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

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

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

After examining the contribution that international human rights law and EU law have made to the enhancement of participatory safeguards in criminal proceedings, this study provides a second comparative-law analysis. The purpose of the present discussion is to critically compare the models and common principles of a participatory understanding of criminal justice emerging from Strasbourg and Inter-American case-law, as well as from the developments that have taken place in EU law, in order to elaborate some requirements to solve the shortcomings that we observed in the national criminal justice systems under examination.

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 Defence Rights and Participatory Guarantees Acknowledged by EU Law in the International Cooperation Within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
Nächstes Kapitel Solution Models for a Participatory Approach to Transnational Criminal Justice in International and Supranational Law
Fußnoten
1
The English text acknowledges the right of any person charged with a criminal offence not just to be heard in court but also to have an overall fair hearing.
 
2
Chapter 8, A.
 
3
A linguistic comparison may be interesting in this respect. It is worth noting that both the Spanish and Portuguese versions of the European Convention follow the French official text, thus relating to the right to have one’s own lawsuit examined by an independent authority.
 
4
Chapter 9, A.
 
5
Chapter 9, B.
 
6
Ibid.
 
7
Chapter 10, A.
 
8
Parlato (2012), p. 389 ff.
 
9
Chapter 10, C.III.2.
 
10
Chapter 9, B.
 
11
Chapter 8, B.
 
12
Concerning Italy, see among others Marzaduri (1996), p. 20; Nobili (1998), p. 181 ff. In Germany, criminal law scholarship tends to exclude the principle of legality sharing the same constitutional protection reserved to the nullum crimen sine lege principle pursuant to Article 103(III) Const. However, the strict link between the two principles is not disputed and the mandatory prosecution is even considered to be the downside of Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip, in that the latter aims at avoiding the legal limits of criminal law provisions being exceeded, whereas the former prevents them from being lowered and from remaining on paper. Cf. Hassemer (1992), p. 529. For some criticisms on the foundation of this distinction, see Erb (1999), p. 119. Furthermore, the principle of legality shares an essential feature of the nullum crimen sine lege principle, that is, the need to respect equality of arms. In this sense see Kühne (2015), p. 210.
 
13
Art. 14(3)(d) ICCPR.
 
14
Ibid.
 
15
Chapter 8, C.II.
 
16
Chapter 8, C.I.2.
 
17
Trechsel (2005), p. 254.
 
18
As noted, the issue was not dealt with in Colozza v. Italy, whereas the Neumeister judgment made waiver conditional on specific safeguards. Cf. Chapter 8, C.II.
 
19
Ibid.
 
20
ECtHR, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 210.
 
21
Ibid.
 
22
Explanatory Memorandum, § 41.
 
23
Chapter 10, B.II.1.
 
24
Ibid.
 
25
Wahl (2015), p. 74.
 
26
Chapter 10, B.II.1.
 
27
Art. 9 DirPIRPT.
 
28
In Italy, as noted, the 1988 code enabled defendants tried in absentia to request to be relieved from the effects of the expiration of the time limit to appeal a default conviction. Yet the exercise of their right to evidence at second instance depended on the difficult proof that their absence in court had not been their own fault. Significantly, this situation remained unchanged after an important legislative reform, carried out by Law Decree 17/2005, converted in Law 60/2005. Cf. Chapter 2, F.II.1.
 
29
Chapter 8, C.III.
 
30
Art. 47(2) EU-FRCh.
 
31
Art. 53 EU-FRCh.
 
32
Art. 52(3) CFR. This provision has led to various reactions and very different suggestions for interpretation. For a strong interpretation of this clause, whereby the EU Charter incorporated the ECHR set-up of human rights protection, see Borowsky (2011), p. 687.
 
33
Directive 2013/48/EU. See among others Bachmaier Winter (2015), p. 111 ff.
 
34
Art. 3(1) DirAL.
 
35
Art. 2(1) DirAL.
 
36
Art. 2(4) DirAL.
 
37
The question was raised by Bachmaier Winter, who, however, considers the EU limitation acceptable. Cf. Bachmaier Winter (2015), p. 117.
 
38
Art. 3(4) DirAL.
 
39
Chapter 8, D.I.
 
40
Chapter 9, C.
 
41
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
 
42
Chapter 8, G.I.
 
43
Chapter 10, C.I.1.
 
44
Ibid.
 
45
Chapter 10, C.I.2.
 
46
Ibid.
 
47
Ibid.
 
48
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
 
49
Chapter 9, D.
 
50
Ibid.
 
51
Chapter 10, B.II.2.a.
 
52
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
 
53
Chapter 10, C.II.1.b.
 
54
Chapter 10, C.II.2.
 
55
Chapter 9, D.
 
56
Chapter 8, D.III.
 
57
Chapter 10, C.II.1.c.
 
58
IACtHR, ‘Mapiripán Massacre’ v. Colombia, § 219.
 
59
Ayala Corao and Rivero (2014), p. 123.
 
60
Art. 2(1)(a) DirLA.
 
61
Chapter 8, E.III.
 
62
Chapter 10, C.III.1.
 
63
Chapter 8, E.III.
 
64
Ibid.
 
65
Ibid.
 
66
Trechsel (2005), p. 345.
 
67
Ibid., 227.
 
68
In this sense see instead Trechsel (2005), p. 227.
 
69
Chapter 9, E.II.
 
70
Chapter 9, E.I.1.
 
71
Ibid.
 
72
Chapter 8, F.II.2.a.
 
73
Below, G.II.3.
 
74
Chapter 10, C.IV.
 
75
Ibid., B.I.
 
76
Chapter 8, F.III.2.
 
77
Chapter 9, E.I.2.
 
78
ECtHR, Isgrò v. Italy, § 35 et seq.
 
79
Chapter 9, E.I.2.
 
80
Chapter 10, C.IV.
 
81
See respectively Chapter 8, F.II.1 and Chapter 9, E.I.1.
 
82
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom, § 124. See Vogel (2017), p. 36 f.
 
83
Chapter 9, E.I.1.
 
84
Chapter 8, F.III.2.
 
85
Ibid.
 
86
A different conclusion can be drawn in relation to the proceedings brought against Ancalaf Llaupe, who was prosecuted under the 1906 code, which provided for a pre-trial phase usually held in secret (sumario). Cf. IACtHR, Norín Catrimán et al. v. Chile, § 235.
 
87
Ibid., § 164.
 
88
Ibid., § 171 et seq.
 
89
Jackson and Summers (2012), p. 339.
 
90
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
91
Ibid.
 
92
Ibid.
 
93
Chapter 9, F.
 
94
Ibid.
 
95
Chapter 8, F.IV.
 
96
Chapter 9, G.I.
 
97
Ibid.
 
98
Chapter 8, G.I.
 
99
Chapter 10, D.
 
100
Chapter 8, G.I.
 
101
Chapter 10, D.
 
102
Chapter 8, G.I.
 
103
Chapter 9, G.I.
 
104
Ibid.
 
105
Chapter 10, D.
 
106
Chapter 8, G.I.
 
107
Ibid.
 
108
Chapter 9, G.I.
 
109
Ibid.
 
110
Ibid.
 
111
Chapter 10, D.
 
112
Chapter 8, G.III.
 
113
Chapter 10, D.
 
114
Chapter 8, G.II.
 
115
Casal (2014), p. 196.
 
116
Art. 7(5) ACHR.
 
117
In this sense see instead Casals (2014), p. 196.
 
118
Chapter 9, G.II.
 
119
Chapter 8, G.II.
 
120
Ibid.
 
121
Chapter 9, G.II.
 
122
Ibid.
 
123
Chapter 8, G.II.
 
124
Ibid.
 
125
Chapter 9, G.II.
 
126
Maggio (2012), p. 36.
 
127
Chapter 8, G.III.
 
128
Chapter 9, G.III.
 
129
Ibid.
 
130
Ibid.
 
131
Chapter 8, G.III.
 
132
Ibid.
 
133
ECtHR, Bouamar v. Belgium, § 60.
 
134
Chapter 9, G.III.
 
Literatur
Ayala Corao C, Rivero MD (2014) Article 4. In: Steiner and Uribe (eds) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin, pp 112–130
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
Borowsky M (2011) Artikel 52. In: Meyer J (ed) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Casal JM (2014) Article 7. In: Steiner and Uribe (eds) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin, pp 180–206
Erb V (1999) legalität und Opportunität. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Hassemer W (1992) Legalität und Opportunität im Strafverfahren – eine Skizze. In: Ostendorf H (ed) Strafverfolgung und Strafverzicht. Festschrift zum 125. Bestehen der Staatsanwaltschaft Schleswig-Holstein. Carl Heymanns, Köln et al
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 (2015) Strafprozessrecht. Eine Systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts, 9th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
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 (1996) Azione: d) diritto processuale penale. In: Enciclopedia giuridica Treccani, vol V. Treccani, Roma, pp 1–23
Nobili M (1998) Scenari e trasformazioni del processo penale. Cedam, Padova
Parlato L (2012) Il contributo della vittima tra azione e prova. Torri del Vento, Palermo
Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Vogel B (2017) “In camera”-Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28–38
Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen. Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? EuCrim, pp 70–76
Metadaten
Titel
Principles and Common Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice in International Human Rights Law and EU Law
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_14