nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

10. Harmonisation of Criminal Justice and Participatory Rights in Criminal Proceedings. New Developments in EU Law After the Lisbon Treaty

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

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We have anticipated that the development of a broad participatory understanding of criminal proceedings by the Strasbourg case-law has influenced the evolution of EU law in criminal matters over the last two decades. The focus on defence rights as an engine of a fair criminal justice had already followed the harmonisation process of criminal procedure law that occurred under the former Third Pillar in the field of transnational cooperation among member states. Moreover, EU institutions were certainly also aware of the need to strengthen the defence rights in domestic criminal proceedings in the middle of the last decade, as the European Commission launched the proposal of a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union. Alongside specific aspects that constituted the necessary conditions for the active involvement of private parties in criminal proceedings, this proposal, for example, explicitly focused on the right to interpretation, which, in the light of the requirements set forth by the European Convention, must be of such quality as to enable the defendant’s effective participation in criminal trials. During the legislative procedure, however, this proposal faced enormous difficulties and was never adopted.

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

Nächstes Kapitel Participatory Rights and Transnational Criminal Justice in the European Convention

COM(2004) 328 final.

Ibid., § 69.

See ‘Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings’, Council Resolution of 30 November 2009 (2009/295/01).

The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/ C 115/01), § 2.4.

Art. 31(1)(c) TEU (old text).

Art. 82(2) TFEU.

In 2004, the European Commission had already presented the proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights as ‘the necessary complement to the mutual recognition measures that are designed to increase efficiency of prosecution. A set of agreed procedural rights to ensure equivalent treatment of suspected persons throughout the EU should enable judicial cooperation measures to be applied as efficiently as possible, especially those that envisage surrender of persons or of evidence to another Member State’. Cf. COM(2004) 328 final, Explanatory Memorandum, § 52.

Art. 82(2)(b) TFEU.

Art. 82(2)(c) TFEU. On the role of the victim in European criminal justice see Allegrezza (2012), p. 1 ff.

Art. 53 EU FRCh.

Directive 2012/29/EU, replacing Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of the victim in criminal proceedings, laid down minimum rules on the rights, support and protection of the victim.

Allegrezza (2012), p. 5 f.

See, in this sense, Böse (2011), p. 489 ff.; Siracusano (2011), p. 91 f.

Chapter 13, B.II.2.a.

COM(2013) 821 final. Although this initiative was not aimed at implementing the 2009 Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, the European Council, while incorporating the Roadmap into the Stockholm Programme, stressed its non-exhaustive character and called thus for further initiatives on procedural issues, such as the presumption of innocence.

Directive 2016/343/EU.

Below, B.II.1.

To be sure, also this formulation is rather unclear as significant differences emerge from a comparative analysis of linguistic versions. Some of them relate solely to the trial phase: see in this sense, alongside the English version (trial), the German one that, while mentioning the concept of Verhandlung, may seem to concern the Hauptverhandlung, that is, the trial hearing. Other linguistic versions broaden the scope of the new rules by relating to any “process” or “proceeding” aimed at a decision on guilt: in this sense cf. the Greek version (δίκη) as well as almost all the versions in Romance languages, such as those in Italian (processo), French (procès), Portuguese (julgamento), Romanian (proces) and Spanish ( juicio).

See in this sense, alongside the English version (trial), the German one that, while mentioning the concept of Verhandlung, may seem to concern the Hauptverhandlung, that is, the trial hearing.

In this sense cf. the Greek version (δίκη) as well as almost all the versions in Roman languages, such as those in Italian (processo), French (procès), Portuguese (julgamento), Romanian (proces) and Spanish (juicio).

Below, B.II.1.

Art. 8(2)(a)(i) DirPIRPT-proposal.

Paragraph 2(a) DirPIRPT.

Art. 8(2)(a)(i) DirPIRPT -proposal.

Recital no. 35 DirPIRPT.

Wahl (2015), p. 74.

Art. 8(2)(b) DirPIRPT -proposal.

Art. 8(2)(b) DirPIRPT.

Recital no. 38 DirPIRPT.

Art. 8(3) DirPIRPT-proposal.

Art. 8(3)(a) DirPIRPT-proposal.

Art. 8(3)(b) DirPIRPT-proposal.

Critical remarks on this case were also expressed by the CCBE. Cfr. http://www.ccbe.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/NTCdocument/EN_04042014_CCBE_Res1_1399968822.pdf.

Art. 8(3) DirPIRPT.

Art. 8(3) DirPIRPT-proposal.

ECJ, Covaci.

Ibid., § 28 et seqq.

Ibid., § 38.

Ibid., § 49.

Ibid., § 50.

Gialuz (2015), p. 6 f.

ECJ, Covaci, § 42.

See § 407 et seqq. CCP-Germany. As noted, the Italian 1988 code introduced the same arrangements, which lasted until 2001 as Law no. 60 amended Article 460 CCP by requiring notice of the penal order to be provided not only to the convicted persons but also to a court-appointed lawyer, if they have not appointed counsel of their own. Cf. Chapter 2, F.III.2.

ECJ, Covaci, § 60.

Ibid., § 60.

Ibid., § 61.

Ibid., § 62.

Ibid., § 63.

In Italy, this is the case of abbreviated proceedings, which, as noted, take place as a rule in the intermediate phase. Cf. Chapter 2, F.III.3.

In Italy, the competent judge to decide on a plea bargaining can in any time summon the accused persons to check the voluntariness of their consent. Cf. Chapter 2, F.III.3.

Recital no. 20 DirVR.

Allegrezza (2012), p. 6.

Art. 14 DirVR.

Art. 7(5) DirVR.

Below, C.III.2.

Directive 2010/64/EU. See, among others, Gialuz (2013), p. 227 ff.; Amalfitano (2014), p. 14 ff.; Vogler (2015), p. 104 ff.

This link is clearly expressed in Article 3(1) DirIT.

It may be surprising that Directive 2010/64 contains no reference to the suspect’s examination by the competent prosecutor. This hearing poses difficult challenges especially in the countries where public prosecutors are independent from the judiciary and, despite being an impartial body, autonomously carry out their investigations instituted on the basis of the charge filed against the suspect for the purposes of the future prosecution. On close examination, the legal lacuna is only apparent and can be filled by the provision acknowledging the need for interpretation throughout the proceedings before all the authorities having investigative and judicial tasks. See Art. 2(1) DirIT.

Art. 2(2) DirIT.

Art. 2(4) DirIT.

Art. 2(5) DirIT.

In Italy, for instance, the defence must, as a rule, until the conclusion of the first instance to lodge an appeal against the judgment on the accused’s guilt. Cf. Art. 586 CCP-Italy.

Art. 3(3) DirIT.

Both in the English and in the French text, translation not only should be provided in relation to the formal accusation but also to the preliminary charge filed in the investigative phase (the wording of Article 3 relates, respectively, to ‘any charge or indictment’ and ‘toutes charges ou tout acte d’accusation’), whereas no distinction was made in other linguistic versions (for instance, the Italian text relates generically to ‘gli atti contenenti i capi d’imputazione’). Finally, there are even linguistic versions that use expressions specifically relating to the indictment (for instance, the Spanish text mentions the ‘escrito de acusación’).

Recital no. 21.

Ibid.

Art. 3(1) DirVR.

Art. 5(2) DirVR.

Art. 3(2) DirVR.

Art. 7(1) DirVR.

Ibid.

Art. 7(2) DirVR.

Art. 3(3) DirVR.

Art. 7(3) DirVR.

Art. 7(4) DirVR.

Art. 7(5) DirVR.

See among others Quattrocolo (2015), p. 84 ff.

Recital no. 14 DirICP.

Art. 6(1) DirICP.

Art. 6(3) DirICP.

On the one hand, one cannot rule out that the qualified information under Article 6(3) is needed, albeit to a different extent, to ensure full exercise of the defence at the pre-trial stage pursuant to paragraph 1. On the other, the information on the accusation can take on different degrees of completeness according to the developments of the court proceedings, as acknowledged in Recital no. 28. On this issue, see for further criticisms Quattrocolo (2015), p. 87 f.

Recital no. 38 DirICP.

Recital no. 29 DirICP.

Art. 6(2) DirICP.

Art. 6(3) DirICP.

Art. 7(1) DirICP.

Art. 7(2) DirICP.

Exceptions are provided for in the case of arrest and detention. See below, D.

Art. 7(3) DirICP.

Art. 7(4) DirICP.

Ibid.

Recital no. 36 DirICP.

Art. 4 DirVR.

Recital no. 26 DirVR.

Recital no. 28 DirVR.

Recital no. 26 DirVR.

Recital no. 31 DirVR.

Recital no. 26 DirVR.

Recital no. 29 DirVR.

Above, C.I.2.

Art. 3(2)(d) DirAL.

Art. 3(2)(a) DirAL.

Art. 3(3)(a) DirAL.

Art. 3(3)(b) DirAL.

Ibid.

Recital no. 25 DirAL.

107

Chapter 13, C.II.2.b.

108

Art. 2(1) DirAL.

109

Art. 2(3) DirAL.

110

Bachmaier Winter (2015), p. 114.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Art. 10(1) DVR.

It has been noted that, despite recent reforms, Italian law still lacks a general statute on the victim’s questioning by the police and the prosecutor. Cf. Chapter 2, G.II.2. Even at trial, the injured party who could not, or did not choose to, lodge a civil law complaint can be summoned to be examined pursuant the rules governing the testimonial hearing.

Art. 10(2) DVR.

Art. 23(3)(b) DVR.

Recital no. 41 DVR.

Art. 3(2) FDVS.

ECJ, Katz. See Rafaraci (2015), p. 218.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Chapter 13, C.II.2.

Art. 3(3)(c) DirAL.

Recital no. 26 DirAL.

126

Ibid.

127

Art. 6(3) TEU.

128

Recital no. 53 DirAL.

129

Art. 9 DirAL.

130

Recital no. 34 DirVR.

131

Art. 10(1) DirVR.

132

Recital no. 34 DirVR.

133

Art. 10(2) DirVR.

134

Recital no. 38 DirVR.

135

Alongside the means of coercion that can be adopted in EAW proceedings and supervision measures alternative to pre-trial detention, the 2014 Directive on a European investigation order allowed for evidence to be gathered in other member states through coercive means. See Chapter 13, C.II.2.

136

Recital no. 22 and Art. 4 DirICP.

137

Recital no. 22 DirICP.

138

Above, C.II.1.c.

139

Recital no. 14 DirAL.

140

Art. 5 DirAL.

141

Art. 6 DirAL.

142

Recital no. 21 DirICP.

143

For an assessment of the developments occurred in EU law in relation to the right to a defence in criminal proceedings see Rafaraci (2011), p. 119 ff.; Rafaraci (2013), p. 331 ff.

144

The question was raised in 2001 by Chiavario. Cf. Chiavario (2001), p. 938 ff.

Allegrezza S (2012) La riscoperta della vittima nella giustizia penale europea. In: Allegrezza S, Belluta H, Gialuz M, Luparia L (eds) Lo scudo e la spada. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 1–31

Amalfitano C (2014) Le prime Direttive europee sul ravvicinamento “processuale”: il diritto all’interpretazione, alla traduzione e all’informazione nei procedimenti penali. In: Del Coco R, Pistoia E (eds) Stranieri e giustizia penale. Problemi di perseguibilità e di garanzia nella normativa nazionale ed europea. Cacucci, Bari, pp 1–34

Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The EU directive on the right to access to a lawyer: a critical assessment. 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 111–131

Böse M (2011) Harmonizing procedural rights indirectly: the framework decision on trials in Absentia. N C J Int Law, 489–510

Chiavario M (2001) Il “diritto al processo” delle vittime dei reati e la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Rivista di diritto processuale, pp 938 ss

Gialuz M (2013) La lingua come diritto: il diritto all’interpretazione e alla traduzione nel processo penale. In: Ruggieri F, Rafaraci T, Di Paolo G, Marcolini S, Belfiore R (eds) Processo penale, lingua e Unione Europea. Cedam, Padova, pp 227ff

Gialuz M (2015) Dalla Corte di Giustizia importanti indicazioni esegetiche in relazione alle prime due Direttive sui diritti dell’imputato. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 11 Nov 2015

Quattrocolo S (2015) The right to information in EU legislation. 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 81–93

Rafaraci T (2011) Il diritto di difesa nelle procedure di cooperazione giudiziaria nel contesto dell’Unione europea. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in materia penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 119–132

Rafaraci T (2013) The right of defence in EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. 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 331–343

Rafaraci T (2015) New perspectives for the protection of the victims in the EU. 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 215–225

Siracusano F (2011) Nuove prospettive in materie di processo in absentia e procedure di consegna. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in materia penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 85–104

Vogler R (2015) Lost in translation: language rights for defendants in European criminal proceedings. In: Ruggeri S (coord.) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 95–109

Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen. Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? EuCrim, pp 70–76

Titel: Harmonisation of Criminal Justice and Participatory Rights in Criminal Proceedings. New Developments in EU Law After the Lisbon Treaty
verfasst von: Stefano Ruggeri
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
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_10

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"