Top

Published in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

8. Audi alteram partem in Criminal Proceedings Under the European Convention on Human Rights

Author : Stefano Ruggeri

Published in: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The examination of the developments that have occurred in the domestic law of the selected countries and the persistent deficiencies in both the areas of domestic and transnational criminal justice provide the basis for the subsequent discussion. At this point, the present study should now focus on the models for solutions provided by international human rights law and EU law to solve the deficiencies existing in Brazilian and Italian criminal justice in relation to the issues under examination.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

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!

inform now

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!

inform now

previous chapter Similarities and Shortcomings of the National Understanding of Participatory Rights in the Field of Transnational Criminal Justice

next chapter Participatory Rights in Criminal Justice Under the American Convention on Human Rights

On this issue also see from the viewpoint of Brazilian law Giacomolli (2014), p. 12 ff.

Jackson (2005), p. 737 f.; Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 334 f.

Below, F.II–III.

Ubertis (2009), p. 49.

It is noteworthy that the English version of Article 6(1) ECHR acknowledges the right to ‘a fair hearing’, whereas the French text may seem to adopt a more subjective perspective by granting the accused the right that ‘sa cause soit entendue équitablement’. Most translations into Romance languages have followed the same perspective.

Art. 14(1) ICCPR provides for that “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.

Art. 6(1) ECHR.

ECtHR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland.

For an overview of Strasbourg case-law on the notion of ‘charge’ from the perspective of the right to a trial in a reasonable time cfr. Ubertis (2009), p. 26 ff.

ECtHR, Quadrelli v. Italy.

For further references see Trechsel (2005), p. 91 f.

See Chiavario (2008), p. 21, who calls for the introduction of international general statute of victim’s rights.

Findlay (2011), p. 112.

ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria.

ECtHR, Fodale v. Italy, § 42. In this sense see already ECtHR, Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, § 34.

In this sense cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 90.

ECtHR, Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom.

Trechsel (2005), p. 89.

ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy.

‘[Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:] (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing […]’.

Trechsel (2005), p. 244.

Below, D.II.

Below, F.II.

Below, G.

Art. 5(3) ECHR.

ECtHR, Constantinescu v. Romania.

ECtHR, Döry v. Sweden.

See, e.g., Art. 613(1) CCP-Italy.

Below, F.IV.

Trechsel (2005), p. 362.

ECtHR, Liebreich v. Germany.

ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy, § 30.

ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy.

To be sure, in Colozza v. Italy, the Court left open the question of whether the right to personal participation could be waived. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 255 f.

ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria.

In Franquesa Freixas v. Spain, the Court regarded with disfavour the defendant’s choice not to defend himself precisely because he was a lawyer.

Trechsel (2005), p. 256.

ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, § 35.

Negri (2014), p. 149 ff.

ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, § 38.

See, among others, ECtHR, Lala v. The Netherlands.

Colozza v. Italy, § 29.

Ibid.

Chapter 14, D.II.

ECtHR, Gray v. Germany.

Ibid., § 3.

Ibid., § 61.

Ibid., § 87.

Ibid.

ECtHR, Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, § 109.

ECtHR, Gray v. Germany, § 87.

Ibid., § 91.

Ibid.

Below, D.II.1.

ECtHR, Gray v. Germany, § 91.

Ibid., § 91.

ECtHR, Stanford v. United Kingdom, § 26. See Trechsel (2005), p. 253.

ECtHR, Foucher v. France.

ECtHR, Stanford v. United Kingdom.

In the same sense Trechsel (2005), p. 253 fn. 41.

Ibid., 193.

ECtHR, Mattoccia v. Italy.

In this sense see also Kühne (2009), Rn. 494.

Trechsel (2005), p. 194 f.

ECtHR, Sipavicius v. Lithuania.

ECtHR, De Cubber v. Belgium.

See already Trechsel (2005), p. 194.

This is not always the case. In Mattoccia v. Italy, the Court clearly stresses that information ‘rests entirely on the prosecuting authority’s shoulders’.

Trechsel (2005), p. 204.

Chapter 11, C.

Trechsel (2005), p. 201.

Ibid., 198 f.

Ibid., 199 f.

ECtHR, Brozicek v. Italy.

Cf. ECtHR, Deweer v. Belgium; ECtHR, Eckle v. Germany; ECtHR, Corigliano v. Italy.

ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy.

Trechsel (2005), p. 458 f.

Ibid., 458.

Ibid., 154.

Vogler (1986), Rn. 477; Kühne (2009), Rn. 496.

Trechsel (2005), p. 458.

Ibid., 222.

ECtHR, Haxhia v. Albania.

Trechsel (2005), p. 200 f.

Ibid., 200.

Ibid., 232.

Ibid., 234.

According to Kühne, the risk of tampering with evidence should instead be taken into account also in relation to the prosecutorial interest not to communicate details that might undermine the investigation. See Kühne (2009), Rn. 494.

Weigend (2000), p. 385.

ECtHR, Kremzow v. Austria.

Trechsel (2005), p. 225.

Ibid., 225 f.

ECtHR, Edwards v. United Kingdom, § 36.

Stavros (1993), p. 181 ff.

Trechsel (2005), p. 229.

ECtHR, Jasper v. United Kingdom.

Trechsel (2005), p. 227.

Ibid., 93, who moreover considers the Court’s self-restraint as realistic and unavoidable.

Art. 5(3) ECHR.

100

Trechsel (2005), p. 514.

101

ECtHR, Piersack v. Belgium. See Trechsel (2005), p. 66 f.

102

ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom.

103

See, among others, ECtHR, Magee v. United Kingdom.

104

Below, F.II.1.

105

Below, F.III.3.b.

106

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands.

107

ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden.

108

Art. 14(3)(g) ICCPR.

109

ECtHR, Funke v. France.

110

Zacchè (2008), p. 181.

111

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom. See Trechsel (2005), p. 348.

112

ECtHR, Lückhof and Spanner v. Austria.

113

Zacchè (2008), p. 180.

114

The question was dealt with in Serves v. Italy, in which the Court did not engage, however, in assessing whether the investigating judge’s decision to summon the applicant to appear as a witness rather than charging him, due to the existence of substantial evidence against him, gave rise to a coercion incompatible with the privilege against self-incrimination.

115

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Gäfgen v. Germany, § 107.

116

Ibid., § 106.

117

Trechsel (2005), p. 342.

118

Zacchè (2008), p. 183.

119

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.

120

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom.

121

ECtHR, P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom.

122

Trechsel (2005), p. 342.

123

ECtHR, Funke v. France.

124

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.

125

Zacchè (2008), p. 190 f.

126

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.

127

ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom, § 47.

128

Ibid.

129

Ibid.

130

See, inter alia, ECtHR, Condron v. United Kingdom.

131

Below, F.III.3.a.

132

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom, § 67.

133

ECtHR, Shannon v. United Kingdom.

134

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom, § 67.

135

Trechsel (2005), p. 344.

136

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands.

137

Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR.

138

Ibid.

139

According to Trechsel the right to confrontation is the only guarantee specifically concerned with criminal evidence. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 293.

140

As noted, the Italian fair trial reform of 1999 enacted the right to confrontation into Article 111 of the Constitution. Outside Europe, the US Constitution still contains one of the most significant expressions of the right to confrontation. Over the last decade, the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution has been re-interpreted by the US Supreme Court from the aforementioned landmark decision Crawford v. Washington onwards.

141

For a comparative overview cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 291.

142

ECtHR, Asch v. Austria.

143

Trechsel (2005), p. 292 f.

144

Art. 14(3)(e) ICCPR.

145

Trechsel (2005), p. 311. Similarly cf. Maffei (2012), p. 17; Spencer (2014), p. 48.

146

ECtHR, Isgrò v. Italy, § 36.

147

Trechsel (2005), p. 310.

148

Jackson and Summers (2012), p. 349.

149

For in-depth analysis see Vogel (2017), p. 28 f.

150

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, A. et al. v. United Kingdom.

151

ECtHR, Sher et al. v. United Kingdom, § 149.

152

Ibid.

153

For further criticisms cf. Vogel (2017), p 29 ff.

154

ECtHR, Asch v. Austria.

155

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands. On the importance of this judgment see among others Chiavario (2008), p. 21. More recently cf. ECtHR, Bocos-Cuesta v. The Netherlands.

156

ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands, §§ 54 et seq.

157

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 60.

158

ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands.

159

Trechsel (2005), p. 319 f.

160

ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden, § 49.

161

Trechsel (2005), p. 322.

162

ECtHR, A.S. v. Finland.

163

On the importance of European case-law in this problematic area see Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 362 f.; Spencer (2014), p. 53 ff.

164

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 78.

165

ECtHR, Camilleri v. Malta.

166

Trechsel (2005), p. 305 f.

167

Ibid., 309.

168

Ibid., 307.

169

For instance, Scotland has a historical 110 day rule within which serious cases must be brought to court. See s. 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. England and Wales lack exact time-limits on the institution of the trial phase, which has given rise to many criticisms. See, among others, Jackson and Johnstone (2005), p. 3 ff.; Vogler (2012), p. 96.

170

In the same sense Trechsel (2005), p. 309.

171

ECtHR, Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain.

172

ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 76; ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands, § 55.

173

ECtHR, Ellis and Simms v. United Kingdom, §§ 74 et seqq.; ECtHR, Pesukic v. Switzerland, §§ 45 et seqq.

174

Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 346.

175

ECtHR, Saunders v. United Kingdom.

176

ECtHR, Pello v. Estonia.

177

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom.

178

ECtHR, Schatschaschwili v. Germany.

179

Above, F.III.2.

180

ECtHR, Brandstetter v. Austria.

181

Trechsel (2005), p. 90.

182

Above, A.

183

On this issue see Quattrocolo (2011), p. 3 ff.; Casiraghi (2012), p. 115 ff.

184

ECtHR, I.H. and others v. Austria.

185

ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Pélissier and Sassi v. France, § 60. The Court overcame this approach in its subsequent case-law. See among others ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy. For a similar criticism to that expressed in the text see De Matteis (2008), p. 222 f.

186

ECtHR, Sipavičius v. Lithuania, § 31.s.

187

See respectively ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy and ECtHR, D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria.

188

ECtHR, D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria, § 83.

189

From the perspective of the countries selected in this study, see, as far as Italy is concerned, Quattrocolo (2011), p. 61 ff., and, in relation to Brazil, Lopes Jr (2017), p. 889 f.

190

Vogler (2012), p. 88 f.

191

Art. 5(2) ECHR.

192

To be sure, national law does not always require the arrested person to be formally charged with a criminal offence. See Trechsel (2005), p. 502 f.

193

Ibid., 458.

194

In the same sense see Peukert (2009), Rn. 91.

195

ECtHR, X. v. United Kingdom.

196

ECtHR, van der Leer v. The Netherlands.

197

Trechsel (2005), p. 458.

198

ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 40.

199

Art. 5(3) ECHR.

200

ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 41.

201

Trechsel (2005), p. 461.

202

ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 41.

203

Trechsel (2005), p. 461.

204

Ibid., 459 f.

205

On this delicate issue see Peukert (2009), Rn. 92.

206

Trechsel (2005), p. 502.

207

See among others ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, § 123. On the protection against arbitrary detentions see Marzaduri (2012), p. 18 ff.

208

Trechsel (2005), p. 505.

209

ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, § 123.

210

Trechsel (2005), p. 506.

211

ECtHR, McGoff v. Sweden.

212

Trechsel (2005), p. 514.

213

ECtHR, Schiesser v. Switzerland.

214

Trechsel (2005), p. 514 f.

215

ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom, § 63.

216

ECtHR, Tomasi v. France. See extensively Trechsel (2005), p. 523 ff.

217

Maggio (2012), p. 37.

218

Vogler (2012), p. 90.

219

ECtHR, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp (‘Vagrancy’) v. Belgium.

220

For extensive criticisms see Trechsel (2005), p. 470 ff.

221

Chapter 2, J.III.2.

222

See among others ECtHR, Wloch v. Poland.

223

In these terms cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 480 f.

224

ECtHR, Keus v. The Netherlands.

225

ECtHR, Garcia Alva v. Germany, § 39.

226

For this observation see Trechsel (2005), p. 484.

227

ECtHR, Keus v. The Netherlands, § 25.

228

ECtHR, Fodale v. Italy.

229

ECtHR, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, § 58.

230

On this issue see Trechsel (2005), p. 486.

231

See respectively ECtHR, 1st Chamber, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 72 et seq. and ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 131 et seqq.

232

ECtHR, Winterwerp v. The Netherlands.

233

ECtHR, Bouamar v. Belgium.

234

Trechsel (2005), p. 486 f.

235

ECtHR, Megyeri v. Germany, § 23.

236

Trechsel (2005), p. 487.

237

ECtHR, Lamy v. Belgium, § 29.

238

Cf. among others ECtHR, Danov v. Bulgaria.

239

In this sense Trechsel (2005), p. 485, who also raised the concerns reported in the text.

240

ECtHR, Garcia Alva v. Germany, § 42. On this important ruling see Trechsel (2005), p. 485 f.

241

Section 147(2) CCP-Germany.

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

Chiavario M (2008) La “lunga marcia” dei diritti dell’uomo nel processo penale. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 11–31

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

Findlay M (2011) Locating victim communities within global justice and governance. In: Crawford A (ed) International and comparative criminal justice and Urban Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–139CrossRef

Giacomolli NJ (2014) O devido processo penal. Abordagem conforme a Constituição Federal e o Pacto de São José da Costa Rica. Atlas S.A., São Paulo

Jackson JD (2005) The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Mod Law Rev 68:737–764

Jackson J, Johnstone J (2005) The reasonable time requirement: an independent and meaningful right. Crim Law Rev, pp 3 ff.

Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef

Kühne H-H (2009) In: Kühne H-H, Miehsler H and Vogler T, Article 6. In: Pabel K, Schmahl S (eds) (2013) Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Carl Heymanns, Köln et al

Lopes A Jr (2017) Direito Processual Penal, 14th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo

Maffei S (2012) The right to confrontation in Europe. Absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses. Europa Law Publishing

Maggio P (2012) Judicial reviews against deprivation of liberty. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 33–44

Marzaduri E (2012) The application of pre-trial precautionary measures. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 17–32

Negri D (2014) L’imputato presente al processo. Una ricostruzione sistematica. Giappichelli, Torino

Peukert W (2009) Art. 5. In: Frowein J, Peukert W (eds) EMRK-Kommentar. Engel Verlag, Rehl am Rein, pp 70–139

Quattrocolo S (2011) Riqualificazione del fatto nella sentenza penale e tutela del contraddittorio. Jovene, Napoli

Spencer JR (2014) Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, II edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

Stavros S (1993) The guarantees for accused persons under Article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dortmund et al

Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Ubertis G (2009) Principi di procedura penale europea, 2nd edn. Raffaello Cortina, Milano

Vogel B (2017) “In camera”-Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28–38

Vogler R (2012) England and Wales. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 87–103

Vogler T (1986) Article 6. In: Golsong H, Karl W, Miehsler H, Petzold H, Rogge K, Vogler T, Wildhaber L (eds) Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Carl Heymanns, Köln

Weigend T (2000) Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als deutsches Recht - Kollisionen und ihre Lösung. Strafverteidiger 2000, pp 384–390

Zacchè F (2008) Gli effetti della giurisprudenza europea in tema di privilegio contro le autoincriminazioni e diritto al silenzio. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 179–195

Title: Audi alteram partem in Criminal Proceedings Under the European Convention on Human Rights
Author: Stefano Ruggeri
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1

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

Copyright Year: 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_8

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"