Are the Principles of Mutual Trust and Recognition in Danger of Being Eroded by the Recent Jurisprudence of the ECJ Concerning the EAW?

This piece examines how the Court of the European Union, through well intended judgments concerning the European Arrest Warrant, aimed at strengthening the rule of law within the EU, might have triggered unintended secondary effects possibly eroding mutual trust and recognition and redefining certain aspects of the ne bis in idem principle. It looks at two issues from a Hungarian perspective: a line of cases which for human rights and rule of law reasons expand the grounds for refusing an EAW and another strain of cases, which concern aspects of ne bis in idem. On 25 July 2018 these two lines of jurisprudence crossed, one represented by the AY verdict (ne bis in idem) and the other materialising in the LM judgment (EAW). Whilst the so called Sanader and H case culminated in the AY judgment, it was the LM decision which had an adverse effect on the adjudication of a Croatian EAW in Sanader and H before a Hungarian court. It is argued that both the AY and the LM judgments are partially inconsistent and although motivated by best intentions violated the integrity of law. It is hinted that it might be time to ask ourselves, whether the modus in which the enforcement of EU law is left mainly to national courts is the right way when the rule of law is questioned by some Member States, or similarly to the European Public Prosecutor regional EU courts should be established having final jurisdiction on matters involving EU law.