Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T12:01:32.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Carles Puigdemont Case: Europe's Criminal Law in the Crisis of Confidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Stefan Braum

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The case of Carles Puigdemont underlines that European criminal law is in a crisis of confidence. The Higher Regional Court of Schleswig-Holstein has rejected a Spanish European arrest warrant for the criminal offence of rebellion because it lacks double criminality. It applied German law de lege artis without, however, questioning the European legal framework. The case would have provided an opportunity to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in order to further specify the European law criteria of double criminality. This would have been the adequate legal response to a politically explosive case. In the end, the Spanish judiciary sees itself disavowed and the system of the European arrest warrant called into question.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , November 2018 , pp. 1349 - 1358
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht [HansOLG] [Higher Regional Court] Apr. 5, 2018, 1 Ausl (A) 18/18 (20/18), 2018 (Ger.).Google Scholar

2 Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht [HansOLG] [Higher Regional Court] May 22, 2018, 1 Ausl (A) 18/18 (20/18), 2018 (Ger.).Google Scholar

3 See Kubiciel, Michael, Rechtshilferecht in Strafsachen 168 (Kai Ambos et al. eds., 2015); see also Wolfgang Schomburg & Otto Lagodny, Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen (5th eds. 2012).Google Scholar

4 Kubiciel, supra note 3; and Schomburg, supra note 3.Google Scholar

5 See Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] [Federal Court of Justice], 32 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in Strafsachen [BGHSt] 170; see also Strafgesetzbuch [StGB] [Penal Code], § 81, https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html (Ger.).Google Scholar

6 See Strafgesetzbuch, supra note 5.Google Scholar

7 See Strafgesetzbuch, supra note 5, at § 105.Google Scholar

8 See id. Google Scholar

9 See Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht, supra note 1, at 11.Google Scholar

10 See Case C-289/15, Comm'n v. Grundza, 2017 E.C.R. I-622, para. 41 & 46; see also Joined Cases C-404/15 & C-659/15, Comm'n v. Aranyosi, Comm'n v. Caldararu, 2016 E.C.R. I-198, para. 77f; see also Case C-579/15, Comm'n v. Poplawski, 2017 E.C.R. I-503, para. 29f.Google Scholar

11 See Case C-289/15 supra note 10, at para. 34.Google Scholar

12 Id. para. 35.Google Scholar

13 Id. para. 36.Google Scholar

14 Id. para. 36.Google Scholar

15 Id. para. 38.Google Scholar

16 Id. para. 76 (for the Opinion of Advocate General Michal Bobek on July 28, 2016).Google Scholar

17 Id. para. 77.Google Scholar

18 See Case C-367/16, Comm'n v. Piotrowski, 2018 E.C.R. I-27, para. 52 (It should be noted, however, that this judgment in turn is in the context of the conditions for prosecution of minors).Google Scholar