Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Preliminary Issues Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

17. Concluding Findings. Proposals and Qualitative Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice

verfasst von : Stefano Ruggeri

Erschienen in: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the light of the analysis conducted in this study, there is no doubt that the audi alteram partem rule increasingly permeates—with its multiple expressions—both the national and the transnational criminal justice in Europe and Latin America. It would be oversimplifying, however, to consider the participatory safeguards of the individuals involved in criminal proceedings solely in terms of expressions of defence rights. Even though the right to a defence highlights important features of this problematic area, this focus cannot be deemed to be exhaustive.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Mutual Interaction of Systems of Human Rights Protection and the Development of a Participatory Understanding of Criminal Justice Based on Transcultural Dialogue
Fußnoten
1
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
2
Chapter 3, E.II.
 
3
Chapter 2, I.II.2.
 
4
On the requirements of reliable evidence and reliable evidence-gathering in the field of transnational criminal justice, see Gleß (2006), p. 230 ff.
 
5
See recently among others Mazza (2014), p. 250 ff.
 
6
Gearty C (2012) UK Constitutional Group, 9 January 2012, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v the United Kingdom, http://​ukconstitutional​law.​org/​2012/​01/​09/​conor-gearty-al-khawaja-and-tahery-v-united-kingdom/.
 
7
Gleß (2006), p. 198.
 
8
Chapter 13, C.II.2.a.
 
9
Art. 453(1) CCP-Italy.
 
10
Article 125 RICCP.
 
11
Chapter 2, E.II.2.
 
12
Ibid.
 
13
Chapter 2, D.I.
 
14
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 213.
 
15
Ibid., 222 f.
 
16
Chapter 3, D.II.
 
17
Ibid.
 
18
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 148 f. fn. 22.
 
19
Chapter 2, D.II.1.
 
20
Marzaduri (2016), p. 1135 f.
 
21
CCass., P.g. in proc. Steger.
 
22
In this sense instead Marzaduri (2016), p. 1139.
 
23
Art. 411(1-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
24
Ibid.
 
25
In the same sense cf. Lopes Jr and Jakobsen Glockner (2013), p. 448.
 
26
Art. 335(3) CCP-Italy.
 
27
Ibid.
 
28
Chapter 2, E.II.3.
 
29
Art. 143(1-2) CCP-Italy, as reformed by Legislative Decree 32/2014.
 
30
Chapter 10, C.I.1.
 
31
Chapter 13, B.III.1.
 
32
Chapter 2, E.III.
 
33
Chapter 13, B.III.1.
 
34
Arts. 503(5) and 513 CCP-Italy.
 
35
Chapter 2, G.II.2.
 
36
Chapter 2, J.III.1.
 
37
See among others ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Hermi v. Italy.
 
38
Chapter 10, C.I.1.
 
39
In this regard cf. Curtotti Nappi (2014), p. 129 ff.
 
40
Ibid., 130.
 
41
Ibid.
 
42
Tonini (2001), p. 272.
 
43
Chapter 7, C.III.1.a.
 
44
Chiavario (2013), p. 108.
 
45
Art. 710 CCP-Italy.
 
46
Chapter 7, C.III.1.b.
 
47
Art. 513 CCP-Italy.
 
48
Art. 415-bis CCP-Italy.
 
49
Chapter 3, G.I.
 
50
Art. 330 CCP-Italy.
 
51
Chapter 16, D.IV.2.
 
52
ECtHR, Jalloh v. Germany, § 118 et seqq.
 
53
Lopes Jr and Jakobsen Glockner (2013), p. 205.
 
54
In this respect see Daniele (2008), p. 392 ff., who warns, however, about the risks of replacing the exclusionary rules with flexible rules on the assessment of criminal evidence.
 
55
Ferrua (2013), p. 5.
 
56
Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 336 ff.
 
57
Roberts and Zuckerman (2010), p. 26.
 
58
Ferrua (1998), p. 597 ff.
 
59
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
60
Art. 546(1)(d) CCP-Italy.
 
61
Art. 495(2) CCP-Italy.
 
62
Art. 606(1)(d) CCP-Italy.
 
63
Illuminati (2016), p. 758.
 
64
Art. 606(1)(e) CCP-Italy, as reformed by Law 47/2006. See Bargis (2016), p. 884 ff.
 
65
Chapter 3, I.
 
66
Chapter 16, D.5.II.a.
 
67
ECtHR, Moumen v. Italy.
 
68
Ibid., §§ 53–55.
 
69
Chapter 16, D.5.II.b.
 
70
On the proof of evidence see Gascón Inchausti (1999).
 
71
Art. 497(2-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
72
Chapter 8, F.IV. On this topic see among others De Matteis (2008), p. 215 ff.
 
73
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
74
Art. 521(1-2) CCP-Italy.
 
75
Art. 521(3) CCP-Italy.
 
76
CConst, 241/1992 and 50/1995.
 
77
Ferrua (1990), p. 24 f.
 
78
In these terms see Quattrocolo (2011), p. 71 f.
 
79
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
80
In this regard cf. Ubertis (2009), p. 57. Of a different opinion Quattrocolo (2011), p. 146 f.
 
81
Quattrocolo (2011), p. 144 f.
 
82
Art. 383 CCP-Brazil.
 
83
STJ, HC 84.489/DF, rel. Jane Silva.
 
84
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 893.
 
85
Giacomolli (2008), p. 107.
 
86
Lopes Jr (2017), p. 895 f.
 
87
Quattrocolo (2011), p. 220 ff.
 
88
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
89
Chapter 16, D.VI.3.
 
90
Chapter 16, E.II.4.
 
91
Chapter 7, C.III.1.a.
 
92
Chapter 16, E.II.3.
 
93
Chapter 16, D.III.1.b.
 
94
Chapter 2, J.III.1.
 
95
Chapter 16, D.VI.1.c.
 
96
Ibid.
 
97
Chapter 5, D.II.
 
98
COM(2011) 327 final, § 4.2.
 
99
Recommendation (2006)13, § 17.
 
100
Giacomolli (2013), p. 92.
 
101
Ibid., 93.
 
Literatur
Balsamo A, Lo Piparo A (2008) Principio del contraddittorio, utilizzabilità delle dichiarazioni predibattimentali e nozione di testimone tra giurisprudenza europea e criticità del sistema italiano. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 333–372
Bargis M (2016) Impugnazioni. In: Conso G, Grevi V, Bargis M (eds) Compendio di procedura penale, 8th edn. Wolters Kluwer/Cedam, Padova, pp 801–948
Chiavario M (2013) Manuale dell’estradizione e del mandato d’arresto europeo. Utet, Torino
Curtotti Nappi D (2014) La normativa in tema di assistenza linguistica tra direttiva europea e nuove prassi applicative. Diritto penle e giustizia pp 115–132
Daniele M (2008) Regole di esclusione della prova e giurisprudenza della Corte europea: profili di potenziale conflitto. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 383–394
De Matteis L (2008) Diversa qualificazione giuridica dell’accusa e tutela del diritto di difesa. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 215–233
Ferrua P (1990) La difesa nel processo penale: profilo di una funzione. In: in Id., Studi sul processo penale, vol I. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 15–35
Ferrua P (1998) Un giardino proibito per il legislatore: la valutazione delle prove. Questione giustizia, pp 597ff
Ferrua P (2013) La prova nel processo penale: profili generali. In: Ferrua P, Marzaduri E, Spangher G (eds) La prova penale. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 1–56
Gascón Inchausti F (1999) El control de la fiabilidad probatoria: “prueba sobre la prueba” en el proceso penal. Tirant Lo Banch, Valencia
Giacomolli NJ (2008) Reformas(?) do Processo Penal. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro
Giacomolli NJ (2013) Prisão, liberdade e as cautelares alternativas ao cárcere. Marcial Pons, São Paulo
Gleß S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Illuminati G (2016) Giudizio. In: Conso G, Grevi V, Bargis M (eds) Compendio di procedura penale, 8th edn. Wolters Kluwer/Cedam, Padova, pp 689–760
Lopes A Jr (2017) Direito Processual Penal, 14th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo
Lopes A Jr, Jakobsen Glockner R (2013) Investigação preliminar no processo penal. Saraiva, São Paulo
Marzaduri E (2016) Procedimento penale davanti al giudice di pace. In: Conso G, Grevi V, Bargis M (eds) Compendio di procedura penale, 8th edn. Wolters Kluwer Italia/Cedam, Padova, pp 1099–1147
Mazza O (2014) Contraddittorio (principio del) (diritto processuale penale). In: Enciclopedia del diritto, Annali VII. Giuffrè, Milano, pp. 247–274
Quattrocolo S (2011) Riqualificazione del fatto nella sentenza penale e tutela del contraddittorio. Jovene, Napoli
Roberts P, Zuckerman A (2010) Criminal evidence, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tonini P (2001) Riforma del sistema probatorio: un’attuazione parziale del “giusto processo”. Diritto penale e processo, pp 269–273
Ubertis G (2009) Principi di procedura penale europea, 2nd edn. Raffaello Cortina, Milano
Metadaten
Titel
Concluding Findings. Proposals and Qualitative Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice
verfasst von
Stefano Ruggeri
Copyright-Jahr
2017
Buch
Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8

Copyright-Jahr: 2017

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_17