This article focuses on the recent judgment of the Court of Justice, Aranyosi and Caldararu. After conducting a legal analysis on this case, three issues are identified and they are separately discussed in three sections. The aim of this paper is to show the impact of this judgment on public order and public security in Europe on the one hand and on the individual’s fundamental rights, on the other hand. It is going to be argued that even though there are limits to the principle of mutual recognition, this new exception based on fundamental rights establishes a new procedure for non-surrender. Therefore, the Court of Justice creates a non-execution ground which the EU legislator did not intend to include in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant. This is explained by looking at the three interconnected notions of Freedom, Security and Justice.
Are professionals better at assessing the evidential strength of different types of forensic conclusions compared to students? In an online questionnaire 96 crime investigation and law students, and 269 crime investigation and legal professionals assessed three fingerprint examination reports. All reports were similar, except for the conclusion part which was stated in a categorical (CAT), verbal likelihood ratio (VLR) or numerical likelihood ratio (NLR) conclusion with high or low evidential strength. The results showed no significant difference between the groups of students and professionals in their assessment of the conclusions. They all overestimated the strength of the strong CAT conclusion compared to the other conclusion types and underestimated the strength of the weak CAT conclusion. Their background (legal vs. crime investigation) did have a significant effect on their understanding. Whereas the legal professionals performed better compared to the crime investigators, the legal students performed worse compared to crime investigation students.
The EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) requires the member states (MS) to pursue Blue Growth while ensuring good environmental status (GES) of sea areas. An ecosystem-based approach (EBA) should be used for the integration of the aims. However, the MSPD does not specify how the MS should arrange their MSP governance, which has led to a variety of governance arrangements and solutions in addressing the aims. We analysed the implementation of the MSPD in Finland, to identify conditions that may enable or constrain the integration of Blue Growth and GES in the framework of EBA. MSP in Finland is an expert-driven regionalized approach with a legally non-binding status. The results suggest that this MSP framework supports the implementation of EBA in MSP. Yet, unpredictability induced by the non-binding status of MSP, ambiguity of the aims of MSP and of the concept of EBA, and the need to pursue economic viability in the coastal municipalities may threaten the consistency of MSP in both spatial and temporal terms. Developing MSP towards a future-oriented adaptive and collaborative approach striving for social learning could improve the legitimacy of MSP and its capacity to combine Blue Growth and GES. The analysis indicates, that in the delivery of successful MSP adhering to the principles of EBA should permeate all levels of governance. The study turns attention to the legal status of MSP as a binding or non-binding planning instrument and the role the legal status plays in facilitating or constraining predictability and adaptability required in MSP.
MULTIFILE
