nach oben

Erschienen in:

2017 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

13. Defence Rights and Participatory Guarantees Acknowledged by EU Law in the International Cooperation Within the Area of Freedom, Security and 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

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

It has been observed that the focus by EU institutions on the defence’s contribution to fair criminal justice followed the legislative developments occurred over the last decade in the field of international cooperation within the EU area. Moreover, the evolution of EU legislation did not follow a uniform path. Whereas the main goal pursued in the first legislative season was to strengthen mutual cooperation among member states in core areas of legal assistance, the approach changed considerably within a few years. In particular, the enhancement of mutual trust by means of the EAW procedure resulted in a double-edged sword, exposing the individuals concerned to several risks arising from these new surrender proceedings. The rising awareness of these risks, alongside the failure of the proposal of a legislative tool aimed at defining the main procedural rights in criminal proceedings, led to significant changes in the EU legislative policy in criminal matters. A clear example was the 2009 amendment of the EAW legislation, issued with a view to strengthening the participatory safeguards of absent defendants involved in surrender procedures. Further developments occurred after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The new legislation launched to implement the 2009 Roadmap was not limited to domestic criminal proceedings but aimed at extending important defence guarantees to the area of transnational criminal justice, albeit only in the field of the EAW proceedings.

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 Audi alteram partem in Transnational Cases Under the American Convention

Nächstes Kapitel Principles and Common Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice in International Human Rights Law and EU Law

Wahl (2015), p. 70.

Art. 3(1).

Siracusano (2011), p. 91.

Art. 5(1) FD EAW.

For an in-depth analysis of this legal instrument see among others Siracusano (2011), p. 90 ff. For a critical assessment of the 2009 Framework Decision see also Böse (2011), p. 503 ff.

Recital no. 8 of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA.

Similarly cf. Siracusano (2011), p. 99.

As noted, it suffices that the sought persons were informed that a decision may be handed down if they did not appear at trial.

Heger/Wolter (2015), p. 349.

Art. 4a(3) FD EAW.

Siracusano (2011), p. 96.

Of a different view cf. Siracusano, who considers that the granting of proper information can justify a presumption of waiver in the case of the accused’s absence. Cf. Siracusano (2011), p. 97. It can be doubted, however, that mere absence can be interpreted in this manner and, above all, that such a presumption can be in line with the Strasbourg case-law.

ECJ, Grand Chamber, Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal. See among others Böse (2015), p. 139 ff.

STC 91/2000.

Chapter 16, C.I.

Art. 14 FD EAW.

Art. 11(1) FD EAW.

Art. 8(1)(c) FD EAW.

Art. 8(1)(d) FD EAW.

Art. 8(1)(e) FD EAW.

Bachmaier Winter (2015a), p. 122.

Ibid.

Art. 5 DirIT.

The problem was not dealt with by the EU Court of Justice, which has recently pointed out that the information on the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ should be interpreted as relating to the national order that led to the European arrest warrant. From this it follows that in the absence of any indication on such ‘warrant’, the executing authority should deny execution of the European arrest warrant. See ECJ, Bob-Dogi.

Art. 10(4) DirAL.

Art. 10(2)(b-c) DirAL.

Bachmaier Winter (2015a), p. 123.

Chapter 10, C.III.1.

For similar criticisms see Bachmaier Winter (2015a), p. 123 f.

Art. 2(7) DirIT.

Art. 9(2) FdEAW.

Chapter 10, C.I.1.

Recital no. 25 DirIT.

Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA. On this instrument see among others Belfiore (2011), p. 105 ff.; Rafaraci (2012), p. 67 ff.

Recital no. 4 FdSM.

Hecker (2015), p. 450.

Art. 13 FdSM. Cf. Belfiore (2011), p. 113 f.

Art. 13(3) FDSM.

In Italy, for instance, the obligation to stay at a designated place can entail restrictions very similar to those of house arrest. See Arts. 283(4) and 284(3) CCP-Italy. There are significant differences, however, depending on the measure chosen, with particular regard to the maximum length of coercion. Since Italian law considers house arrest equivalent to pre-trial detention, the former is subjected to the maximum time limits of Article 303 CCP-Italy. By contrast, other pre-trial measures—including the obligation to stay at a designated place—have a maximum duration twice the length of pre-trial detention. Cf. Art. 308(1) CCP-Italy.

Art. 23(3) FDSM.

Art. 19(3) FDSM. To be sure, Recital no. 9 somewhat defined these criteria, providing for a decision to adopt a more serious measure or even a European arrest warrant as a result not only of the breach of supervision measures but also of the failure to comply with a court summons. The fact that these indications are not exhaustive, however, leaves to national legislatures a great margin of discretion. It can be doubted, moreover, whether such a serious consequence can be deemed proportionate in all member states. In Italy, e.g., the application of a more intrusive measure or the application of the same with more intrusive features requires either a violation of the prescriptions concerned with the first measure or the worsening of the risks for the ongoing proceedings. See Arts. 276 and 299(4) CCP-Italy.

The reference by Article 82(2) TFEU to the ‘admissibility’ of evidence requires, moreover, a systematic interpretation. Cf. Ruggeri (2013), p. 287 f.

Art. 4(1) EU-CMACM.

Art. 6(2) EU-CMACM.

Art. 1(1) EU-CMACM.

Art. 4 ECMACM.

On this legislative instrument see among others Belfiore (2009), p. 1 ff.; Hecker (2013), p. 269 ff.; Gleß (2014), p. 680 ff.

Art. 9(2) FdEEW.

Art. 4(6) FdEEW.

Art. 21 FdEAW.

Gleß (2014), p. 689.

Art. 7 DirPIDPT.

Until now, only a few Member States have implemented the EEW Framework Decision.

COM (2009) 262 final.

COM (2010) 171 final.

Directive 2014/41/EU. On this legislative instrument see from different perspectives Böse (2014), p. 152 ff.; Daniele (2014), Bachmaier Winter (2015b), p. 47 ff.; Caianiello (2015), p. 1 ff. The proposal of this instrument raised heated debate in the criminal law scholarship. See among others Peers (2010), Bachmaier Winter (2010), p. 580ff; Mangiaracina (2014), p. 113 ff. See also the contributions collected in Ruggeri (ed) (2014).

Accompanying Document to the Proposal for a Council Directive regarding a European Investigation Order in criminal matters, Detailed Statement, 9288/10 ADD 2, COPEN 117 EJN 185 CODEC 384 EUROJUST 217, § 1.

Art. 9(2) DirEIO.

Schünemann (2014), p. 171 f.

Ibid., 172.

For a positive consideration of combined method see instead Belfiore (2014), p. 95.

Chapter 4, E.III.4.

Recital no. 35 DirEIO.

Art. 34 DirEIO. To be sure, this argument, already contained in the 2010 proposal, was invoked to support the conclusion contrasted in the text. See Marchetti (2011), p. 163 f. I do not share this opinion because the execution of foreign requests for investigation should be considered as a whole and cannot be governed by a fragmentary combination of rules belonging to different models of international cooperation. At any rate, the reference to the 1959 Convention would not entail a significant step forward in the protection of the defence rights of private parties, allowed, as noted, only to be present at the execution of letters rogatory.

Marchetti (2011), p. 163.

Art. 9(6) DirEIO.

Art. 10(1) DirEIO.

Art. 9(3) DirEIO-proposal.

Art. 9(4) DirEIO.

Art. 9(5) DirEIO.

Ibid.

Art. 10 EU-CMACM.

Art. 10(5)(c) EU-CMACM.

Art. 10(5)(d) EU-CMACM.

Art. 10(5)(a) EU-CMACM.

Art. 24 DirEIO.

Recital no. 15 DirEIO.

Bachmaier Winter (2015a), p. 123.

Art. 5 DirLA.

Art. 24(5)(e) DirEIO.

Art. 24(5)(c) DirEIO.

See among others Vallines García (2006), Zurkinden (2012).

On an in-depth analysis of joint investigations in US transnational cooperation in criminal matters see Thaman (2013), p. 511 ff.

See respectively Arts. 40(1) and 41(1) CISA.

Klip (2012), p. 361.

Art. 13(3)(b) EU-CMACM.

Klip (2012), p. 392.

Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA.

Art. 5 FdJIT.

Chapter 15.

Bachmaier Winter L (2010) European Investigation Order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings. Study of the proposal for a European directive. Zeitschrift für die international Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 580–589

Bachmaier Winter L (2015a) 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

Bachmaier Winter L (2015b) Transnational evidence. Towards the Transposition of the Directive 2014/41 Regarding the European Investigation Order in Criminal Matters. Eucrim, pp 47–60

Belfiore R (2009) Movement of evidence in the EU: the present scenario and possible future developments. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 17:1–22CrossRef

Belfiore R (2011) Mutuo riconoscimento delle decisioni sulle misure alternative alla detenzione cautelare. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in materia penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 105–117

Belfiore R (2014) Critical remarks on the proposal for a European investigation order and some considerations on the issue of mutual admissibility of evidence. 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 91–105

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

Böse M (2014) Die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung–Beweistransfer nach neuen Regeln? Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 152–164

Böse M (2015) Human rights violations and mutual trust: recent case law on the European arrest warrant. 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 135–145

Caianiello M (2015) La nuova direttiva UE sull’ordine europeo di indagine penale tra mutuo riconoscimento e ammissione reciproca delle prove. Processo penale e giustizia, pp 1–11

Daniele M (2014) La metamorfosi del diritto delle prove nella Direttiva sull’ordine europeo di indagine penale. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 20 Nov 2014

Gleß S (2014) Europäisches Beweisrecht. In: Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, von Heintschell-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 677–695

Hecker B (2013) Mutual recognition and transfer of evidence. The European Evidence Warrant. 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 269–278CrossRef

Hecker B (2015) Europäisches Strafrecht, 5th edn. Springer, Berlin-HeidelbergCrossRef

Mangiaracina A (2014) A new and controversial scenario in the gathering of evidence at the european level: the proposal for a directive on the European investigation order. Utrecht Law Rev 10(1):113–133CrossRef

Marchetti MR (2011) Dalla Convenzione di assistenza giudiziaria in materia penale dell’Unione europea al mandato europeo di ricerca delle prove e all’ordine europeo di indagine penale. In: Rafaraci T (ed) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in material penale nell’Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 135–167

Peers S (2010) The proposed European Investigation Order: assault on human rights and national sovereignty. www.statewatch.org. Accessed May 2010

Rafaraci T (2012) The application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervisions measures as an alternative to provisional detention. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security. Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress, Göttingen/Osnabrück, pp 67–83

Ruggeri S (2013) Horizontal cooperation, obtaining evidence overseas and the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. From the European Commission’s proposals to the proposal for a directive on a European Investigation Order: Towards a single tool of evidence gathering in the EU? 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 279–310

Schünemann B (2014) Solution models and principles governing the transnational evidence-gathering in the EU. 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 161–180

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

Thaman SC (2013) Report on USA. 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 509–529CrossRef

Vallines García E (2006) Los equipos conjuntos de investigación penal. Ed. Colex, Madrid

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

Zurkinden N (2012) Joint Investigation Teams‬: Chancen und Grenzen von gemeinsamen Ermittlungsgruppen in der Schweiz, Europa und den USA, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Titel: Defence Rights and Participatory Guarantees Acknowledged by EU Law in the International Cooperation Within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
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_13

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"

Premium Partner