Advertisement

“Minimum” Procedural Rights in Judicial Cooperation Procedures

  • Cristina Mauro
Chapter

Abstract

To different extents and according to various formulations, traditional laws relative to judicial cooperation in criminal matters usually provide for a clause which conditions assistance on fundamental principles in criminal matters. In tune with and applied according to cultural and national peculiarities, these principles risk being transformed into real obstacles to cooperation.

The process of vertical harmonisation initiated by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has highlighted standards of protection which must necessarily be shared by the States which have signed up to the convention. These imposed standards however constitute minimum thresholds of guarantees that national legislators can reinforce and often do not correspond to internal constitutional levels of protection.

On the basis of this common culture of the fundamental principles in criminal matters, Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union introduces standards of compromise in matters of protection and procedural guarantees common to all the national systems in order to facilitate judicial cooperation. If the objective cannot but be shared, in the absence of a real common procedural culture in which guarantees might be significant, the result risks lowering the levels of procedural guarantees sanctioned today in some countries.

Keywords

Procedural rights Minimum standards Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights Judicial cooperation Procedural guarantees in the European Union 

References

  1. Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert JF, Böse M, Langbroek PH, Renier A, Wahl T (2013) Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Final reportGoogle Scholar
  2. Carbone SM, Chiavario M (eds) (2008) Cooperazione giudiziaria civile e penale nel diritto dell’Unione europea. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  3. European Criminal Policy Initiative (2013) A manifesto on European criminal procedure law. ZIS (11):430Google Scholar
  4. Fletcher M, Lööf R, Gilmore B (2008) EU criminal law and justice. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Flore D (2014) Droit pénal européen: les enjeux d’une justice pénale européenne. Larcier, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  6. House of Lords, EU Committee (2006) European arrest warrant - recent developments. 30th Report of Session 2005–2006Google Scholar
  7. House of Lords, EU Committee (2013) EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s 2014 opt-out. 13th Report of Session 2012–2013Google Scholar
  8. Koering-Joulin R (2009) Mandat d’arrêt européen et contrôle du droit de l’Etat d’émission. D’un “degré de confiance élevé” à une confiance mesurée. In: Études à la mémoire du professeur Bruno Oppetit. Litec-Lexis Nexis, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Malabat V (2010) Confiance mutuelle et mise en œuvre du mandat d’arrêt européen. In: Justice et droit du proceès. Du légalisme procédural à l’humanisme, Mélanges en l’honneur de Serge Guinchard. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Masset A (ed) (2011) Pratique du droit pénal européen devant les juridictions nationales. Anthemis, LimalGoogle Scholar
  11. Mitsilegas V (2012) The area of freedom, security and justice from Amsterdam to Lisbon. Challenges of implementation, constitutionality and fundamental rights, general report. In: Laffranque J (ed) The area of freedom, security and justice, including information society issues. Reports of the XXV FIDE Congress. Tallinn (3):12Google Scholar
  12. Schünemann B (ed) (2006) A program for European criminal justice. Carl Heymanns Verlag GmbH, KölnGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith E (2013) Running before we can walk? Mutual recognition at the expense of fair trials in Europe’s area of freedom, justice and security. New J Eur Crim Law 4(1–2):82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen C, Surano L, Weyembergh A (eds) (2009) The future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union. Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles, BruxellesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cristina Mauro
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Public ProsecutorParisFrance
  2. 2.Former Professor of Criminal Law and ProcedureUniversity of PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations