THE CONVENTION OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AS A MOST APPLICABLE LEGAL ENTERPRISE BASIS FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL AND LEGAL AID BETWEEN BIH AND OTHER COUNTRIES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59417/nir.2018.14.43Keywords:
Council of Europe, request (letter-rogatory), international legal assistance, extradition, transfer of sentenced persons, transfer of criminal proceedings.Abstract
Title of the topic and content of the paper derive from the recommendations of the European Commission from the Subcommittee meeting on Justice, Freedom and Security, held in Brussels, in the period from 30 November to 1 December 2017. At the meeting, related to the fulfilment of the conditions by Bosnia and Herzegovina for concluding the Agreement between the European Union and Bosnia and Herzegovina on Stabilization and Association, the written recommendations were given regarding judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and one of the four recommendations reads as follows: “BiH authorities are invited to ensure that judges and prosecutors are trained on Council of Europe instruments in the field of judicial cooperation, particularly on the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and its Protocols, the Extradition Convention and its Protocols, the Convention and the Transfer of Sentenced Persons”.
During the work on this paper, the cases of international legal assistance in criminal matters, processed in 2017, were analysed through legal bases for action, after which it was assessed that the mentioned Council of Europe instruments are not used in the full capacity which enables efficient international legal assistance. The acting bodies (courts and prosecutors‟ offices) in these cases very often seek and state the legal basis for acting in bilateral agreements, although, in most cases, the provisions of the conventions prevail over provisions of those agreements. If we take into consideration the fact that the state parties of the mentioned conventions are all member states of the European Union and the Council of Europe, and that they were also acceded by certain non-European states, and the assessment (with certain exceptions) that the provisions of these conventions prevail over bilateral agreements, we come to the conclusion that the application of these conventions can enable implementation of the largest part of the international legal assistance related to Bosnia and Herzegovina and other states with which this assistance is provided. These conventions cover all forms of the legal assistance, starting from general forms, extradition of suspected, accused and convicted persons, transfer (referral and taking over) of criminal proceedings and finally transfer of sentenced persons. Due to the mentioned reasons, the paper primarily highlights the significance and obligation of the application of these conventions, the relation between these conventions and bilateral agreements, and it also provides an updated overview of the countries with which mutual legal assistance is provided on those grounds.
References
Čavoški, A. i Reljanović, M. (2009). Pravosuđe i unutrašnji poslovi u Evropskoj uniji. Beograd:
Pravni fakultet Univerzitet Union, Sluţbeni glasnik.
Čavoški, A. i Reljanović, M. (2011). Ideja o stvaranju krivičnog prava EU. Beograd: Udruţenje javnih tuţilaca i zamenika javnih tuţilaca Srbije.
ĐorĎević, S. (2010). „Šengensko područje – Evropa bez granica za 400 miliona graĎana“. U: Onlajn kurs: Uvod u bezbednosne politike EU. Beograd: Centar za civilno-vojne odnose. Dostupno: http://ccmr-bg.org/eubezbednost/.
Apap, J. (ed.) (2004). Justice and home affairs in the EU: liberty and security issues after DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035335732
enlargement. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Carrera.
S. and Geyer, F. (2007). „The Reform Treaty & Justice and Home Affairs Implications for the common Area of Freedom, Security & Justice“. In: CEPS Policy Brief, No. 141. Dostupno: http://www.ceps.eu/book/reform-treaty-justice-and-home-affairs-implications-common-area- freedom-security-and-justice.
Fletcher, M. (2009). „Schengen, the European Court of Justice and Flexibility under the Lisbon Treaty: Balancing the United Kingdom‟s „Ins‟ and „Outs‟“. European Constitutional Law Review, 5, str. 71–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019609000716
Fratte, del A. i dr. (1993). Understanding Crime: Experiences of Crime and Crime Control. Torino: UNICRI.
Handerson, K. (2005). The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice in the Enlarged Europe. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230523340
Houndmills and New York: Palgrave MacMillian.
Hix, S. (2005). The Political System of the European Union. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoffmann, S. (1966). „Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation State and the Case of Western Europe‟. Daedalus. No. 95, pp. 892–908. Lahav.
G. (2004). Immigration and Politics in the New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loader, I. (2002). „Policing, Securitization and Democratization in Europe‟. Criminal Justice, 2 (2), pp. 125–153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958020020020201
Peers, S. (2000). EU Justice and Home Affairs Law, (1st edition). London: Longman.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 NIR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
