Advertisement

New Developments in EU Law in the Field of In Absentia National Proceedings. The Directive 2016/343/EU in the Light of the ECtHR Case Law

  • Lorena Bachmaier WinterEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)

Abstract

This study analyses the rules for trials in absentia included in the Directive 2016/343 with the aim of assessing their impact in the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings in the European Union. The aim is further to check if the requirements defined by the Strasbourg Court—included in the FD EAW and in this Directive—provide sufficient safeguards for the defence rights in trials in absentia. This seems to be the consensus at the EU level and up to now the European Court of Justice has seen no necessity to go beyond those minimum requirements. However, the risks of trials in absentia cannot be underestimated and therefore it should be examined whether the EU should not have aimed at establishing a higher standard than the one set out by Strasbourg.

Keywords

European criminal procedure ECHR Fundamental rights Mutual recognition Procedural safeguards Fair trial Defence rights In absentia trials Right to public hearing 

Abbreviations

AFSJ

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

CJEU

European Court of Justice

DEIO

Directive on a European Investigation Order

DPIRPT

Directive on certain aspects on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings

ECHR

European Convention Human Rights

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights

EU

European Union

FD EAW

Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant

References

  1. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) Más reflexiones sobre la sentencia Melloni: primacía, diálogo y protección de los derechos fundamentales en juicios in absentia en el derecho europeo. Rev. Española de Derecho Europeo 56:153–181Google Scholar
  2. Bachmaier Winter L (2016) Dealing with European legal diversity at the Luxembourg Court: Melloni and the limits of European pluralism. In: Colson R, Field S (eds) EU criminal justice and the challenges of diversity. Legal cultures in the area of freedom, security and justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borowsky M (2002) Artikel 52. In: Meyer J (ed) Kommentar zur Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 577–592Google Scholar
  4. Böse M (2011) Harmonizing procedural rights indirectly: the framework decision on trials in absentia. N C J Int Law:489–510Google Scholar
  5. 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 135–145Google Scholar
  6. Coster van Voorhut J (2017) Ineffective legal assistance. Redress for the accuse in Dutch criminal procedure and compliance with ECHR case law. Brill, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  7. Cras S, Erbeznik A (2016) The directive on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial. Genesis and description of the new EU-measure. Eucrim 1:25–35Google Scholar
  8. De Visser M (2013) Case note: dealing with divergences in fundamental rights standards. Maastricht J 20(4):576–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaede K (2013) Minimalistischer Grundrechtschutz bei der Kooperation im Strafverfahren. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift:1279–1282Google Scholar
  10. Goss R (2014) Criminal fair trial rights. Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Heard C, Mansell D (2011) The European arrest warrant: the role of the judges when human rights are at risk. New J Eur Crim Law 2(1):133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herlin-Karnell E (2013) European criminal law as an exercise in EU ‘experimental’ constitutional law. Maastricht J 20(3):442–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kostoris R (2017) Manuale di Procedura Penale Europea, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  14. Lamberigts S (2016) The directive on the presumption of innocence. A missed opportunity for legal persons? Eucrim 1:36–41Google Scholar
  15. Maguery T (2013) European Union fundamental rights and member states action in EU criminal law. Maastricht J 20(2):282–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mangiaracina A (2010) Garanzie partecipative e giudizio in absentia. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangiaracina A (2014) Il “tramonto” della contumacia e l’affermazione di un’assenza “multiforme”. La Legislazione Penale 4:556–592Google Scholar
  18. Martín Rodríguez P (2013) Crónica de una muerte anunciada: comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 26 de febrero de 2013, Stefano Melloni, C-399/11. Revista General de Derecho Europeo 30:1–45Google Scholar
  19. Paul C (2007) Das Abwesenheitsverfahren als rechtstaatliches Problem. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  20. Plekksepp A (2012) Die gleichmässige Gewährleistung des Rechts auf Verteidigerbeistand. Duncker & Humboldt, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Pradel J (1995) Droit pénal compare. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  22. Quattrocolo S (2014) Il contumace cede la scena processuale all’assente, mentre l’irreperibile l’abbandona. www.penalecontemporaneo.it. Accessed 30 Apr 2014
  23. Ruggeri S (2016a) Right to personal participation in criminal proceedings and in absentia procedures in the EU area of freedom, security and justice. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 128:578–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ruggeri S (2016b) Inaudito reo proceedings, defence rights, and harmonisation goals in the EU. Eucrim 1:42–51Google Scholar
  25. Ruggeri S (2017) Audi Alteram Partem in criminal proceedings. Towards a participatory understanding of criminal justice in Europe and Latin America. Springer International Publishing, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Satzger H (2018) Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sullivan G (2009) Fair trials international case notes. The European arrest warrant: abuse of process as a bar to extradition. New J Eur Crim Law, Special edition: 37–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tinsley A (2012) Note on the reference in case C-399/11 Melloni. New J Eur Crim Law 3(1):19–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tinsley A (2013) Protecting criminal defence rights through EU law: opportunities and challenges. New J Eur Crim Law 4(4):461–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Kempen PH (2011) The recognition of legal persons in international human rights instruments: protection against and through criminal law. In: Pieth M, Ivory R (eds) Corporate criminal liability. Emergence, convergence, and risks. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 355–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vervaele J (2012) The European arrest warrant and applicable standards of fundamental rights in the EU. Rev Eur Adm Law 2:37–54Google Scholar
  32. Vigoni D (ed) (2014) Il giudizio in assenza dell’ imputato. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  33. Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen: Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? Eucrim:70–76Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity Complutense MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations