Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Preliminary Issues Read chapter Read first chapter

2017 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

16. Mutual Interaction of Systems of Human Rights Protection and the Development of a Participatory Understanding of Criminal Justice Based on Transcultural Dialogue

Author : Stefano Ruggeri

Published in: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In the light of the analysis conducted hitherto, the present discussion aims at comparing the results emerged from the study of selected countries with the solutions models provided by international human rights and EU law. In this respect, I shall now first examine the impact that the solution models provided by the case-law of the Strasbourg Court and the Inter-American Court have had, or may have in the near future, on the development of a participatory understanding of criminal proceedings in both Italy and Brazil. As regards Italy, I shall also examine the influence of EU law on the enhancement of participatory rights at the national level. Furthermore, the analysis will also examine the reasons for which the selected countries still reflect an uneven and even authoritarian view of criminal justice. The examination of this problematic area, however, is far from being unidirectional. As anticipated in Chap. 1, the ultimate purpose of this comparative study is theoretical-reconstructive. In this light, we will also examine the impact that national arrangements have had on the evolution of international human rights case-law, and on the adoption of specific solutions at the EU level.

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 Solution Models for a Participatory Approach to Transnational Criminal Justice in International and Supranational Law
next chapter Concluding Findings. Proposals and Qualitative Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice
Footnotes
1
Di Stasi (2014), p. 1ff.
 
2
See among others Pollicino (2010); Martinico and Pollicino (2012); Ruggeri (2015), p. 9ff.; Conti (2015), p. 97ff.
 
3
Ruggeri (2014b) and Pollicino (2014).
 
4
Pollicino (2014), p. 9ff.
 
5
Art. 10(1) Const.-Italy.
 
6
In the judgment 238/2014, the Constitutional Court re-interpreted this constitutional provision by deeming a rule of international customary law as inexistent if it infringes on a fundamental principle of domestic law.
 
7
Art. 11 Const.-Italy.
 
8
Exceptions were provided for in relation to a number of treaties explicitly acknowledged by the Constitution, such as the treaties with the Holy See and the treaties concerned with the status of aliens.
 
9
Italy ratified the European Convention through Law 848/1955 and the International Covenant through Law 881/1977.
 
10
Chapter 2, B.II.1.
 
11
Chiavario (2008), p. 11ff.
 
12
CConst, 12/1971, 17/1981, etc. On this topic see Di Chiara (2009), p. 293ff.
 
13
CConst, 10/1993.
 
14
Ibid.
 
15
CConst, 388/1999.
 
16
This judgment, however, followed a somewhat ambiguous approach in that it recognised that constitutional law in any case provided protection not less intensive than that of international charters.
 
17
Cf., inter alia, CConst, 438/1993, 15/1996, etc.
 
18
Art. 1 Law 81/1987.
 
19
Art. 117(1) Const.-Italy.
 
20
CConst, 348/2007 and 349/2007. On these judgments see, among others, Ruggeri (2007); Pollicino (2008), p. 363ff.
 
21
Viganò (2014).
 
22
CConst, 348/2007.
 
23
Ruggeri (2007), p. 2.
 
24
CConst, 311/2009.
 
25
CConst, 210/2013.
 
26
CConst, 49/2015.
 
27
Lamarque and Viganò (2014), p. 20ff.; Ruggeri (2015), p. 22 fn. 32.
 
28
Art. 5(2) Const.-Brazil. Other countries in Latin America adopted a similar solution. For instance, the Chilean Constitution, as amended in 1989, requires all the bodies of the State to promote the essential rights deriving from human nature, as guaranteed by the Constitution as well as by international treaties in force in Chile. See Art. 5(2) Const.-Chile. See Art. 5(2) Const.-Chile.
 
29
Both were enacted and promulgated between 1991 and 1992, that is, respectively, the ICCPR through Legislative Decree 226/1991 and Executive Decree 592/1992, the ACHR though Legislative Decree 27/1992 and Executive Decree 678/1992.
 
30
Giacomolli (2014), p. 17.
 
31
Ibid., 18.
 
32
Constitutional Amendment Law 45/2004.
 
33
Mazzuoli (2011), p. 28f.
 
34
Giacomolli (2014), p. 16.
 
35
Sarlet (2008).
 
36
Giacomolli (2014), p. 19.
 
37
Ibid.
 
38
Sarlet (2008); Mazzuoli (2011), p. 25ff.
 
39
HC 87.585-8, rel. Celso de Mello.
 
40
Giacomolli (2014), p. 21f.
 
41
Mazzuoli (2011).
 
42
Art. 105(III)(a) Const.-Brazil.
 
43
See in detail Mazzuoli (2011), p. 73ff.
 
44
Art. 2 ACHR.
 
45
Giacomolli (2014), p. 26f.
 
46
IACtHR, “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile, § 72.
 
47
Para. 40.
 
48
IACtHR, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, § 125.
 
49
Paras 13 et seqq.
 
50
Para. 5.
 
51
Para. 5.
 
52
Giacomolli (2014), p. 26.
 
53
Art. 29(b) ACHR.
 
54
Art. 4(II) Const.-Brazil.
 
55
Giacomolli (2014), p. 21.
 
56
Art. 1(III) Const.-Brazil. In even more explicit terms, the Chilean Constitution, as amended in 1989, provides for that the exercise of sovereignty is limited by the respect for the essential rights deriving from human nature. Cf. Art. 5(2) Const.-Chile.
 
57
Giacomolli (2014), p. 21f.
 
58
See recently Ruggeri (2015), p. 9ff.
 
59
Ruggeri (2010), p. 16.
 
60
Ruggeri (2015), p. 13.
 
61
Chapter 13, B.II.2.b.
 
62
Ruggeri (2015), p. 10ff.
 
63
On this argument, which was, however, not taken into consideration by the Luxembourg Court in the Melloni judgment, see Ruggeri (2015), p. 23.
 
64
STC 26/2014.
 
65
BVerfG, order of 15 December 2015, Az. 2 BvR 2735/14.
 
66
‘Protection of Fundamental Rights in Individual Cases is Ensured as Part of Identity Review’, Press Release No. 4/2016 of 26 January 2016 on BVerfG, order of 15 December 2015, Az. 2 BvR 2735/14, § 2.a.aa.
 
67
Ibid.
 
68
For in depth analysis of the long road that the Constitutional Court has walked to acknowledge the role of community (and later EU) law in Italy see Ruggeri (2014a), p. 300ff.
 
69
Martinico (2012), p. 87.
 
70
CConst, 14/1964.
 
71
ECJ, Costa v. Enel.
 
72
CConst, 183/1973. For several criticisms against this acknowledgment see Ruggeri (2014a), p. 303ff.
 
73
ECJ, Simmenthal.
 
74
CConst, 232/1989.
 
75
Martinico (2012), p. 89.
 
76
Until now, constitutional case-law has availed itself of counter-limits in relation to international customary law (judgment 238/2014). A few days before the present discussion (January 2017), the Constitutional Court ruled on the Taricco case (24 January 2017). Notwithstanding that there were great expectations about this decision, the Constitutional Court did not (immediately) invoke counter-limits but preferred to request a preliminary ruling by the EU Court of Justice. See Amalfitano (2017).
 
77
Ruggeri (2014a), p. 317.
 
78
Ibid., 317f.
 
79
Ibid., 320ff.
 
80
Pollicino (2015), p. 242ff.
 
81
Vogler (2014), p. 187.
 
82
Ibid., 182, developing the approach of Slaughter (1994), p. 99ff.
 
83
Krisch (2008), p. 184.
 
84
Vogler (2014), p. 187.
 
85
HC 93.503, rel. Celso de Mello.
 
86
HC 104.404, rel. Dias Toffoli.
 
87
HC 98.676, rel. Celso de Mello.
 
88
In Mariani v. France, the Court also seemed to focus solely on whether the defendant was given the opportunity of applying for a retrial.
 
89
Negri (2005), p. 268; Quattrocolo (2014), p. 8.
 
90
Carini (2008), p. 283.
 
91
Chiavario (2005), p. 256.
 
92
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Sejdovic v. Italy.
 
93
In some decisions, the Supreme Court offloaded onto the competent authority the task of demonstrating the interruption of any contact between the defendants and their lawyers, if the conviction issued in absentia was notified at the law firm chosen by the defendants as their legal domicile. See CCass, Bidimost. In other decisions, however, the Supreme Court, while deeming the notification at the law firm equivalent to a personal notification, charged defendants again with the burden of proving the reasons for which they had remained unaware of the notification made at their legal domicile. See CCass, Ciarlantini; CCass, Gherasim.
 
94
ECtHR, Cat Berro v. Italy.
 
95
Art. 420-bis(2) CCP-Italy.
 
96
It has been noted that the new Article 143 CCP-Italy requires the translation of the court summons and the indictment, provided only, however, that the competent authority finds that the defendant is unable to understand Italian.
 
97
Quattrocolo (2014), p. 3.
 
98
Art. 420-bis(3) CCP-Italy.
 
99
Chapter 2, F.II.2.
 
100
Ibid.
 
101
Art. 420-bis(4) CCP-Italy.
 
102
In Italy, only the lawyers registered in a special register (albo) can represent the parties before the Supreme Court. Cf. 613(1) CCP-Italy.
 
103
Art. 597(2) CCP-Italy.
 
104
Art. 597(2) CCP-Italy.
 
105
CCass, Cotugno.
 
106
Chapter 8, C.I.2.
 
107
Chapter 10, B.I.
 
108
Chapter 10, B.II.1.
 
109
Art. 420-ter(2) CCP-Italy.
 
110
Chapter 2, F.II.2.
 
111
Chapter 10, B.II.2.a.
 
112
Chapter 2, F.III.2.
 
113
Conso (1950), p. 354ff. and 360 fn. 98.
 
114
Marzaduri (2000), p. 778.
 
115
Art. 8(2) ACHR.
 
116
In the same sense Ciampi (2014).
 
117
For an analysis of the influence of this EU legislation on Italian criminal justice see Candito (2015), p. 229ff.
 
118
Art. 369(1-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
119
Scalfati (1999), p. 29.
 
120
CCass, Abruzzese.
 
121
For some criticisms of the risks arising from the solution provided for by Recital no. 36 see Candito (2015), p. 235.
 
122
CConst, 225/1993.
 
123
Similarly Scalfati (1999), p. 38.
 
124
CCass, Jakani.
 
125
Ibid. In the same sense CCass, Zalagaitis.
 
126
STF, RHC 32.742. See Giacomolli (2014), p. 117.
 
127
See respectively Chap. 8, E.I, and Chap. 9, B.
 
128
Chapter 10, C.III.
 
129
Recital no. 25 DirAL.
 
130
Ibid.
 
131
Chapter 10, C.III.1.
 
132
Chapter 2, G.II.1.
 
133
CJEU, Pupino.
 
134
Art. 20 DirVR.
 
135
Recital no. 38 DirVR.
 
136
Art. 398(5-quater) CCP-Italy.
 
137
Chapter 8, E.III.
 
138
Art. 349(2-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
139
In thin sense Zacchè (2008), p. 192f.
 
140
CConst, 238/1996.
 
141
Art. 359-bis CCP-Italy.
 
142
Art. 224-bis CCP-Italy.
 
143
Art. 359-bis(3) CCP-Italy.
 
144
Chapter 5, E.III.
 
145
Ibid.
 
146
Cf. Zacchè (2008), p. 184ff., who also proposes some interesting solutions to bring Italian law closer to the European case-law.
 
147
Recital no. 21 DirAL.
 
148
Recital no. 26 DirPIRPT.
 
149
Art. 374 CCP-Italy.
 
150
Art. 374(3) CCP-Italy.
 
151
Art. 374(2) CCP-Italy.
 
152
Spencer (2014), p. 15.
 
153
Arts. 398(5-bis) and 498(4-ter) CCP-Italy.
 
154
Art. 498(4-quater) CCP-Italy.
 
155
Art. 185(2) CCP-Brazil.
 
156
Art. 500(6) CCP-Italy.
 
157
Art. 238(2-bis)&(4) CCP-Italy.
 
158
Ferrua (2013), p. 45.
 
159
See also Daniele (2008), p. 392.
 
160
Ubertis (2007), p. 174f.
 
161
See, in particular, ECtHR, Bracci v. Italy, Majadallah v. Italy and Kollcaku v. Italy.
 
162
CCass, D.F. See Gaeta (2012), p. 35ff.
 
163
Ferrua (2013), p. 46f.
 
164
In this sense Ferrua (2013), p. 47.
 
165
For some criticisms in this respect see Daniele (2008), p. 391, who considers it an impossible undertaking.
 
166
In this sense cf. instead Ferrua (2013), p. 42.
 
167
Trechsel (2005), p. 163 s. In the sense indicated in the text, from the perspective of Italian law, see Lozzi (2014), p. 491.
 
168
Joseph et al. (2004), p. 426.
 
169
In this sense Harris et al. (2009), p. 302, who quotes the conclusions that the European Commission of human rights reached in Austria v. Italy by requiring for the defendant’s conviction a proof ‘sufficiently strong in the eyes of the law to establish his guilt’. See EComHR, Austria v. Italy.
 
170
ECtHR, A.H. v. Finland.
 
171
CCass, G.
 
172
Ubertis (2009), p. 4065ff.
 
173
ECtHR, Moumen v. Italy.
 
174
Art. 498(4-quater) CCP-Italy.
 
175
Chapter 6, J.I.
 
176
The need to overcome the traditional concept of interferences with fundamental rights in terms of coercive measures is highlighted by Kühne (2015), p. 248.
 
177
Art. 282(II)(3) CCP-Brazil.
 
178
Art. 293 CCP-Italy.
 
179
Art. 4(5) DirICP.
 
180
Art. 293(1-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
181
Art. 294(1-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
182
Art. 6(5) DirVR.
 
183
Art. 90-ter CCP-Italy.
 
184
Art. 282-quater CCP-Italy.
 
185
Art. 299(2-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
186
Art. 3(2)(c) DirAL.
 
187
Art. 6 DirAL.
 
188
Art. 7 DirAL.
 
189
Art. 143 CCP-Italy.
 
190
Art. 104(4-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
191
Art. 104(3) CCP-Italy.
 
192
CCass, Agostino.
 
193
Art. 299(3) CCP-Italy.
 
194
Art. 299(3-bis) CCP-Italy.
 
195
Art. 299(3-ter) CCP-Italy.
 
196
Art. 299(4) CCP-Italy.
 
197
Chapter 9, G.III.
 
198
Art. 309(6) CCP-Italy.
 
199
Art. 309(8) CCP-Italy.
 
200
Chapter 8, G.III.
 
201
Art. 309(5) CCP-Italy.
 
202
Chapter 8, G.III.
 
203
Caprioli (2013), p. 446.
 
204
CCass, Russo.
 
205
Caprioli (2013), p. 447.
 
206
Grevi (2000a, b).
 
207
De Amicis (2013), p. 21.
 
208
The solution enacted at EU level was to a great extent determined by the need to strike a compromise with countries traditionally rooted on in absentia procedures, such as Italy. See Chiavario (2013), p. 235.
 
209
Chapter 13, B.II.2.a.
 
210
Savy (2012), p. 12.
 
211
CCass, Prodan.
 
212
Art. 14 FD EAW.
 
213
Art. 17(1) Law 69/2005.
 
214
CCass, Barachini.
 
215
Art. 10(4) Law 69/2005.
 
216
Art. 11(1) FD EAW.
 
217
Art. 11(2) FD EAW.
 
218
Art. 11(2) FD EAW.
 
219
See Chiavario (2013), p. 259.
 
220
Art. 39 Law 69/2005.
 
221
CCass, Ivancescu.
 
222
See Arts. 11 and 12 FD EAW.
 
223
Art. 12 FD EAW.
 
224
Art. 9 Law 69/2005.
 
225
Art. 9(4) Law 69/2005. The request of the president cannot be deemed mandatory, as it is the result of the assessment of the need to adopt a coercive means. Of a different opinion Chiavario (2013), p. 284.
 
226
Art. 9(5) Law 69/2005.
 
227
Art. 11(1) Law 69/2005.
 
228
Art. 12(1) Law 69/2005.
 
229
Art. 12(2) Law 69/2005.
 
230
Chiavario (2013), p. 288.
 
231
Ibid., 290.
 
232
Art. 13(2) Law 69/2005.
 
233
Unlike in domestic cases, the EAW procedure may seem to link the adoption of further restrictions on freedom solely to the eventuality of the arrest being maintained. On close examination, this interpretation is misleading. Under Article 9 Law 69/2005, the judicial authority can in any case adopt pre-trial means, which have a different justification from that of the arrest. The case-law also rules out further measures of coercion being applied only in case of validation of the arrest. See CCass, Enciu.
 
234
Art. 10(1) Law 69/2005.
 
235
Art. 10(3) Law 69/2005.
 
236
Chiavario (2013), p. 292.
 
237
Art. 10(2) Law 69/2005.
 
238
Art. 10(2)(a-b) DirAL.
 
239
Art. 1(1) FdEAW.
 
240
Chiavario (2013), p. 198.
 
241
Oubiña Barbolla (2012), p. 49.
 
242
Art. 1(1) FdEAW.
 
243
In 2008, the EEW Framework Decision allowed member states to make a declaration or subsequent notification to the General Secretariat of the Council requiring a validation procedure in all cases where the issuing authority was not a judge, a court, an investigating magistrate, or a public prosecutor, and where the measures necessary to execute the EEW should be ordered or supervised by one of these authorities under the law of the executing state in a similar domestic case [Art. 11(5)]. Almost 6 years later, Directive 2014/41/EU provided for the possibility of investigations being ordered by any competent authority empowered by the issuing country to act in its capacity as an investigating authority in criminal proceedings with competence to order the gathering of evidence in accordance with national law. At the same time, this legislation required the new European investigation order always to be validated in this case, before being transmitted to the executing authority and after examination of its conformity with the conditions laid down in the Directive, by a judge, court, investigating judge, or a public prosecutor in the issuing state [Art. 2(c)(ii)].
 
244
Art. 5 Law 69/2005.
 
245
Art. 28(1)(a) Law 69/2005.
 
246
Art. 28(1)(b-c) Law 69/2005.
 
247
CCass, Piaggio.
 
248
Chiavario (2013), p. 199.
 
249
Art. 2 FD EAW. See Marzaduri (2006), p. 88ff.
 
250
Art. 1(3) FdEAW.
 
251
In this sense see Marzaduri (2006), p. 80ff.
 
252
Art. 11 Const.-Italy.
 
253
CConst, 54/1979.
 
254
Marzaduri (2006), p. 83ff.
 
255
Similarly Chiavario (2013), p. 227.
 
256
Ruggeri (2012), p. 204f.
 
257
Art. 13(2) and (5) Const.-Italy.
 
258
Art. 18(e) Law 69/2005.
 
259
CCass, Ramoci. See among others De Amicis (2007); Di Martino (2011), p. 1ff.
 
260
Also here, it could be argued that the code rules are justified by the Constitution, which requires a judicial review, albeit limited solely to the case of deprivation of liberty, both to order and maintain the individual imprisonment. Cf. Art. 104(2) Const.-Germany. See Sinn (2012), p. 107f.
 
261
The Constitutional Court has also moved in this direction. See CConst, 109/2008. For further criticisms see Chiavario (2013), p. 228f.
 
262
Art. 17 Law 69/2005.
 
263
Marzaduri (2006), p. 81.
 
264
Art. 9 FdEAW.
 
265
Art. 4(2) Law 69/2005.
 
266
Pursuant to Article 9(1) Law 69/2005 the Ministry of Justice, once it has received the EAW, forwards it without delay to the competent court of appeal.
 
267
Art. 29(2) Law 69/2005.
 
268
Art. 11(1) Law 69/2005.
 
269
Art. 11(1) FdEAW.
 
270
Art. 5(1)(f) ECHR.
 
271
ECtHR, Seferovic v. Italy, § 37. See Gialuz (2012), p. 136.
 
272
Art. 13(3) Const.-Italy.
 
273
Art. 13(2) Const.-Italy.
 
274
CCass, Franconetti. On the erroneous terminological choice of Law 69/2005, which converted the supranational expression of ‘requested person’, applicable in any case of European arrest warrant, into that of ‘person sought for the purposes of arrest’ (persona ricercata), see Lo Voi (2005), p. 242f.
 
275
Art. 16 ECE.
 
Literature
Candito GL (2015) The influence of the Directive 2012/13/EU on the Italian system of protection of the right to information in criminal procedures. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the lisbon treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 229–260
Caprioli F (2013) Report on Italy. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 439–455CrossRef
Carini C (2008) Errore e rimedi. In: Digesto delle discipline penalistiche. IV Agg. Utet, Torino, pp 258–291
Chiavario M (2005) Una riforma inevitabile: ma basterà? La Legislazione penale pp 253–259
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
Chiavario M (2013) Manuale dell’estradizione e del mandato d’arresto europeo. Utet, Torino
Ciampi S (2014) Diritto all’informazione nei procedimenti penali: il recepimento low profile della direttiva 2012/13/UE da parte del d.lgs. 1° luglio 2014 n. 101. Letter of Rights e Full Disclosure nel procedimento penale italiano. www.​penalecontempora​neo.​it. Accessed 24 Sept 2014
Conso G (1950) Il provvedimento di archiviazione. Rivista italiana di diritto penale, pp 320 ff.
Conti R (2015) La richiesta di “parere consultivo” alla Corte europea delle Alte Corti introdotto dal Protocollo n.16 annesso alla CEDU e il rinvio pregiudiziale alla Corte di Giustizia UE. Prove d’orchestra per una nomofilachia europea. In: Lamarque E (ed) La richiesta di pareri consultivi alla Corte di Strasburgo da parte delle più alte giurisdizioni nazionali. Prime riflessioni in vista della ratifica del Protocollo 16 CEDU. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 97–133
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 Amicis G (2007) Mandato di arresto europeo e limiti massimi di custodia cautelare: incostituzionalità o “interpretazione costitutionalmente orientatata” del motive di rifiuto alla consegna? Giurisprudenza di merito, pp 1435 ff
De Amicis G (2013) All’incrocio tra diritti fondamentali, mandato d’arresto europeo e decisioni contumaciali: la Corte di Giustizia e il “caso Melloni”. Un commento a margine della sentenza Melloni della Corte di Giustizia. www.​penalecontempora​neo.​it. Accessed 7 June 2013
Di Chiara G (2009) “Against the Administration of Justice in Secret”: la pubblicità delle procedure giudiziarie tra Corte europea e assetti del sistema italiano. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 293–308
Di Martino A (2011) Questo limite non è un termine. Tecnicismi «specifici» e «collaterali» nel contesto di un sistema penale internazionalizzato. Archivio penale, pp 1–13
Di Stasi A (2014) La Corte interamericana e la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo: da un trans-regional judicial dialogue ad una cross-fertilization? In: Cassetti L, Di Stasi A, Landa Arroyo L (eds) Diritti e giurisprudenza. La Corte interamericana dei diritti umani e la Corte europea di Strasburgo. Jovene, Napoli, pp 1–25
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
Gaeta P (2012) Dell’interpretazione conforme alla C.E.D.U.: ovvero, la ricombinazione genica del processo penale. Archivio penale, pp 1–43
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
Gialuz M (2012) Commento all’art. 5 In: Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (eds) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e dele libertà fondamentali. Cedam, Padova
Grevi V (2000a) Alla ricerca di un processo penale giusto. Giuffrè, Milano
Grevi V (2000b) Giustizia, l’accordo tra Italia e Spagna un modello europeo. In: Correre della Sera (4 December 2000b)
Harris D, O’Boyle M, Warbrick C (2009) Law of the European convention on human rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Joseph S, Schultz J, Castan M (2004) The international covenant on civil and political rights. Cases, materials and commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Krisch N (2008) The open architecture of European human rights law. Mod Law Rev 71:183–216CrossRef
Kühne H-H (2015) Strafprozessrecht. Eine systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts, 9th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
Lamarque E, Viganò F (2014) Sulle ricadure interne della sentenza Scoppola. Ovvero: sul gico di squadra tra Cassazione e Corte costituzionale nell’adeguamento del nostro ordinamento alle sentenze di Strasburgo (nota a C. Cost. N. 2010/2013). www.​penalecontempora​neo.​it. Accessed 31 March 2014
Lo Voi F (2005) Il procedimento davanti alla Corte di appello e i provvedimenti de libertate. Il conseno. In: Bargis M, Selvaggi E (eds) Mandato d’arresto europeo. Dall’estradizione alle procedure di consegna. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 241–268
Lozzi G (2014) Lezioni di procedura penale, 9th edn. Giappichelli, Torino
Martinico G (2012) Part 1. In: Martinico G, Pollicino O (eds) The Interaction between Europe’s legal systems. Judicial Dialogue and the Creation of Supranation Laws. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Martinico G, Pollicino O (2012) The interaction between Europe’s legal systems. Judicial dialogue and the creation of supranation laws. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRef
Marzaduri E (2000) Commento all’art. 1 legge costituzionale 2/1999. In: La Legislazione penale, pp. 762-804
Marzaduri E (2006) Commento agli artt. 1-2 l. 69/2005. In: Chiavario M, Marzaduri E (eds) Il mandato di arresto europeo. Utet, Torino, pp 58–96
Mazzuoli V d O (2011) O Controle Jurisdictional da Convencionalidade dais Leis, 2nd edn. Revista dos Tribunais, São Paulo
Negri D (2005) Commento all’art. 1 Decreto-legge 17/2005. La Legislazione penale, pp 260–291
Oubiña Barbolla S (2012) The European arrest warrant in law and practice. 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 47–66
Pollicino O (2008) The Constitutional Court at the crossroads between constitutional parochialism and co-operative constitutionalism. Judgments No. 348 and 349 of 22 and 24 October 2007. Eur Const Law Rev, pp 363–382
Pollicino O (2010) Allargamento ad est dello spazio giuridico europeo e rapporto tra Corti costituzionali e Corti europee. Verso una teoria generale dell’impatto interordinamentale del diritto sovranazionale? Giuffrè, Milano
Pollicino O (2015) Corte di giustizia e giudici nazionali: il moto “ascendente”, ovverosia l’incidenza delle “tradizioni costituzionali comuni” nella tutela apprestata ai diritti dalla Corte dell’Unione. www.​giurcost.​org, pp 242–263
Quattrocolo S (2014) Il contumace cede la scena processuale all’assente, mentre l’irreperibile l’abbandona. Riflessioni a prima lettura sulla nuova disciplina del procedimento senza imputato. www.​penalecontempora​neo.​it. Accessed 30 Apr 2014
Ruggeri A (2007) La CEDU alla ricerca di una nuova identità, tra prospettiva formale-astratta e prospettiva assiologico-sostanziale d’inquadramento sistematico (a prima lettura di Corte cost. nn. 348 e 349 del 2007). www.​forumcostituzion​ale.​it
Ruggeri S (2012) Personal Liberty in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. 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 185–243
Ruggeri A (2014a) Le fonti del diritto eurounitario ed i loro rapporti con le fonti nazionali. In: Costanzo P, Mezzetti L, Ruggeri A (eds) Lineamenti di diritto costituzionale dell'Unione Europea. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 268–324
Ruggeri A (2014b) Ragionando sui possibili sviluppi dei rapporti tra le Corti europee e i giudici nazionali (con specifico riguardo all’adesione dell’Unione alla CEDU e all’entrata in vigore del Prot. 16). www.​forumcostituzion​ale.​it
Ruggeri A (2015) “Dialogue” between European and national courts, in the pursuit of the strongest protection of fundamental rights (with specific regard to criminal and procedural law). In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in european legislation and case law after the Lisbon treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 9–29
Scalfati A (1999) L’udienza preliminare. Profili di una disciplina in trasformazione. Cedam, Padova
Sinn A (2012) Report on Germany. 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 105–120
Slaughter AM (1994) A typology of transjudicial communication. Univ Richmond Law Rev 29:99–137
Spencer JR (2014) Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, II edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ubertis G (2007) Sistema di procedura penale, 2nd edn. Utet, Torino
Ubertis G (2009) La prova dichiarativa debole: problemi e prospettive in materie di assunzione della testimonianza della vittima vulnerabile alla luce della gurisprudenza sovranazionale. Cassazione penale, pp 4058–4067
Viganò F (2014) Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e resistenze nazionalistiche: Corte costituzionale italiana e Corte di Strasburgo tra “guerra” e “dialogo”. Qualche osservazione dall’angolo visuale di un penalista. www.​penalecontempora​neo.​it
Vogler R (2014) Criminal evidence and respect for fair trial guarantees in the dialogue between the European court of human rights and national courts. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Developments in EU legislation and new challenges for human rights-oriented criminal investigations in cross-border cases. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181–192
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
Metadata
Title
Mutual Interaction of Systems of Human Rights Protection and the Development of a Participatory Understanding of Criminal Justice Based on Transcultural Dialogue
Author
Stefano Ruggeri
Copyright Year
2017
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_16

Premium Partner

    Image Credits