form look suspicious? Report

Google Forms