Mutual recognition of judgments in EU law: Prospects for implementation in Ukraine
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17558148Keywords:
mutual recognition, mutual trust, Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, European Arrest Warrant, Brussels I-bis Regulation, judicial reform, European integration.Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this article is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions as a cornerstone of the EU's Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) and to develop well-founded proposals for its phased implementation in Ukraine. The study's relevance is heightened by Ukraine's status as a candidate for EU accession and the challenges of a full-scale war, which makes integration into the European judicial area an essential component of national security and post-war reconstruction.
Methods. The methodological framework combines a doctrinal analysis of the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust with a formal legal analysis of key EU legal instruments and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The study also applies a comparative law method to contrast EU mechanisms with Ukraine's current legislation on international cooperation.
Results. The findings show that the principle of mutual recognition in the EU has evolved from the concept of "blind trust" to the model of "evidence-based trust". The turning point was the judgment in the Aranyosi and Căldăraru case, which introduced a two-stage test that allows for refusing the surrender of a person in cases of systemic threats to fundamental rights in the issuing state. It is determined that the key obstacle for Ukraine is a profound institutional deficit of trust in its judicial system, which creates a significant risk of obstructing cooperation with EU Member States.
Conclusions. The article concludes that Ukraine's path to integration into the AFSJ lies in the implementation of a three-component strategy: 1) institutional, by forcing deep and irreversible judicial reform; 2) legislative, through a phased adoption of mutual recognition instruments, starting with the Lugano Convention; and 3) administrative, by strengthening the capacity of competent authorities and reforming the penitentiary system.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ярослав Миколайович Костюченко

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.