The institutional framework of the European Union area of internal security

Authors

  • Vadim V. Voynikov Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 14, ul. A. Nevskogo, Kaliningrad, 236016, Russian Federation; Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University), 76, pr. Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1495-3227
  • Mark L. Entin Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation (MGIMO-University), 76, pr. Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119454, Russian Federation https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9562-8340

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.409

Abstract

The area of internal security is umbrella definition, which combine two European Union policies in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. This article is aimed at solving a scientific problem related to the determination of the essential characteristics and legal nature of EU bodies and agencies that realize the EU policy on combating crime. The article studies the institutional framework of the EU area of internal security, analyzes specialized agencies designed to assist in the implementation of the EU competence in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The main purpose of the EU bodies and agencies within the area of internal security is to implement the Union’s competence in combating crime, this function is realized mainly through coordination of the activities of national law enforcement agencies. The creation of union bodies does not mean a decrease in the competence of the law enforcement agencies of the Member States. The authors conclude that EU bodies and agencies have a number of common features and essential characteristics that allow them to be distinguished as a relatively independent system. At the same time, the authors admit the possibility of qualifying these bodies as specific integration law enforcement agencies that have limited competence covering certain aspects of the fight against crime. According to the authors, the process of further development of the system of integration law enforcement bodies of the EU is currently underway, one of the features of this development is the strengthening of the supranational component. The study allows us to consider Europol, Eurojust, Cepol and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office not as separate bodies aimed on particular purposes, but as the elements of the special system and which develop according to the common rules.

Keywords:

European Union, area of internal security, cooperation in criminal matters, police cooperation, fighting against crime, law enforcement agencies

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

Библиография

Кашкин, Сергей Ю., ред. 2005. Право Европейского союза в вопросах и ответах. М.: Проспект.

Потемкина, Ольга Ю. 2018. «Европейская прокуратура как пример продвинутого сотрудничества стран Евросоюза». Европейский союз: Факты и комментарии 90: 35–37. Дата обращения 12 июня, 2020. http://www.edc-aes.ru/data/edcaes/content/user_files/files/90.pdf.

Энтин, Марк Л., ред. 2018. Европейское право. Основы интеграционного права Европейского союза и Евразийского экономического союза. М.: Норма, ИНФРА-М.

Asp, Petter. 2016. The procedural criminal law cooperation of the EU. Stockholm: Stiftelsen Skrifterutgivnaav Juridiska fakulteten vid Stockholms universitet.

Birzu, Bogdan. 2019. “Cooperation between member states and Europol”. Juridical Tribune (Tribuna Juridica) 9 (1): 33–43.

Giuffrida, Fabio. 2017. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: King without kingdom? Brussels: CEPS Research Report.

Kaunert, Christian, Sarah Léonard, John D. Occhipinti. 2013. “Agency governance in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice”. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14 (3): 273–284.

Labayle, Maylis, Hans G. Nilsson. 2010. “The role and organisation of Eurojust: Added value for judicial cooperation in criminal matters”. The institutional dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Ed. by Joerg Monar, 195–216. Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: P. I. E-Peter Lang S. A.

Legal, Hubert. 2018. “EPPO’s raison d’être: The challenge of the insertion of an EU body in procedures mainly governed by national law”. Shifting Perspectives on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Eds Willem Geelhoed, Leendert Erkelens, Arjen W. H. Meij, 189–192. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.

Luchtman, Michiel, John Vervaele. 2014. “European agencies for criminal justice and shared enforcement(Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office)”. Utrecht Law Review 10 (5): 132–150.

Monar, Jörg. 2013. “Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor perspective: From cooperation to integration in EU criminal justice?” Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14 (3): 339–356.

Niemeier, Michael, Marc André Wiegand. 2010. “Europol and the architecture of internal security”. The institutional dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Ed. by Joerg Monar, 169–194. Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien: P. I. E-Peter Lang S.A.

Paladini, Stefania, Ignazio Castellucci. 2019. “Introduction”. European Security in a Post-Brexit World(Brexit Studies Series). Eds Stefania Paladini, Ignazio Castellucci, 1–16. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Ruggieri, Francesca. 2019. “Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Introduction to a historic reform”. EU Criminal Justice. Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Eds Tommaso Rafaraci, Rosanna Belfiore, 181–189. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.

Škrlec, Boštjan. 2019. “Eurojust and external dimension of EU judicial cooperation”. Eucrim 3: 188–194.

Smulders, Ben. 2015. “Is the commission proposal for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office based on a harmonious interpretation of Art. 85 and 86 TFEU?” The European Public Prosecutor’s Office An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? Eds Leendert H. Erkelens, Arjen W. H. Meij, Marta Pawlik, 41–51. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.

Weyembergh, Anne, Chloé Brière. 2016. “Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Study,European Union”. European Parliament. Дата обращения 15 июня, 2020. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses.

Weyembergh, Anne. 2013. “‘Lisbonisation’ of Eurojust: On the right track, however… An overall analysis of the proposal for a regulation on Eurojust”. European Area of freedom, security and justice. Дата обращения 12 июня, 2020. https://free-group.eu/2014/04/27/lisbonisation-of-eurojust-on-the-righttrack-however.

References

Asp, Petter. 2016. The procedural criminal law cooperation of the EU. Stockholm, Stiftelsen Skrifterutgivnaav Juridiska fakulteten vid Stockholms universitet.

Birzu, Bogdan. 2019. “Cooperation between member states and Europol”. Juridical Tribune (Tribuna Juridica) 9 (1): 33–43.

Entin, Mark L., ed. 2018. European law. The basics of integration law of European Union and Eurasian Economic Union. Moscow, Norma, INFRA-M Publ. (In Russian)

Giuffrida, Fabio. 2017. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office: King without kingdom? Brussels, CEPS Research Report.

Kashkin, Sergey Iu., ed. 2005. The law of European Union in questions and answers. Moscow, Prospekt Publ.(In Russian)

Kaunert, Christian, Sarah Léonard, John D. Occhipinti. 2013. “Agency governance in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice”. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14 (3): 273–284.

Labayle, Maylis, Hans G. Nilsson. 2010. “The role and organisation of Eurojust: Added value for judicial cooperation in criminal matters”. The institutional dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Ed. by Joerg Monar, 195–216. Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, P. I. E-Peter Lang S. A.

Legal, Hubert. 2018. “EPPO’s raison d’être: The challenge of the insertion of an EU body in procedures mainly governed by national law”. Shifting Perspectives on the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Eds Willem Geelhoed, Leendert Erkelens, Arjen W. H. Meij, 189–192. The Hague, T. M. C. Asser Press.

Luchtman, Michiel, John Vervaele. 2014. “European agencies for criminal justice and shared enforcement(Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office)”. Utrecht Law Review 10 (5): 132–150.

Monar, Jörg. 2013. “Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor perspective: From cooperation to integration in EU criminal justice?” Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14 (3): 339–356.

Niemeier, Michael, Marc André Wiegand. 2010. “Europol and the architecture of internal security”. The institutional dimension of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice. Ed. by Joerg Monar, 169–194. Bruxelles, Bern, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, P. I. E-Peter Lang S.A.

Paladini, Stefania, Ignazio Castellucci. 2019. “Introduction”. European Security in a Post-Brexit World(Brexit Studies Series). Eds Stefania Paladini, Ignazio Castellucci, 1–16. Bingley, Emerald Publishing Limited.

Potemkina, Ol’ga Iu. 2018. “European Public Prosecutor’s Office as an example of enhanced cooperation”. Evropeiskii Soiuz: Fakty i kommentarii 90: 35–37. Accessed June 12, 2020. http://www.edc-aes.ru/data/edcaes/content/user_files/files/90.pdf. (In Russian)

Ruggieri, Francesca. 2019. “Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Introduction to a historic reform”. EU Criminal Justice. Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. Eds Tommaso Rafaraci, Rosanna Belfiore, 181–189. Cham, Springer Nature Switzerland.

Škrlec, Boštjan. 2019. “Eurojust and external dimension of EU judicial cooperation”. Eucrim 3: 188–194.

Smulders, Ben. 2015. “Is the commission proposal for a European Public Prosecutor’s Office based on a harmonious interpretation of Art. 85 and 86 TFEU?” The European Public Prosecutor’s Office An Extended Arm or a Two-Headed Dragon? Eds Leendert H. Erkelens, Arjen W. H. Meij, Marta Pawlik, 41–51. The Hague, T. M. C. Asser Press.

Weyembergh, Anne, Chloé Brière. 2016. “Towards a European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Study,European Union”. European Parliament. Accessed June 15, 2020. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/supporting-analyses.

Weyembergh, Anne. 2013. “‘Lisbonisation’ of Eurojust: On the right track, however… An overall analysis of the proposal for a regulation on Eurojust”. European Area of freedom, security and justice. Accessed June 12, 2020. https://free-group.eu/2014/04/27/lisbonisation-of-eurojust-on-the-righttrack-however.

Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Право

Downloads

Published

2022-12-15

How to Cite

Voynikov, V. V., & Entin, M. L. (2022). The institutional framework of the European Union area of internal security. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law, 13(4), 975–989. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2022.409

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 4 (2022)

Section

Foreign and International Law

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Law" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.