Participatory Rights in Comparative Criminal Justice. Similarities and Divergences Within the Framework of the European Law

  • Serena QuattrocoloEmail author
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)


This chapter is devoted to comparing the results of the national reports on the basis of the Attachment. The comparison aims to cast light on similarities, if existing, and divergences between the different domestic jurisdictions. The comparative process moves from a hypothesis to be assessed: whether it is possible to argue that the ECHR and the EU legislation have shaped a common core of rules, regulating the participatory rights in criminal proceedings regardless the different legal traditions. To respond to this question, the chapter highlights the most relevant differences between the selected member states, with regard to the specific topics that have been addressed by the study, which is based on a multidisciplinary pattern and encompasses also specific EU law-, ECHR-, constitutional law- and criminal law-based analysis of participatory rights.

As the reader has seen in the first part of this Section, each national summary approached the Attachment with a different attitude, based on the individuals’ legal tradition and personal sensitivity. Thus, some remarks are not ‘universal’, but try to highlight, at least, ‘common trends’.

In fact, the identification of ‘common trends’ is the major result of this comparative study. However, a great number of divergences also emerged, demonstrating that, even though the ECtHR case-law and the recent ‘ABC directives’ of the EU had a strong impact on the national orders, some major differences still exist in the inner concept of what in absentia trial is and how it must be regulated, in compliance with fundamental rights. Nevertheless, it stems from this comparison that the values underpinning the parties’ personal contribution to the proceedings are facing a general crisis. In particular, the defendant’s non-participation, for different reasons and in various manners, is a growing phenomenon, now affecting even jurisdictions that have historically emphasized the importance of such personal participation.


In absentia trial Criminal proceedings Participatory rights Inaudito reo proceedings Judicial cooperation 



Area of Freedom Security and Justice


Code of Criminal Procedure


Court of Justice of the European Union


Council of Europe




Crown Prosecution Service


European Arrest Warrant


European Convention on Human Rights


European Court of Human Rights


European Investigation Order


European Union


Framework Decision


International Criminal Court


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


Justice and Home Affaires


Mutual Legal Assistance


Member State of the EU


Police and Criminal Evidence Act


Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union


United States of America


  1. Ancel M (1971) Utilité et méthodes du droit comparé, Eléments d’introduction générale à l’étude comparative des droits. Editions Ides et Calendes, NeuchâtelGoogle Scholar
  2. Belluta H (2006) Imparzialità del giudice e dinamiche probatorie ex officio. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiavario M (2001) Diritto processuale penale. Profilo istituzionale, 3rd edn. Utet, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiavario M (2008) La videoconference comme moyenne de participations aux audiences pénales. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme:223–237Google Scholar
  5. Chiavario M (2017) Diritto processuale penale. Utet giuridica, Torino-MilanoGoogle Scholar
  6. Damaška M (2004) Negotiated justice in international criminal law. J Int Crim Just:1018–1039Google Scholar
  7. Daniele M (2017a) L’ordine europeo di indagine penale entra a regime. Prime riflessioni sul d. lgs. n. 108 del 2017. Accessed 31 July 2018
  8. Daniele M (2017b) La partecipazione a distanza allargata. Accessed 31 July 2018
  9. Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F (2005) The last word in court – a hidden disadvantage for the defence. Law Hum Behav:705–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fletcher G (1998) Comparative law as a subversive discipline. Am J Comp Law 46:683–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grande E (2003) Uno sguardo oltre il confine. La comparazione giuridica al di là del diritto privato. In: Bertorello V (ed) Io comparo, tu compari, egli compara: che cosa, come, perché? Giuffré, Milano, pp 153–156Google Scholar
  12. Grande E (2013) Comparative criminal justice. Cambridge companion of comparative law, pp 191–209Google Scholar
  13. Illuminati G (2005) The frustrated turn to adversarial procedure in Italy. Wash Univ Global Stud Law Rev:567–581Google Scholar
  14. Klip A (2015) European criminal law, 3rd edn. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  15. Kostoris R (2011) La revisione del giudicato e i rapporti tra violazioni convenzionali e invalidità processuali secondo le regole interne. La legislazione penale:471–480Google Scholar
  16. Langer M (2004) From legal transplant to legal translation: the globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harv Int Law J 45:1–65Google Scholar
  17. Lavarini B (2012) L’esame delle parti. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  18. Legrand P (1997) The impossibility of legal transplant. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 4(2):111–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maffei S (2004) Negotiation on evidence and negotiation on sentence: adversarial experiments in Italian criminal procedure. J Int Crim Just:1050–1069Google Scholar
  20. Magendie JCl (2004) Célérité et qualité de la justice. La gestion du temps dans le procès. Rapport au Garde des Scaux. Accessed 31 July 2018
  21. Mannozzi G (2016) Le alternative alla detenzione: profili critici e prospettive di riforma - le aperture alla giustizia riparativa nell’ambito delle misure alternative alla detenzione. Giurisprudenza Italiana: 1517 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. Mauro C (2015) Dell’utilità del criterio della non punibilità per particolare tenuità del fatto in un sistema di opportunità dell’azione penale. Esperienze francesi. In: Quattrocolo S (ed) I nuovi epiloghi del procedimento per particolare tenuità del fatto. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 143–169Google Scholar
  23. Mazza O (2008) Esame delle parti private. In: Enciclopedia del Diritto, Annali II, t. 1. Giuffré, Milano, pp …Google Scholar
  24. Morillo F, Bellander Todino I (2017) The victims’ rights directive: origins and expectations. In: Bargis M, Belluta H (eds) Vittime di reato e sistema penale. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  25. Orlandi R (1990) Art. 209. In: Chiavario M (ed) Commento al nuovo codice di procedura penale, vol II. Utet, Torino, pp 502–507Google Scholar
  26. Ost F (2002) Les lois conventionellement formées tiennent lieu de conventions à ceux qui les ont faites. In: Gérard F, Ost F, Van de Kerchove M (eds) Droit négocié, Droit imposé? Presses Universitaires Saint Louis, Bruxelles, pp 17–107Google Scholar
  27. Patané V (2006) Il diritto al silenzio dell’imputato. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  28. Pollicino O, Bassini M (2017) Defusing the Taricco bomb through fostering constitutional tolerance: all roads lead to Rome, in Vervssungsblog. Accessed 5 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  29. Pradel J (1995) Droit pénal Comparé. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. 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. Accessed 31 July 2018
  31. Ruggeri S (2008) Il procedimento per decreto penale. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  32. Ruggeri S (2016) Inaudito Reo proceedings, defence rights, and harmonisation goals in the EU. Responses of the European Courts and new perspectives of EU law. Eucrim 1:42–51Google Scholar
  33. Ruggeri S (2017) Audi Alteram Partem in criminal proceedings. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sacco R (1991) Legal formants: a dynamic approach to comparative law. Am J Comp Law:1–34Google Scholar
  35. Signorato S (2017) L’ampliamento dei casi di partecipazione a distanza tra logiche efficientistiche e menomazioni difensive. Accessed 31 July 2018
  36. Sperduti G (1977) Dualism and monism: a confrontation to be overcome. Ital Yearb Int Law (3):31–49Google Scholar
  37. Terry WC, Surette R (1986) Media technology and the courts: the case of closed circuit video arraignments in Miami, Florida. Crim Just Rev:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tulkens F (2002) Negotiated justice. In: Delmas-Marty M, Spencer J (eds) European criminal procedures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 641–687Google Scholar
  39. Van der Vils EJ (2012) Videoconferencing in criminal proceedings. In: Braun S, Taylor J (eds) Videoconference and remote interpreting in criminal proceedings. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 13–31Google Scholar
  40. Varraso G (2017) Art. 420-ter. In: Canzio G, Bricchetti R (eds) Codice di procedura penale. Giuffré, Milano, pp 3012–3032Google Scholar
  41. Vincent J, Guinchard S, Montagnier G, Varinard A (2005) Institutions judiciaries. Organisation, juridictions, gens de justice. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Vogler R (2012) England and Wales. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis on pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Press (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), pp 87–103Google Scholar
  43. Zweigert K, Kötz H (1998) An introduction to comparative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Law, and Political, Economic and Social SciencesUniversity of Piemonte OrientaleAlessandriaItaly

Personalised recommendations