Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/61228
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-06T08:45:56Z-
dc.date.available2020-10-06T08:45:56Z-
dc.date.issued2005-
dc.identifier.citationCuschieri, M. (2005). The European arrest warrant and the rights of the suspect and of the defendant in EU member states (Master's dissertation).en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/61228-
dc.descriptionLL.D.en_GB
dc.description.abstractSecondary mutual assistance1 in criminal matters and especially extradition is an extremely important tool in the fight against trans-border crime and in bringing perpetrators to Justice. The FDEAW, seen by many practitioners as a solution ahead of its time is the most significant development since the European Extradition Convention of 1957 and its protocols of 1975 and 1978 of which the FDEA W retains some concepts. The FDEA W considers some reservations, which EU States made to the aforementioned Convention. It brings in new rules and restricts the application of traditional principles. It specifically entitles the requested person to bail provided surrender is not prejudiced. Politics have receded from extradition. A judicial authority is generally at the centre of the system. Rule of law advances in this area too. The FDEA W does not impose a fair trial in extradition proceedings. The right to legal assistance depends on the Member States. The requested person is thus left in a position similar to that under the formal extradition procedure as regards his rights. The entry in force of the Treaty on A Constitution for Europe can change this position. The entrenched CFREU would require that article 6 ECHR safeguards and standards be provided in EU law derived proceedings. The laws implementing the FDEA W differ significantly both in detail and in safeguards. The UK Extradition Act 2003 is a comprehensive set of rules, which covers most areas connected to the execution of an EA W. On the other hand, the Maltese 2004 Order is silent on some important aspects without referring to the general rules under the Criminal Code or the COCP. The Order provides that other laws are inapplicable unless it provides otherwise. Therefore, the Maltese judicial authority may still be faced with procedural problems that would have to be determined prior to a decision on surrender. This could prejudice the expeditious nature of EA W proceedings.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccessen_GB
dc.subjectEuropean Union -- Membershipen_GB
dc.subjectExtraditionen_GB
dc.subjectArrest -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.subjectHuman rights -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.subjectCriminal law -- European Union countriesen_GB
dc.titleThe European arrest warrant and the rights of the suspect and of the defendant in EU member statesen_GB
dc.typemasterThesisen_GB
dc.rights.holderThe copyright of this work belongs to the author(s)/publisher. The rights of this work are as defined by the appropriate Copyright Legislation or as modified by any successive legislation. Users may access this work and can make use of the information contained in accordance with the Copyright Legislation provided that the author must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the prior permission of the copyright holder.en_GB
dc.publisher.institutionUniversity of Maltaen_GB
dc.publisher.departmentFaculty of Lawsen_GB
dc.description.reviewedN/Aen_GB
dc.contributor.creatorCuscheri, Mario-
Appears in Collections:Dissertations - FacLaw - 1958-2009



Items in OAR@UM are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.