resulted in new mutations in the structure of cross-border crime, mutations generally entailed
by the possibility of criminal elements’ movement, by ensuring a highly developed
organization and logistics
We can argue that, on account of these transformations, particularly in recent decades, in
Europe as well as worldwide, crime has witnessed unprecedented development, gathering
way in the most diverse forms, some of them extremely severe, endangering thereby the
safety of both individuals and collectivity, or even the existence of certain States
The growing danger stemming from the evolution of organized crime, as well as the
possibility to avoid the criminal prosecution or trial of crimes’ perpetrators, called forth the
world’s States to step up work on the international judicial cooperation, this being the only
way to prevent and fight the phenomenon in its entirety.
Research on the evolution of forms of international judicial cooperation in criminal
matters highlights the fact that the oldest and, at the same time, the best known form of
international judicial cooperation in criminal matters is rightfully considered extradition.
The European States have addressed this particularly complex issue on two tiers,
respectively internally, through the adoption of a law which could support the extradition of
individuals, including their own citizens, and externally, through the permanent trend to
simplify the surrender procedures, on account of bilateral or regional covenants.
Sensing this imminent danger for the entire European Community, the Council of Europe
adopted on December 13
, 1957 the European Convention on Extradition, the first major
piece of legislation in this area, which has been ratified over time by all European States
The establishment of the European Union and the Schengen area subsequently, which
also prompted free movement of people and goods in an expanded area, has led to the
emergence of significant mutations in the criminal area, namely it led to easy movement and,
generally, without major risks of offenders in any Member State of the European Union or
Schengen area and, inferentially, the possibility to avoid criminal liability
At European Union level, the measures taken so far have focussed on two main issues,
namely the adoption of a coherent regulatory framework that would contribute to the
enhancement of specific judicial cooperation activities in criminal matters between the
and the adoption of international instruments for cooperation between
Member States and the other States across Europe or worldwide
The Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the
Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European
See, I. Rusu, Mandatul european de arestare, în urma modificărilor aduse de Legea nr. 222/2008 (The
European Arrest Warrant, following Amendments under Law No. 222/2008), Caiete de Drept Penal (Criminal Law
Books) No. 1/2009, pp. 18-19.
See, I. Rusu, Transferul de proceduri în materie penală (The Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters),
Dreptul (Law) No. 6/2009, p. 186.
See, M.I.Rusu, I. Rusu, ParticularităŃile executării mandatului european de arestare în cazul infracŃiunilor
transfrontaliere (Particularities of Execution of the European Arrest Warrant in the case of Cross-border Crime),
Dreptul (Law) No. 9/2011, p. 191.
Ibidem, p. 192.
See: Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on t he European arrest warrant and the surrender
procedures between Member States, the Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA on the execution in the
European Union of orders freezing property or evidence, the Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the
application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, etc.
See: Agreement on mutual legal assistance between the European Union and the United States of America,
the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America, the Agreement
between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, etc.