Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings, In Absentia Trials and Inaudito Reo Procedures. Solution Models and Deficiencies in ECtHR Case-Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings

  • 564 Accesses

Abstract

Notwithstanding the failure of the drafters of the European Convention to enact a general provision regarding the right to be present at trial, Strasbourg case-law, by means of a comprehensive view of the right to a fair hearing, has long recognised the possibility of personal participation of defendants in criminal proceedings. This acknowledgment, however, has not led to the Court excluding the lawfulness of restrictions on this fundamental guarantee by means of procedures, such as default proceedings, which rule out any involvement of the accused. It would, however, be oversimplifying to affirm, that the contribution of European case-law was circumscribed to the right to merely be present at trial and its limitations.

This study provides a systematic examination of the way the Strasbourg Court has reinterpreted the participatory safeguards over almost four decades. This allows us to observe the development of the qualitative conditions of personal involvement of defendants in criminal proceedings, and the forms in which they can give their contribution to fact-finding. Further developments, moreover, can be expected in the near future. On the one hand, the rising focus of the European case-law on the protection of fundamental rights of individuals other than the accused, such as vulnerable witnesses and victims, poses the question of whether and to what extent the Convention’s participatory safeguards can also be extended particularly to the aggrieved parties. The Court has until recently dealt with this question only in specific fields, such as that of inaudito reo procedures. On the other, the delicate field of transnational criminal justice increasingly poses specific challenges, which make the approach now followed by European case-law in relation to the accused’s participatory rights somehow outdated especially in the EU area of freedom, security and justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular, explicitly grants defendants the right to be tried in their own presence, a guarantee significantly enshrined in the same provision that ensures to defendants the right to defend themselves or to obtain the assistance of a lawyer. Cf. Art. 14(3)(d) ICCPR.

  2. 2.

    The leading case was the 1985 judgment Colozza v. Italy. See ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Appl. No. 9024/80.

  3. 3.

    Art. 6(3)(c) ECHR.

  4. 4.

    Below, Sect. 4.2.

  5. 5.

    Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR.

  6. 6.

    Ubertis (2009), p. 49.

  7. 7.

    Art. 5(3) ECHR.

  8. 8.

    In Colozza v. Italy, however, the Court left open the question of whether the right to personal participation could be waived. Cf. Trechsel (2005), pp. 255f.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Appl. No. 1936/63.

  10. 10.

    In Franquesa Freixas v. Spain, the Court regarded with disfavour the defendant’s choice not to defend himself precisely because he was a lawyer. Cf. ECtHR, Franquesa Freixas v. Spain, decision of 21 November 2000, Appl. No. 53590/99.

  11. 11.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 256.

  12. 12.

    ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Appl. No. 14032/88, § 35.

  13. 13.

    Negri (2014), pp. 149ff.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France (fn. 12), para 38.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, Lala v. The Netherlands, judgment of 22 September 1994, Appl. No. 14861/89.

  16. 16.

    ECtHR, Goldmann and Szénászky v. Hungary, judgment of 30 November 2010, Appl. No. 17604/05. For further references to ECtHR case-law see Gácsi et al., in this volume, Sect. 3.3.3.

  17. 17.

    For in-depth examination of Strasbourg case-law see Di Chiara (2009), pp. 293 ff.

  18. 18.

    For a critical analysis of these developments see Vogel (2016).

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, Grand Chamber, A. et al. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 19 February 2009, Appl. No. 3455/05.

  20. 20.

    ECtHR, Sher et al. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 20 October 2015, Appl. No. 5201/11, para 149.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, Constantinescu v. Romania, judgment of 27 June 2000, Appl. No. 28871/95.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, Döry v. Sweden, judgment of 11 November 2002, Appl. No. 28394/95.

  24. 24.

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

  25. 25.

    Above, Sect. 2.2.

  26. 26.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 362.

  27. 27.

    ECtHR, Liebreich v. Germany, judgment of 8 January 2008, Appl. No. 30443/03.

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy (fn. 2), para 30.

  29. 29.

    ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Appl. No. 12151/86.

  30. 30.

    ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy (fn. 2), para 29.

  31. 31.

    Ibid.

  32. 32.

    This case occurred in Italy after the Law 60/2005, which adapted the rules on the so-called ‘restituzione in termini’—a legal tool granting defendants leave to appeal out of time against a conviction held in absentia—to the requirements set forth by European case-law. Thus, despite opening the door of second instance, moreover, Law 60/2005 failed to amend the conditions for the exercise of the right to evidence in the appeal proceedings. As a consequence, defendants could only have evidence obtained in the second instance by proving that they had been unaware of the initiation of criminal proceedings. Cf. Negri (2005), p. 268. This result was eliminated by Law 67/2014, which abolished the default proceedings, while defining a new procedure in absentia. On this legislative reform see Quattrocolo (2014), Mangiaracina, in this volume, Sect. 5.

  33. 33.

    ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Öcalan v. Turkey, judgment of 12 May 2005, Appl. No. 46221/99, para 210.

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy (fn. 2), para 29.

  35. 35.

    Art. 3(1).

  36. 36.

    ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy, judgment of 28 August 1991, Appl. No. 12151/86.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, Battisti v. France, decision of 12 December 2006, Appl. No. 28796/05. On this decision cf. Galgani (2013), pp. 174f.

  38. 38.

    In this sense see instead Galgani (2013), p. 175.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    Brazilian Law 9.721/1996 dropped the default proceedings (em revelia), which took place in any case of defendants who, duly summoned, did not appear in court without justification. See Art. 366 CCP-Brazil (before 1996). Yet the 1996 reform, although requiring the defendants to be summoned personally, maintained the possibility of criminal proceedings being conducted against absent defendants who either failed to appear in court without a justified reason or failed to communicate their new residence. This legislation also did not drop the possibility of defendants being summoned by edict (citação por edital). Since the likelihood that defendants summoned by edict become aware of the proceedings initiated against them is surely low, Law 9.721/1996 provided for the suspension not only of criminal proceedings but also of the time limit laid down for the prosecuted offence. The only procedural activities allowed in this lapse of time are the collection of urgent evidence and the possibility of the competent judge remanding defendants into custody pursuant to Article 312 CCP-Brazil. More precisely, the time limit is first suspended after the judicial authority receives the denúncia, and will be subsequently suspended if the defendant did not appear in court. See Art. 366 CCP-Brazil.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR, Gray v. Germany, judgment of 22 May 2014, Appl. No. 49278/09.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para 3.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para 61.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 87.

  45. 45.

    Ibid.

  46. 46.

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

  47. 47.

    ECtHR, Gray v. Germany (fn. 35), para 87.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., para 91.

  49. 49.

    Ibid.

  50. 50.

    Ibid.

  51. 51.

    For a functional approach to the relationship between the right to be informed about the accusation and the right to a defence, see ECtHR, Mattoccia v. Italy, judgment of 25 July 2000, Appl. No. 23969/94.

  52. 52.

    ECtHR, Gray v. Germany (fn. 35), para 91.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    Kühne (2009), Rn. 496. In a different sense cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 198f., according to whom the right to information should be interpreted as relating to the act through which the court proceedings are instituted.

  55. 55.

    Art. 6(3)(b) ECHR. In this sense see Trechsel (2005), p. 200f.

  56. 56.

    In the Haxhia case, however, the European Court ruled out that the notification of the accusation should necessarily entail the disclosure of supporting evidence to enable the accused to prepare for trial. See ECtHR, Haxhia v. Albania, judgment of 8 October 2013, Appl. No. 29861/03.

  57. 57.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 193.

  58. 58.

    ECtHR, Brozicek v. Italy, judgment of 19 December 1989, Appl. No. 10964/84.

  59. 59.

    In Mattoccia v. Italy (fn. 44), however, the Court held that information ‘rests entirely on the prosecuting authority’s shoulders’.

  60. 60.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 204.

  61. 61.

    ECtHR, Sipavicius v. Lithuania, judgment of 21 February 2002, Appl. No. 49093/99, paras 27 et seqq.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR, De Cubber v. Belgium, judgment of 26 October 1984, Appl. No. 9186/80.

  63. 63.

    In these terms cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 194.

  64. 64.

    ECtHR, Kremzow v. Austria, judgment of 21 September 1993, Appl. No. 12350/86.

  65. 65.

    ECtHR, Sher et al. v. United Kingdom (fn. 20).

  66. 66.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 244.

  67. 67.

    Ibid., p. 201.

  68. 68.

    Art. 14(3)(e) ICCPR.

  69. 69.

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

  70. 70.

    ECtHR, Isgrò v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Appl. No. 11339/85, para 36.

  71. 71.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 310.

  72. 72.

    Art. 8(2)(d) ACHR.

  73. 73.

    Jackson and Summers (2012), p. 349.

  74. 74.

    EComHR, P.V. v. Federal Republic of Germany, decision of 13 July 1987, Appl. No. 11853/85.

  75. 75.

    ECtHR, Solakov v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, judgment of 21 October 2001, Appl. No. 47023/99, para 62.

  76. 76.

    In this sense Trechsel (2005), p. 311 f.

  77. 77.

    Italian law, for instance, requires all parties to specify, the latest 7 days before the trial first hearing, the personal data and the circumstances on which the witnesses, co-defendants and experts they wish to summoned will be examined in open court. Cf. Art. 486 CCP-Italy. This duty, instead, does not lie with the parties called upon to cross-examine them.

  78. 78.

    EComHR, X., Y. and Z. v. Austria, decision of 5 February 1973, Appl. No. 5049/71.

  79. 79.

    Remarkably, the Inter-American Court has on several occasions stressed that forced disappearances put individuals in a condition of extreme vulnerability by depriving them of the ability to defend themselves, especially when constant violations of human rights are tolerated by the State. See IACtHR, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, judgment of 23 November 2009, Series C No. 209, paras 138 et seqq. This has led the Court to view the requirement that the accused personally appear in court and be examined by an independent authority not just as a separate guarantee but as the means of assessing (and sometimes avoiding) multiple infringements on the Convention. In these terms cf. Casal (2014), p. 197.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 may 1998, Appl. No. 24276/94, para 123.

  81. 81.

    ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, judgment of 30 August 1990, Appl. No. 12244/86 12245/86 12383/86, para 40.

  82. 82.

    In X. v. United Kingdom, the link between the knowledge of the grounds for arrest and the right to undertake proceedings was so exclusive in the earlier case-law that the Court found no ground to ascertain a violation of the Convention under paragraph 2 if paragraph 4 was infringed. See ECtHR, X. v. United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Appl. No. 7215/75.

  83. 83.

    ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom (fn. 75), para 41.

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR, Grand Chamber, John Murray v. United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Appl. No. 18731/91. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 461.

  86. 86.

    ECtHR, McGoff v. Sweden, judgment of 26 October 1984, Appl. No. 9017/80. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 506.

  87. 87.

    This question holds particular importance in those European countries, such as Italy, which still allows the competent authorities to restrict communication between counsel and the defendant subject to remand detention (or in house arrest) before the first judicial hearing. See Art. 294 CCP-Italy.

  88. 88.

    ECtHR, Schiesser v. Switzerland, judgment of 4 December 1979, Appl. No. 7710/76.

  89. 89.

    Trechsel (2005), pp. 514f.

  90. 90.

    ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom (fn. 85), para 63.

  91. 91.

    ECtHR, Brusco v. France, judgment of 14 October 2010, Appl. No. 1466/07.

  92. 92.

    See among others ECtHR, Wloch v. Poland, judgment of 19 October 2000, Appl. No. 27785/95.

  93. 93.

    ECtHR, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, judgment of 21 October 1986, Appl. No. 9862/82.

  94. 94.

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

  95. 95.

    ECtHR, Garcia Alva v. Germany, judgment of 13 February 2001, Appl. No. 23541/94, para 39.

  96. 96.

    ECtHR, Keus v. The Netherlands, judgment of 25 October 1990, Appl. No. 12228/86.

  97. 97.

    Ibid., para 25.

  98. 98.

    ECtHR, Fodale v. Italy, judgment of 1 June 2006, Appl. No. 70148/01.

  99. 99.

    ECtHR, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, judgment of 5 October 2000, Appl. No. 31365/96, para 58.

  100. 100.

    Trechsel (2005), p. 486.

Abbreviations

ACHR:

American Convention of Human Rights

CCP:

Code of Criminal Procedure

ECHR:

European Convention on Human Rights

EComHR:

European Commission of Human Rights

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EU:

European Union

IACtHR:

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

ICCPR:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

References

  • Casal JM (2014) Article 7. In: Steiner C, Uribe P (eds) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin, pp 180–206

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Galgani B (2013) Extradition, political offence and the discrimination clause. 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 167–191

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Maffei S (2012) The Right to Confrontation in Europe. Absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Negri D (2005) Commento all’art. 1 Decreto-legge 17/2005. La Legislazione penale, pp 260–291

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 30 Apr 2014

  • Spencer JR (2014) Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, 2nd edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel B (2016) “In camera”-Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28–38

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law ‘Salvatore Pugliatti’, Messina University, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Authors
  1. Stefano Ruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Ruggeri .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, and Political, Economic and Social Sciences, University of Piemonte Orientale, Alessandria, Italy

    Serena Quattrocolo

  2. Law Department, University of Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2019). Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings, In Absentia Trials and Inaudito Reo Procedures. Solution Models and Deficiencies in ECtHR Case-Law. In: Quattrocolo, S., Ruggeri, S. (eds) Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_18

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-01185-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-01186-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation