Pub Date : 2024-03-27DOI: 10.1177/20322844241239781
A. Maugeri
December 2020 saw the entry into force of Regulation 1805/2018, the adoption of which is a doubly important event: first, because it confirms the principle of mutual recognition in this sensitive area, following Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA; second, because it establishes mutual recognition by means of a directly applicable legislative measure, a Regulation, adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure pursuant to Art. 82 (1) TFEU. In order to understand the scope of the Regulation – what types of domestic confiscation are covered – it is important to interpret the EU autonomous concept of “proceedings in criminal matters” (art. 1), “notwithstanding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” (recital 13). To increase enforcement, it will be crucial to improve harmonisation through the new proposed Directive (May2022).
{"title":"Regulation (EU) 2018/1805: Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders between efficiency and safeguards. “Proceedings in criminal matters” and non-conviction based confiscation","authors":"A. Maugeri","doi":"10.1177/20322844241239781","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844241239781","url":null,"abstract":"December 2020 saw the entry into force of Regulation 1805/2018, the adoption of which is a doubly important event: first, because it confirms the principle of mutual recognition in this sensitive area, following Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA; second, because it establishes mutual recognition by means of a directly applicable legislative measure, a Regulation, adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure pursuant to Art. 82 (1) TFEU. In order to understand the scope of the Regulation – what types of domestic confiscation are covered – it is important to interpret the EU autonomous concept of “proceedings in criminal matters” (art. 1), “notwithstanding the case law of the European Court of Human Rights” (recital 13). To increase enforcement, it will be crucial to improve harmonisation through the new proposed Directive (May2022).","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"10 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140374905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-02-26DOI: 10.1177/20322844241235714
V. Mitsilegas
{"title":"Reforming EU Criminal Law on the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry: The new Commission proposal in the light of the Kinshasa litigation","authors":"V. Mitsilegas","doi":"10.1177/20322844241235714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844241235714","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"12 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140430357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/20322844241228721
Balázs Márton
The personal independence of the European Chief Prosecutor and European Prosecutors is a prerequisite of the independence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Based on the experience of the first selection procedures and a combined examination of EU law, areas of vulnerability can be identified which could jeopardise their independence. The definition, measurement and doctrinal positioning of prosecutorial independence, such as its separation from autonomy and accountability, is not a simple task in case of a supranational prosecutorial body. However, there are international expert bodies that have drawn attention to the central importance of guarantees in selection procedures and transparency in ensuring prosecutorial independence, which also underpins public confidence in the process. Although there are institutional safeguards in the selection procedures for the European Chief Prosecutor and the European Prosecutors, the shortcomings of the legislation have been exposed by the shortcomings in the selection procedures. There is insufficient transparency in the selection of the members of the selection panel and in its functioning. In addition, the legislation does not categorically exclude the possibility that political considerations without a legal basis may be introduced into the selection process. The EU regulation governing the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the operating rules of the selection panel should also be amended to ensure full transparency of the criteria used to select the members of the selection panel and the assessment of the selection panel during selection and ranking of the prosecutors. In addition, the relevant EU regulation should be amended to make the decision-making process in the Council of the European Union more transparent and to stipulate that the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament may base their selection decisions only on the criteria set out in the applicable legislation and the opinion of the selection panel.
{"title":"Independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the appointment procedures","authors":"Balázs Márton","doi":"10.1177/20322844241228721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844241228721","url":null,"abstract":"The personal independence of the European Chief Prosecutor and European Prosecutors is a prerequisite of the independence of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. Based on the experience of the first selection procedures and a combined examination of EU law, areas of vulnerability can be identified which could jeopardise their independence. The definition, measurement and doctrinal positioning of prosecutorial independence, such as its separation from autonomy and accountability, is not a simple task in case of a supranational prosecutorial body. However, there are international expert bodies that have drawn attention to the central importance of guarantees in selection procedures and transparency in ensuring prosecutorial independence, which also underpins public confidence in the process. Although there are institutional safeguards in the selection procedures for the European Chief Prosecutor and the European Prosecutors, the shortcomings of the legislation have been exposed by the shortcomings in the selection procedures. There is insufficient transparency in the selection of the members of the selection panel and in its functioning. In addition, the legislation does not categorically exclude the possibility that political considerations without a legal basis may be introduced into the selection process. The EU regulation governing the functioning of the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the operating rules of the selection panel should also be amended to ensure full transparency of the criteria used to select the members of the selection panel and the assessment of the selection panel during selection and ranking of the prosecutors. In addition, the relevant EU regulation should be amended to make the decision-making process in the Council of the European Union more transparent and to stipulate that the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament may base their selection decisions only on the criteria set out in the applicable legislation and the opinion of the selection panel.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"102 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140484433","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-12-11DOI: 10.1177/20322844231217429
Giacomo Bonetto
In the context of criminal law enforcement and cooperation, the fundamental right to the protection of personal data is not complemented by the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – ‘GDPR’), but by the national law implementing Directive (EU) 2016/680 (‘LED’) together with other pieces of EU legislation. The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-180/21 Inspektor (Purposes of the Processing of Personal Data – Criminal Investigations) delivered by the Fifth Chamber on 8 December 2022 is the first judgment in which the Court considered the LED beyond its scope of application. It represents an important milestone for data protection law in the area of criminal law enforcement. This paper will provide an analysis of the main findings of the judgment, with particular focus on the concept of “further processing” and a first reflection on the consequences it may have on the work of competent authorities such as public prosecutors.
{"title":"The judgment of the CJEU in Inspektor (Purposes of the processing of personal data – criminal investigations) of 8 December 2022 and the concept of further processing under the Law Enforcement Directive","authors":"Giacomo Bonetto","doi":"10.1177/20322844231217429","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231217429","url":null,"abstract":"In the context of criminal law enforcement and cooperation, the fundamental right to the protection of personal data is not complemented by the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679 – ‘GDPR’), but by the national law implementing Directive (EU) 2016/680 (‘LED’) together with other pieces of EU legislation. The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-180/21 Inspektor (Purposes of the Processing of Personal Data – Criminal Investigations) delivered by the Fifth Chamber on 8 December 2022 is the first judgment in which the Court considered the LED beyond its scope of application. It represents an important milestone for data protection law in the area of criminal law enforcement. This paper will provide an analysis of the main findings of the judgment, with particular focus on the concept of “further processing” and a first reflection on the consequences it may have on the work of competent authorities such as public prosecutors.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"51 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139010229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-21DOI: 10.1177/20322844231213484
Maša Galič, Lonneke Stevens, Bert-Jaap Koops
This editorial introduces a special issue on the challenges of regulating data-driven criminal investigations, in light of the interplay – or rather, the lack thereof – between criminal procedure law and data protection law. The aim is to bring together scholars from both fields, to facilitate mutual understanding and to present ideas on better aligning these bodies of law to form a comprehensive normative framework. In data-driven investigations, police typically assemble large data sets to build an information position, followed by automated analysis to detect patterns and find evidence of potential crimes. The shift from traditional targeted, “case-seeks-evidence” investigations to data-driven untargeted, “evidence-seeks-case” investigations challenges the current normative framework. Discussing this challenge and the insights offered by the six contributions to this special issue, the authors identify multiple problems: people in criminal law lack knowledge of and therefore undervalue data protection law; data subject rights do not function well in the criminal procedure context; there may be an increasing emphasis on instrumentality in criminal law, at the cost of legal protection; criminal law strongly focuses on legal protection of suspects, particularly during trial, and does not cope well with investigations that never end up in court, nor with the protection of innocent citizens whose data are now also pervasively processed as by-catch in criminal investigations; and the law has relatively strong norms on data collection, but not on data analysis. The way forward lies in evolving towards a system that does not only protect suspects and victims but that systematically incorporates the rights of innocent thirds; developing an integrated and conclusive system of data processing rules in law enforcement, including data analysis and on-going reuse of data; and establishing a system of supervision that is adequately equipped to deal with the new reality of data-driven criminal procedure.
{"title":"Editorial: A trialogue on regulating data-driven criminal procedure","authors":"Maša Galič, Lonneke Stevens, Bert-Jaap Koops","doi":"10.1177/20322844231213484","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231213484","url":null,"abstract":"This editorial introduces a special issue on the challenges of regulating data-driven criminal investigations, in light of the interplay – or rather, the lack thereof – between criminal procedure law and data protection law. The aim is to bring together scholars from both fields, to facilitate mutual understanding and to present ideas on better aligning these bodies of law to form a comprehensive normative framework. In data-driven investigations, police typically assemble large data sets to build an information position, followed by automated analysis to detect patterns and find evidence of potential crimes. The shift from traditional targeted, “case-seeks-evidence” investigations to data-driven untargeted, “evidence-seeks-case” investigations challenges the current normative framework. Discussing this challenge and the insights offered by the six contributions to this special issue, the authors identify multiple problems: people in criminal law lack knowledge of and therefore undervalue data protection law; data subject rights do not function well in the criminal procedure context; there may be an increasing emphasis on instrumentality in criminal law, at the cost of legal protection; criminal law strongly focuses on legal protection of suspects, particularly during trial, and does not cope well with investigations that never end up in court, nor with the protection of innocent citizens whose data are now also pervasively processed as by-catch in criminal investigations; and the law has relatively strong norms on data collection, but not on data analysis. The way forward lies in evolving towards a system that does not only protect suspects and victims but that systematically incorporates the rights of innocent thirds; developing an integrated and conclusive system of data processing rules in law enforcement, including data analysis and on-going reuse of data; and establishing a system of supervision that is adequately equipped to deal with the new reality of data-driven criminal procedure.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"46 ","pages":"423 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139250994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-20DOI: 10.1177/20322844231213336
Sabine Gless, K. Ligeti
Technological developments enable modern cars to drive autonomously. The EU has embraced this phenomenon in the hope that such technology can ameliorate mobility and environmental problems and has therefore engaged in tailoring technical solutions to driving automation in Europe. But driving automation, like other uses of AI, raises novel legal issues, including in criminal law – for instance when such vehicles malfunction and cause serious harm. By only pushing for a technological standard for self-driving cars, are EU lawmakers missing necessary regulatory aspects? In this article, we argue that criminal law ought to be reflected in EU strategy and offer a proposal to fill the current gap, suggesting an approach to allocate criminal liability when humans put AI systems in the driver’s seat.
{"title":"Regulating driving automation in the European Union – criminal liability on the road ahead?","authors":"Sabine Gless, K. Ligeti","doi":"10.1177/20322844231213336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231213336","url":null,"abstract":"Technological developments enable modern cars to drive autonomously. The EU has embraced this phenomenon in the hope that such technology can ameliorate mobility and environmental problems and has therefore engaged in tailoring technical solutions to driving automation in Europe. But driving automation, like other uses of AI, raises novel legal issues, including in criminal law – for instance when such vehicles malfunction and cause serious harm. By only pushing for a technological standard for self-driving cars, are EU lawmakers missing necessary regulatory aspects? In this article, we argue that criminal law ought to be reflected in EU strategy and offer a proposal to fill the current gap, suggesting an approach to allocate criminal liability when humans put AI systems in the driver’s seat.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"73 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139257920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-08-01DOI: 10.1177/20322844231191373
A. Zuidema
Conflict of jurisdiction is an issue that is not a new problem, but is one that is becoming more prevalent in recent times. This is especially true in the European Union with its four freedoms. One way the Union has tackled conflicts of jurisdiction is through Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. This measure is designed to handle positive conflicts of jurisdiction, in particular attempting to prevent ne bis in idem violations. Recently the Union established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a new measure designed to not only resolve positive conflicts of jurisdiction, but negative ones as well. This article will highlight that the EPPO is not only a prosecution service but also a way to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. It will do this by conducting a comparative analysis between the two measures by reviewing their respective function, communication, and determination of jurisdiction. Function examines what each measure is capable of doing. Communication examines the way authorities communicate and share information. Determination of Jurisdiction examines the criteria that is used by the mechanism to resolve the conflict. Using these methods will enhance our understanding of the measures the Union has to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction while also highlighting the role that EPPO will play in the years to come.
{"title":"To which prosecution service? Analyzing the way the Union resolves conflicts of criminal jurisdiction","authors":"A. Zuidema","doi":"10.1177/20322844231191373","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231191373","url":null,"abstract":"Conflict of jurisdiction is an issue that is not a new problem, but is one that is becoming more prevalent in recent times. This is especially true in the European Union with its four freedoms. One way the Union has tackled conflicts of jurisdiction is through Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA. This measure is designed to handle positive conflicts of jurisdiction, in particular attempting to prevent ne bis in idem violations. Recently the Union established the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, a new measure designed to not only resolve positive conflicts of jurisdiction, but negative ones as well. This article will highlight that the EPPO is not only a prosecution service but also a way to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. It will do this by conducting a comparative analysis between the two measures by reviewing their respective function, communication, and determination of jurisdiction. Function examines what each measure is capable of doing. Communication examines the way authorities communicate and share information. Determination of Jurisdiction examines the criteria that is used by the mechanism to resolve the conflict. Using these methods will enhance our understanding of the measures the Union has to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction while also highlighting the role that EPPO will play in the years to come.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114583756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.1177/20322844231179866
Maria Slimani
The Regulation of 12 October 2017 establishing the EPPO was adopted by 22 Member States and entered into force on 1 June 2021. Being a considerable step towards a more integrated European Union, this new Community body sends a strong message as regards the sovereignty of the Member States. Indeed, it has imposed a transfer of power from the states to the EU, even though the European Delegated Prosecutors are the same magistrates than the national prosecutors who were already exercising their functions under national law. Moreover, as there is no criminal court at the EU level, offenders are prosecuted in front of the Member States’ courts. It is precisely because prosecutions are carried out at national level that the creation of EPPO has directly imposed changes in national criminal law. Therefore, more than a year after its establishment, it is interesting to look at the changes in French criminal law imposed by the creation of the EPPO. Beyond the changes brought about by the law, this article also looks at the challenges involved in the creation of this body, in that it identifies difficulties which urgently need to be reflected upon before considering any extension of the EPPO. Indeed, a reflection is necessary on the protection of the rights of the defense in the procedures carried out by this body as well as on the role of the judge considering the disappearance of the investigating judges and especially the problematic relating to the French prosecutor' status.
{"title":"The influence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on French criminal law","authors":"Maria Slimani","doi":"10.1177/20322844231179866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231179866","url":null,"abstract":"The Regulation of 12 October 2017 establishing the EPPO was adopted by 22 Member States and entered into force on 1 June 2021. Being a considerable step towards a more integrated European Union, this new Community body sends a strong message as regards the sovereignty of the Member States. Indeed, it has imposed a transfer of power from the states to the EU, even though the European Delegated Prosecutors are the same magistrates than the national prosecutors who were already exercising their functions under national law. Moreover, as there is no criminal court at the EU level, offenders are prosecuted in front of the Member States’ courts. It is precisely because prosecutions are carried out at national level that the creation of EPPO has directly imposed changes in national criminal law. Therefore, more than a year after its establishment, it is interesting to look at the changes in French criminal law imposed by the creation of the EPPO. Beyond the changes brought about by the law, this article also looks at the challenges involved in the creation of this body, in that it identifies difficulties which urgently need to be reflected upon before considering any extension of the EPPO. Indeed, a reflection is necessary on the protection of the rights of the defense in the procedures carried out by this body as well as on the role of the judge considering the disappearance of the investigating judges and especially the problematic relating to the French prosecutor' status.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122115792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-29DOI: 10.1177/20322844231178927
N. Vavoula
This article aims to critically evaluate how the legal framework of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and its practical implementation have evolved to address concerns regarding the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and which operational and fundamental rights challenges this evolution poses. In that regard, emphasis is placed on two examples: first, the article examines the maximised operationalisation of alerts on discreet checks under Article 36 of the SIS Regulation on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Then, focus is placed on the forthcoming iregistration of alerts on third-country nationals in the interest of the Union based on Regulation 2022/1190. These alerts will be registered in the SIS with the increased involvement of Europol following information received by third countries or international organisations.
{"title":"(Covert) Surveillance of Foreign Terrorism Fighters via the Schengen Information System (SIS): Towards Maximum Operationalisation of Alerts and an Enhanced Role for Europol","authors":"N. Vavoula","doi":"10.1177/20322844231178927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231178927","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to critically evaluate how the legal framework of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and its practical implementation have evolved to address concerns regarding the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and which operational and fundamental rights challenges this evolution poses. In that regard, emphasis is placed on two examples: first, the article examines the maximised operationalisation of alerts on discreet checks under Article 36 of the SIS Regulation on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Then, focus is placed on the forthcoming iregistration of alerts on third-country nationals in the interest of the Union based on Regulation 2022/1190. These alerts will be registered in the SIS with the increased involvement of Europol following information received by third countries or international organisations.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126073410","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-05-28DOI: 10.1177/20322844231170336
Christiane Höhn
Addressing the challenge of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and their affiliates who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Da'esh and other terrorist groups has been a priority for the EU and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator since 2013, both within the EU and internationally. This article sets out comprehensive EU cooperation with international partners on foreign terrorist fighters: It covers EU action related to the camps and prisons in North East Syria where FTFs and family members are held, accountability of FTFs and affiliates, cooperation on FTFs with the EU’s neighbourhood: Turkey, Western Balkans and Middle East and North Africa regions, multilateral engagement with the United Nations and other fora as well as addressing Islamist extremist ideology which is contributing to the radicalization process. From a practitioner's perspective, the article provides the EU policy framework and its evolution, as well as examples of capacity building and other initiatives.
{"title":"‘Strengthening cooperation with external partners: Looking for a common response to the phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters’","authors":"Christiane Höhn","doi":"10.1177/20322844231170336","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231170336","url":null,"abstract":"Addressing the challenge of foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) and their affiliates who travelled to Syria and Iraq to join Da'esh and other terrorist groups has been a priority for the EU and the EU Counter-Terrorism Coordinator since 2013, both within the EU and internationally. This article sets out comprehensive EU cooperation with international partners on foreign terrorist fighters: It covers EU action related to the camps and prisons in North East Syria where FTFs and family members are held, accountability of FTFs and affiliates, cooperation on FTFs with the EU’s neighbourhood: Turkey, Western Balkans and Middle East and North Africa regions, multilateral engagement with the United Nations and other fora as well as addressing Islamist extremist ideology which is contributing to the radicalization process. From a practitioner's perspective, the article provides the EU policy framework and its evolution, as well as examples of capacity building and other initiatives.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123756828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：