I think you might be missing the ‘concerning’ part. Which specific cases are concerning? I don’t find it inherently concerning that people can’t escape justice by crossing the Hungarian border, Bonnie and Clyde style.

▲

ApolloFortyNine 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Too explicitly spell it out, op is saying here that if any one of the 27 countries in the EU decides you are breaking one of their laws, they can have 1 of the other 26 enforce an EIO.

▲

pschastain 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Which would be perfectly fine if your local jurisdiction could still properly review those foreign requests.

▲

foldr 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement. So it’s not as if arbitrary Hungarian laws can be applied in France via EIOs. And of course, we all know this is not happening, which is why we get radio silence from the people who are ‘concerned’ about this whenever specifics are requested.

▲

pschastain 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>EIOs are subject to a dual criminality requirement

Dual criminality requirement only applies to non-Annex D crimes. Which is... not many crimes. You seem awfully confident for someone so ill-informed.

>And of course, we all know this is not happening

How would you know that it isn't happening? EIOs are not public!

▲

foldr an hour ago | parent [-]

Annex D is a list of things that are crimes pretty much everywhere.

Not sure what to make of the claim that Hungary might theoretically be enforcing Hungarian law in France. It seems surprising that no-one has noticed any specific consequences of this that you can point to.

The EIO is mostly just a formalization and standardization of a bunch of ad-hoc processes that were already in place. Law enforcement agencies in different European countries do try to assist each other, on the whole.

	▲	pschastain an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What you're missing is the erosion of the ability of the executing states to say things like "hey this is sketchy, we think this crime might not have happened", "hey the police department in this particular city is notoriously untrustworthy", or "hey this prosecutor is widely known in the local press to be corrupt and owns a collection of ferraris". Now foreign authorities are trusted by default and significant parts of their reasoning are not subject to review, that's bad.

▲

pschastain 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh no, that's totally up to you. If you're happy with the courts in your country not being able to review the requests sent from Hungary, that's cool. Without transparent judicial review, how could we even know if the cases are concerning?

▲

foldr 2 hours ago | parent [-]

EIOs are subject to review by the recipient state. It seems that you can’t point to a single relevant example of a concerning EIO from Hungary.

	▲	pschastain an hour ago \| parent [-]
		"Subject to review" means little more than "is the form filled correctly?", it certainly does not mean second-guessing by the courts in the executing state. Like, yeah, your EIO will be rejected if you don't tick any of the crime-category boxes in the form.