RULE OF LAW, TRUST, AND COMPETITION: WILL SPED-PRO BECOME A GAME-CHANGER FOR THE PROTECTION OF EU FUNDAMENTAL VALUES?
Sažetak
The CJEU’s jurisprudence based on the LM case has been criticized on the grounds that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove threats to due process in an individual case. The central question posed is the permissibility of limiting the principle of mutual trust between Member States because of a potential breach of fundamental rights in one of them. In the recent Sped-Pro case, the General Court decided to apply the above question to a new field of EU Law – competition law – without changing much of the essence of the question. In trying to protect mutual trust between Member States, the General Court has not created effective tools to protect the rule of law in the Member States. This also puts the principle of mutual trust at risk.
Reference
Bibliography
Anagnostaras, G., 2016, Mutual Confidence Is Not Blind Trust! Fundamental Rights Protection and the Execution of the European Arrest Warrant: Aranyosi and Căldăraru Joined Cases C-404 & 609/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 5 April 2016, EU:C:2016:198, Common Market Law Review, 53, pp. 1675–1704.
Bárd, P., Ballegooij, W. van, 2018, Judicial Independence as a Precondition for Mutual Trust ? The CJEU in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM, New Journal of European Criminal Law, Vol. 9, pp. 353–365.
Bárd, P., 2021, Canaries in a Coal Mine: Rule of Law Deficiencies and Mutual Trust, Pravni zapisi, 2, pp. 372–395.
Bernatt, M., 2021, The Double Helix of Rule of Law and EU Competition Law: An Appraisal, European Law Journal, 27, pp. 148–166.
Cseres, K., Borgers, M., Mutual (Dis)trust: EU Competition Law Enforcement in the Shadow of the Rule of Law Crisis, VerfBlog 16 February 2022, https://verfassungsblog.de/mutual-distrust/. >
Frąckowiak-Adamska, A., Drawing Red Lines with No (Significant) Bites: Why an Individual Test Is Not Appropriate in the LM Case, in: Bogdandy, A. von et al. (eds.), 2021, Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member, Springer, pp. 443–454.
Frackowiak-Adamska, A., 2022, Trust until It Is too Late! : Mutual Recognition of Judgments and Limitations of Judicial Independence in a Member State: L and P : joined cases C-354/20 PPU and C-412/20 PPU, Openbaar Ministerie v. L and P (Indépendance de l’autorité judiciaire d’émission), Common Market Law Review, Vol. 59, Issue 1, pp. 113–150.
Sz. Gáspár-Szilágyi, 2016, Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: Converging Human Rights Standards, Mutual Trust and a New Ground for Postponing a European Arrest Warrant, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 24, pp. 197–219.
Konstadinides, T., 2019, Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law in the Context of Non-Execution of a European Arrest Warrant: LM Case C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM, EU:C:2018:586, Common Market Law Review 56, pp. 743–770.
Krajewski, M., 2018, Who Is Afraid of the European Council? The Court of Justice’s Cautious Approach to the Independence of Domestic Judges ECJ 25 July 2018, Case C-216/18 PPU, The Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM, European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pp. 792–813.
Łazowski, A., 2018, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Mutual Trust and Mutual Recognition aprés Aranyosi and Căldăraru, Croatian Yearbook of European Law and Policy, 14, pp. 1–30.
Popelier, P., Gentile, G., Zimmeren, E. van, 2021, Bridging the gap between the facts and norms: mutual trust, the European Arrest Warrant and the rule of law in an interdisciplinary context, European Law Journal, Vol. 27, Issue 1–3, pp. 167–184.
Meijers Committee, Surrender to Poland suspended. Call for political intervention to protect the rule of law in EU Member States, CM2007.
Rompuy, B. van, 2022, Independence as a Prerequisite for Mutual Trust between EU Competition Enforcers: Case T-791/19, Sped-Pro v. Commission, Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, Vol. 13, Issue 6, pp. 413–415.
Legislative Sources
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States – Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision, OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1–20.
Case Law
1. ECtHR, Xero Flor v. Poland, no. 4907/18, Judgment of 7 May 2021.
2. ECtHR, Broda and Bojara v. Poland, nos. 26691/18 27367/18, Judgment of 29 June 2021.
3. ECtHR, Advance Pharma v. Poland, no. 1469/20, Judgment of 3 February 2022.
4. ECtHR, Grzęda v. Poland, no. 43572/18, Judgment of 15 March 2022, [GC].
5. CJEU Case T-791/19, Sped-Pro S.A. v. European Commission, Judgment of 9 February 2022, [General Court],
6. CJEU, Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v. Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen, Judgment of 5 April 2016, [GC].
7. CJEU, Case C-216/18 PPU, LM, Judgment of 25 July 2018, [GC].
8. CJEU, Case C-619/18, Commission v. Poland, Judgment of 24 June 2019.
9. CJEU, Case C-354/20 PPU, L and P, Judgment of 17 December 2020, [GC].
10. CJEU, Case C-791/19, Commission v. Poland, Judgment of 15 July 2021, [GC].
11. CJEU, Joined Cases C-562/21 PPU and C-563/21 PPU, X and Y, Judgment of 22 February 2022, [GC].