Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

In Absentia Trials and Transborder Criminal Procedures. The Perspective of EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

In absentia trials have proven to be a challenge for EU criminal law. This chapter focusses on the solutions that have been developed in order to deal with different standards on in absentia trials in transborder criminal proceedings. The main focus of this chapter is on judicial cooperation. This includes in particular the execution of a European Arrest Warrant issued for the enforcement of a judgment resulting from an in absentia trial and the enforcement of foreign judgments resulting from in absentia trials. The explicit, written grounds for refusal will be analysed. It will also be discussed whether, and if so, to what extent written grounds for refusal are supplemented by unwritten ones. In this context, Directive 2016/343/EU will also be examined. In addition, the chapter will touch upon in absentia trials in the context of the transnational ne bis in idem principle.

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.

    See Böse (2011b), p. 492; Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1278.

  2. 2.

    Wasmeier (2014), § 32, para 37.

  3. 3.

    See, also, Albers and Beauvais (2013), p. 15; Korenica and Doli (2016), p. 542.

  4. 4.

    Art. 1(3) of Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial, OJ L 81/24 (in the following: FD in absentia trials).

  5. 5.

    See, on the different national laws, also Bartels (2014), p. 43; Klitsch (2009), p. 11; Paul (2007), p. 41.

  6. 6.

    FD in absentia trials (fn. 4).

  7. 7.

    Böse (2011b), p. 504.

  8. 8.

    Böse (2011b), p. 503 f. See, on the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, Ruggeri, in Part V of this volume.

  9. 9.

    Directive 2016/343/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, OJ L 65/1.

  10. 10.

    See Bachmaier Winter, in this volume.

  11. 11.

    See, on in absentia arguments in the pre-trial phase, e.g., ECtHR, Ait Abbou c. France, judgment of 2 February 2017, Appl. No. 44921/13.

  12. 12.

    According to Mitsilegas, this is the “most-analysed” instrument of the European Union, Mitsilegas (2006), p. 1283.

  13. 13.

    Böse (2017), p. 759 f.; Brodowski (2016), p. 417. See, in more detail, Rönnau and Wegner (2013), p. 566 f.

  14. 14.

    This has been a point of criticism with regard to the FD in absentia trials, see Burchard (2013), § 14, para 52; Heger and Wolter (2015), Article 4a RbEuHb, para 668; von Heintschel-Heinegg (2014), § 37, para 55.

  15. 15.

    See the similar argument in opinion of AG Bot, Melloni, 2 October 2012, C-399/11, para 72.

  16. 16.

    See also Brodowski (2016), p. 417.

  17. 17.

    See the similar argument in Rönnau and Wegner (2013), p. 563. On the effects of directives that are in force but must not yet have been transposed, see Hofmann (2015), § 15, para 3 ff.

  18. 18.

    See Art. 1(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190/1, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, OJ L 81/24 (in the following FD EAW).

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, Krombach v. France, judgment of 13 February 2001, Appl. No. 29731/96. See, also, Böse (2011b), p. 490 f.

  20. 20.

    Cour d’Assises Paris, third section, judgment of 9 March 1995, No. 2556/92. See, on the facts, Netzer (2009), p. 752 f.

  21. 21.

    The original judgment was delivered before the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant entered into force in 2002, see Netzer (2009), p. 752.

  22. 22.

    This was not the only issue under dispute in the Krombach case, which raises many questions in the field of international cooperation. For an overview, see Netzer (2009), p. 752.

  23. 23.

    This provision has become binding from 28 March 2011 or at the latest 1 January 2014 [Art. 8(1)&(3) FD EAW].

  24. 24.

    Bartels (2014), p. 104 f.; Böse (2011b), p. 507. On the ECHR, see Ruggeri, in Part V of this volume, Sect. 3.1.2.

  25. 25.

    See Recitals 4, 6 FD in absentia trials.

  26. 26.

    Bartels (2014), p. 192 f.

  27. 27.

    Cf. e.g. the German version: “Freiheitsstrafe, freiheitsentziehende Maßregel der Sicherung“; the Italian version: “pena, misura di sicurezza privativa della libertà”; the Danish version: “frihedsstraf, frihedsberøvende foranstatning”.

  28. 28.

    Bartels (2014), p. 192 f.

  29. 29.

    CJEU, Tupikas, judgment of 10 August 2017, C-270/17 PPU, para 65.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., para 81.

  31. 31.

    Ibid., para 85.

  32. 32.

    CJEU, Zdziaszek, judgment of 10 August 2017, C-271/17 PPU.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., para 90, 96.

  34. 34.

    See point d) of the Annex to the EAW, FD EAW.

  35. 35.

    Bartels (2014), p. 206.

  36. 36.

    Böse (2011b), p. 508.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    CJEU, Zdziaszek (fn. 32), para 104.

  39. 39.

    Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 336.

  40. 40.

    CJEU, Grand Chamber, Melloni v. Ministerio Fiscal, judgment of 26 February 2013, C-399/11, para 40 et seqq.

  41. 41.

    Opinion of AG Bot, Melloni (fn. 15), para 57 et seqq.

  42. 42.

    See, also, Wahl (2015), p. 73.

  43. 43.

    CJEU, Dworzecki, judgment of 24 May 2016, C-108/16 PPU, para 32.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para 45. See also ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy, judgment of 12 February 1985, Appl. No. 9024/80, para 28.

  45. 45.

    Bartels (2014), p. 196; Paul (2007), p. 243.

  46. 46.

    CJEU, Dworzecki (fn. 43), para 33 et seqq.

  47. 47.

    Opinion of AG Bobek, Dworzecki, 11 May 2016, C-108/16 PPU, para 57; Böse (July 2012), § 83 IRG, para 12; Böse (2017), p. 756.

  48. 48.

    Bartels (2014), p. 195.

  49. 49.

    This is criticised by Bartels (2014), p. 196 f.; Klitsch (2009), p. 18; Ruggeri (2016), p. 597.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, Dworzecki (fn. 43), para 40.

  51. 51.

    See ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Sejdovic v. Italy, judgment of 1 March 2006, Appl. No. 56581/00, RJD 2006-II, para 99.

  52. 52.

    CJEU, Dworzecki (fn. 43), para 49.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para 54.

  54. 54.

    Böse (2011b), p. 505. Different Bartels (2014), p. 196 f., who apparently sees this as a problem.

  55. 55.

    See also Ruggeri (2016), p. 597.

  56. 56.

    Cf. also opinion of AG Bobek, Dworzecki (fn. 47), para 74 with reference to the ECHR.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., para 36.

  58. 58.

    Torres Pérez (2014), p. 313.

  59. 59.

    See ECtHR, Hokkeling v. The Netherlands, judgment of 14 February 2017, Appl. No. 30749/12. See also Wahl (2015), p. 73.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, Hokkeling v. The Netherlands (fn. 59), para 60; Ruggeri (2016), p. 597; Wahl (2015), p. 73.

  61. 61.

    See the German version “Rechtsbeistand”, which is also used in Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, OJ L 294/1. See also the Italian version “difensore”.

  62. 62.

    Bartels (2014), p. 201 f.

  63. 63.

    Schneider (December 2016), III D 18, para 25.

  64. 64.

    Cf. ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, judgment of 23 November 1993, Appl. No. 14032/88, para 28 et seqq.

  65. 65.

    CJEU, Melloni (fn. 40), para 16.

  66. 66.

    Ibid., para 47 ff.

  67. 67.

    Gaede (2013), p. 1281.

  68. 68.

    See, also, Ruggeri (2016), p. 597 f.

  69. 69.

    Gaede (2013), p. 1281.

  70. 70.

    Bartels (2014), p. 201.

  71. 71.

    For instance, the English (“aware”), German (“Kenntnis“), Spanish (“conocimiento“), Danish (“var klar”), French (“connaissance”), Italien (“essere al corrente”). This generally refers to the second variant stated in Article 4a(1)(a) FD EAW.

  72. 72.

    For instance, the Dutch and Swedish versions.

  73. 73.

    Recital 10 FD in absentia trials. See also Böse (2011b), p. 506.

  74. 74.

    See German Constitutional Court (BVerfG), decision of 15 December 2015, 2 BvR 2735/14, BVerfGE 140, 317, para 88. An English version of the judgment can be found at http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2015/12/rs20151215_2bvr273514en.html (last access on 6 November 2017); agreeing Classen (2016), p. 305; Kühne (2016), p. 302; Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 336; Eßlinger and Herzmann (2016), p. 862; Satzger (2016a), p. 516 f.

  75. 75.

    See also JHR/LB (2016), p. 218.

  76. 76.

    See ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Sejdovic v. Italy (fn. 51), para 82.

  77. 77.

    Bartels (2014), p. 203 f.

  78. 78.

    See also Art. 9 sent. 2 of Directive 2016/343/EU.

  79. 79.

    Hauck (2009), p. 146.

  80. 80.

    Bartels (2014), p. 204.

  81. 81.

    Bartels (2014), p. 205.

  82. 82.

    See CJEU, Covaci, judgment of 15 October 2015, C-216/14, para 62 et seqq.

  83. 83.

    See ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Sejdovic v. Italy (fn. 51), para 86 et seq.

  84. 84.

    CJEU, Covaci (fn. 82). See also Ruggeri (2016), p. 601.

  85. 85.

    CJEU, Covaci (fn. 82), para 68.

  86. 86.

    OJ 2012 L 142/1.

  87. 87.

    CJEU, Covaci (fn. 82), para 65.

  88. 88.

    Cf. Wahl (2015), p. 74.

  89. 89.

    See also Bartels (2014), p. 205.

  90. 90.

    See Art. 9 of the Directive on the right of access to a lawyer, Article 3(8) of the Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ 2010 L 280/1.

  91. 91.

    See Recital 39 of Directive 2016/343/EU.

  92. 92.

    See ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Sejdovic v. Italy (fn. 51), para 89 et seq. See also Bartels (2014), p. 206.

  93. 93.

    Schneider (December 2014), III D 17, para 26.

  94. 94.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, OJ 2008 L 327/27, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, OJ L 81/24.

  95. 95.

    Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24th February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, OJ 2005 L 76/16, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, OJ L 81/24.

  96. 96.

    See above, Sect. 3.2.2.1.

  97. 97.

    Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, OJ 2008 L 227/102, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, OJ L 81/24.

  98. 98.

    See Sects. 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.2.1 and 3.2.2.2.

  99. 99.

    Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, OJ 2006 L 328/59, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, OJ L 81/24.

  100. 100.

    Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, COM(2016) 819 final.

  101. 101.

    Directive 2014/42/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union, OJ 2014 L 127/39.

  102. 102.

    See also Recital 15 of Directive 2014/42/EU.

  103. 103.

    See COM(2016) 819 final, p. 13.

  104. 104.

    For example, if the defendant has fled abroad, Germany does not allow in absentia trials, but non-conviction based confiscation orders (§ 76a German Criminal Code). These orders must be executed under the proposal, whereas an order that was linked to an in absentia trial does not necessarily have to be executed.

  105. 105.

    See also Burchard (2013), § 14, para 52.

  106. 106.

    Bartels (2014), p. 184. See also Böse (2015), p. 137. On the ECHR and in absentia trials see Ruggeri, in Part V of this volume, Sect. 3.1.1.

  107. 107.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ 2016 C 202/289.

  108. 108.

    Art. 52(3) sent. 1 CFR. See also the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, OJ 2007 C 303/17, Art. 52.

  109. 109.

    See CJEU, Melloni (fn. 40), para 47 ff.; Opinion of AG Bot, Melloni (fn. 15), para 83 et seq. This is criticized by Torres Pérez (2014), p. 314.

  110. 110.

    Recital 9 of Directive 2016/343/EU.

  111. 111.

    See also Meyer (2016), p. 338.

  112. 112.

    The content of the ECHR and Directive 2016/343/EU will not be described here but will be discussed elsewhere: see Ruggeri and Bachmaier Winter in this volume.

  113. 113.

    CJEU, Dworzecki (fn. 43), para 50 et seqq. See also CJEU, Zdziaszek (fn. 32), para 106 et seqq.

  114. 114.

    For example, under German law, extradition cannot be refused if the defendant has absconded in order to avoid being summoned to trial (§ 83 no. 3 IRG), see Böse (July 2012), § 83 IRG, para 13.

  115. 115.

    See BVerfG, 2 BvR 2735/14 (fn. 74), para 92 et seqq.; Böse (2015), p. 142; Rung (2016), p. 148; Torres Pérez (2014), p. 314.

  116. 116.

    See, also, Böse (2017), p. 759, for cases of flight.

  117. 117.

    See, e.g., CJEU, Grand Chamber, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, judgment of 5 April 2016, C-404-15 and C-659/15, para 80; Opinion of AG Bot, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, 3 March 2016, C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, para 129. See also Böhm (2017), p. 78; Satzger (2016a), p. 514.

  118. 118.

    See e.g. Art. 20(3) FD financial penalties; Art. 11(1)(f) of Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order.

  119. 119.

    Notably, such an exception is missing in the FD EAW, Korenica and Doli (2016), p. 546; Schallmoser (2012), p. 156.

  120. 120.

    See, e.g., Art. 1 para. 3 FD EAW. On this argument, opinion of AG Bot, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (fn. 118), para 72 et seqq.

  121. 121.

    Opinion of AG Sharpston, 18 October 2012, C-396/11—Radu, para 97. See also Böse (2015), p. 139.

  122. 122.

    CJEU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (fn. 118).

  123. 123.

    Ibid., para 104. On the different steps that must be undertaken before bringing procedures to an end Brodowski (2016), p. 429 et seq.; JHR/LB (2016), p. 220 et seq.; Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 341 f.; on the burden of proof Korenica and Doli (2016), p. 550. See also, in detail, Kromrey and Morgenstern (2017), p. 119 ff.

  124. 124.

    Brodowski (2016), p. 431.

  125. 125.

    See also Korenica and Doli (2016), pp. 543 ff., 547; O’Leary (2016), p. 37.

  126. 126.

    See Brodowski (2016), p. 431 f.

  127. 127.

    Korenica and Doli (2016), p. 547. See, also, Hong (2016), p. 561.

  128. 128.

    CJEU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (fn. 118), para 84 et seq., 86.

  129. 129.

    These are: Art. 2 (Right to Life), Art. 3 (Prohibition of Torture), Art. 4 para. 1 (Prohibition of Slavery) and Art. 7 (No Punishment without Law).

  130. 130.

    See Rung (2016), p. 148.

  131. 131.

    See, in detail, Wahl (2015), p. 71.

  132. 132.

    CJEU, Melloni (fn. 40), para 47 ff. On the result, see the criticism in Gaede (2013), p. 1281 f.

  133. 133.

    CJEU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru (fn. 118), para 86.

  134. 134.

    See Recital 9 of Directive 2016/343/EU.

  135. 135.

    CJEU, Melloni (fn. 40).

  136. 136.

    See, in detail, Herzmann (2015), p. 445; Torres Pérez (2014), p. 308; de Boer (2013), p. 1083.

  137. 137.

    CJEU, Melloni (fn. 40), para 55.

  138. 138.

    Ibid., para 56.

  139. 139.

    Ibid., para 58.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., para 62 et seq.

  141. 141.

    STC 26/2014 of 13 February 2014, available at www.tribunalconstitucional.es (last access on 23 February 2017). See also Herzmann (2015), p. 448; Torres Pérez (2014), p. 319.

  142. 142.

    See Herzmann (2015), p. 451; Torres Pérez (2014), p. 319 f.

  143. 143.

    BVerfG, 2 BvR 2735/14 (fn. 74), para 83.

  144. 144.

    Ibid., para 82.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., para 40 ff. See, in more detail, Brodowski (2016), p. 421; Kühne (2016), p. 299; Kromrey and Morgenstern (2017), p. 112 ff.; Satzger (2016a), p. 516.

  146. 146.

    For possible examples of a conflict, see Satzger (2016a), p. 522.

  147. 147.

    See BVerfG, judgment of 6 September 2016, 2 BvR 890/16, para 37 ff.

  148. 148.

    Safferling (2014), p. 551. See, e.g., on extradition and in absentia trials, BVerfG, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1991, 1411; BVerfGK 3, 27 (32 f.); BVerfGK 3, 314 (317 f.). Cf. also BVerfGE 63, 332 (334).

  149. 149.

    Böse (2015), p. 141 f.; Wahl (2015), p. 75. Similarly Satzger (2016a), p. 515 f.

  150. 150.

    See, e.g., Böse (2015), p. 142; von Heintschel-Heinegg (2014), § 37, para 57.

  151. 151.

    BVerfG, 2 BvR 2735/14 (fn. 74), para 67 et seqq.

  152. 152.

    Böhm (2017), p. 78; Kühne (2016), p. 302.

  153. 153.

    Kühne (2016), p. 302; Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 343 f.; Rung (2016), p. 149 f.; Satzger (2016a), p. 519.

  154. 154.

    Wahl (2015), p. 76.

  155. 155.

    CJEU, Bourquain, judgment of 11 December 2008, C-297/07, para 33 ff.

  156. 156.

    This question has been extensively discussed. See, e.g., Böse (2011a), p. 504; Eckstein (2012), p. 521 ff.; Merkel and Scheinfeld (2012), p. 208 ff.; Satzger (2016b), § 10, para. 57 ff.; Schomburg and Suominen-Picht (2012), p. 1191 f.; Swoboda (2011), p. 264; Zöller (2016), p. 326.

  157. 157.

    CJEU, Grand Chamber, Spasic, judgment of 27 May 2014, C-129/14 PPU.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., para 74.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., para 54 et seq.

  160. 160.

    Ibid., para 60 et seqq.

  161. 161.

    Ibid., para 75 ff.

  162. 162.

    Gaede (2014), p. 2991.

  163. 163.

    See Gaede (2014), p. 2991. See also Zöller (2016), p. 330.

  164. 164.

    See, also, Satzger (2016b), § 10, para 57.

  165. 165.

    Safferling (2011), § 12, para 85. Critical Böse (2011a), p. 509.

  166. 166.

    For an example, see the German Boere case, LG Aachen, Strafverteidiger 2010, 237. On the facts, Swoboda (2011), p. 252.

  167. 167.

    See, also, Swoboda (2011), p. 263. Böse seems to take it for granted that the Member State could grant a new trial, Böse (2011a), p. 510 f.

  168. 168.

    Similarly Böse (2011a), p. 510 f.

  169. 169.

    Gaede (2014), p. 2991; Meyer (2014), p. 274 ff.; Weißer (2014), p. 593.

  170. 170.

    CJEU, Spasic (fn. 158), para 69.

  171. 171.

    Meyer (2014), p. 276; Zöller (2016), p. 334 f.

  172. 172.

    See, in more detail, Meyer (2014), p. 274 ff.

  173. 173.

    Meyer (2014), p. 278; Weißer (2014), p. 593; Zöller (2016), p. 332.

  174. 174.

    Most criticism refers to the fact that the EU provisions do not exactly match the jurisprudence of the ECHR, see Bartels (2014), p. 190; Klitsch (2009), p. 17; Wahl (2015), p. 71.

  175. 175.

    Another solution could be the prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction. See, e.g., the suggestion in Böse et al. (2014), p. 381.

Abbreviations

BVerfG:

Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Constitutional Court)

BVerfGE:

Official selection of decisions and judgments by the senates of the BVerfG

BVerfGK:

Official selection of decisions by the chambers of the BVerfG

CFR:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

CISA:

Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders

CJEU:

Court of Justice of the European Union

EAW:

European Arrest Warrant

ECHR:

European Convention of Human Rights

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EIO:

European Investigation Order

EU:

European Union

FD EAW:

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009

FD in absentia trials:

Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, thereby enhancing the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial

GG:

Grundgesetz (Basic Law, the German Constitution)

LG:

Landgericht (District Court)

OJ:

Official Journal of the European Union

TEU:

Treaty on European Union

TFEU:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  • Albers P, Beauvais P (2013) Procedural aspects and instruments for enhancing mutual trust between Member States. In: Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert J-F, Böse M, Langbroek P, Renier A, Wahl T (eds) Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, The Hague, pp 14–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels S (2014) Die Auslieferung zur Vollstreckung eines Abwesenheitsurteils in Europa. Dr. Kovač, Hamburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhm KM (2017) Aktuelle Entwicklungen im Auslieferungsrecht. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht: 77–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2011a) Die transnationale Geltung des Grundsatzes “ne bis in idem” und das “Vollstreckungselement”: Zugleich Besprechung von BGH, Beschluss vom 25.10.2010. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 158:504–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2011b) Harmonizing procedural rights indirectly: the framework decision on trials in absentia. N C J Int Law Commercial Regul 37:489–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M 27th installment (July 2012) In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C (eds) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 3rd edn. C.F.Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cham, pp 135–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2017) Neue Standards für Abwesenheitsverfahren in “Fluchtfällen”? Zu den Auswirkungen der Richtlinie 2016/343/EU auf die Auslieferung und Vollstreckungshilfe in der Europäischen Union. Strafverteidiger 37:754–760

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (2014) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matter in the European Union, Volume II: rights, principles and model rules. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodowski D (2016) Die drohende Verletzung von Menschenrechten bei der Anerkennung Europäischer Haftbefehle auf dem Prüfstand: Die zweifelhafte Aktivierung der Verfassungsidentität durch das BVerfG und eine Kurskorrektur in der Rechtsprechung des EuGH. Juristische Rundschau 2016:415–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchard C (2013) § 14 Auslieferung (Europäischer Haftbefehl). In: Böse M (ed) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 537–571

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen CD (2016) Zu wenig, zu fundamentalistisch - zur grundrechtlichen Kontrolle “unionsrechtlich determinierter” nationaler Hoheitsakte: Anmerkung zum Beschluss des BVerfG vom 15.12.2015, 2 BvR 2735/14. Europarecht 51(3):304–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Boer N (2013) Addressing rights divergences under the Charter: Melloni. Common Mark Law Rev 50:1083–1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckstein K (2012) Grund und Grenzen transnationalen Schutzes vor mehrfacher Strafverfolgung in Europa. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 124:490–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eßlinger S, Herzmann K (2016) Die verfassungsgerichtliche Identitätskontrolle und ihre Konkretisierung durch die Entscheidung 2 BvR 2735/14 – “Identitätskontrolle I” als Vorbote von “Solange III”? Juristische Ausbildung 2016:852–864

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaede K (2013) Minimalistischer EU-Grundrechtsschutz bei der Kooperation im Strafverfahren. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 18:1279–1282

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaede K (2014) Transnationales “ne bis in idem” auf schwachem grundrechtlichen Fundament. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 67:2990–2992

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauck P (2009) Richterlicher Anpassungsbedarf durch den EU-Rahmenbeschluss zur Anerkennung strafgerichtlicher Entscheidungen in Abwesenheit des Angeklagten? Juristische Rundschau 2009:141–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heger M, Wolter K (2015) In: Ambos K, König S, Rackow P (eds) Rechtshilferecht in Strafsachen. Nomos; Facultas; Helbing Lichtenhahn, Baden-Baden, Wien, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzmann K (2015) Das spanische Verfassungsgericht und der Fall Melloni: Konsequenzen des EuGH-Urteils aus Sicht seines Adressaten - zugleich Anmerkung zu Tribunal Constitucional de España, STC 26/2014, v. 13.2.2014. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift:445–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann C (2015) § 15 Die Vorwirkung von Richtlinien. In: Riesenhuber K (ed) Europäische Methodenlehre, 3rd edn. C.H. Beck, München, pp 326–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong M (2016) Human dignity, identity review of the European arrest warrant and the Court of Justice as a listener in the dialogue of courts: Solange-III and Aranyosi. Eur Constit Law Rev 12:549–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • JHR/LB (2016) Editorial. Eur Constit Law Rev:213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Klitsch S (2009) Der neue EU-Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsverurteilungen - ein Appell zur Revision. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik:11–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Korenica F, Doli D (2016) No more unconditional “mutual trust” between the Member States: an analysis of the landmark decision of the CJEU in Aranyosi and Caldararu. EHRLR:542–555

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey H, Morgenstern C (2017) Die Menschenwürde und das Auslieferungsverfahren. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik:106–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne HH (2016) Auslieferung nach Abwesenheitsverurteilung (Italien) – “Solange III”. Strafverteidiger: 299–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel R, Scheinfeld J (2012) Ne bis in idem in der Europäischen Union - zum Streit um das “Vollstreckungselement”. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik:206–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2014) Transnationaler ne-bis-in-idem-Schutz nach der GRC Zum Fortbestand des Vollstreckungselements aus Sicht des EuGH: zugleich Besprechung zu EuGH HRRS 2014 Nr. 484. Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung in Strafsachen: 269–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2016) Das BVerfG und der Europäische Haftbefehl – ein Gericht auf Identitätssuche. Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung in Strafsachen:332–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitsilegas V (2006) The constitutional implications of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the EU. Common Mark Law Rev 43:1277–1311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netzer F (2009) Krimi, Tragödie und Lehrbuch-Klassiker - der Fall Krombach. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik:752–758

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary S (2016) Courts, charters and conventions: making sense of fundamental rights in the EU. Irish Jurist 56:4–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul C (2007) Das Abwesenheitsverfahren als rechtsstaatliches Problem. Peter Lang, Frankfurt a.M

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinbacher T, Wendel M (2016) Menschenwürde und Europäischer Haftbefehl - Zum ebenenübergreifenden Schutz grundrechtlicher Elementargarantien im europäischen Auslieferungsverfahren. Europäische Grundrechte-Zeitschrift:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönnau T, Wegner K (2013) Grund und Grenzen der Einwirkung des europäischen Rechts auf das nationale Strafrecht: ein Überblick unter Einbeziehung aktueller Entwicklungen. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht:561–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2016) 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 128:578–605

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rung J (2016) Grundrechtsschutz zwischen Verfassungsidentität und der Melloni-Rechtsprechung des EuGH: Besprechung von BVerfG, 15.12.2015 - 2 BvR 2735/14. Europäisches Wirtschafts- und Steuerrecht:145–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C (2011) Internationales Strafrecht. Springer, Cham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Safferling C (2014) Der EuGH, die Grundrechtecharta und nationales Recht: Die Fälle Åkerberg Fransson und Melloni. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht:545–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2016a) Grund- und menschenrechtliche Grenzen für die Vollstreckung eines europäischen Haftbefehls? “Verfassungsgerichtliche Identitätskontrolle” durch das BVerfG vs. Vollstreckungsaufschub bei “außergewöhnlichen Umständen” nach dem EuGH. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 36:514–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2016b) Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht, 7th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schallmoser N (2012) Europäischer Haftbefehl und Grundrechte: Risiken der Verletzung von Grundrechten durch den EU-Rahmenbeschluss im Licht der EMRK. Manz, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A 37th installment (December 2014) In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C (eds) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 3rd edn. C.F.Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A 40th installment (December 2016) In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C (eds) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 3rd edn. C.F.Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Suominen-Picht I (2012) Verbot der mehrfachen Strafverfolgung, Kompetenzkonflikte und Verfahrenstransfer. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 65:1190–1194

    Google Scholar 

  • Swoboda S (2011) Paying the debts - late Nazi trials before German courts: the case of Heinrich Boere. J Int Crim Just 9:243–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres Pérez A (2014) Melloni in three acts: from dialogue to monologue. Eur Constit Law Rev 10:308–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Heintschel-Heinegg B (2014) § 37 Europäischer Haftbefehl. In: Sieber U, Satzger H, von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 661–676

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen: Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? Eucrim:70–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasmeier M (2014) § 32 Von der herkömmlichen Rechtshilfe zur gegenseitigen Anerkennung - Entwicklungslinien der strafrechtlichen Zusammenarbeit. In: Sieber U, Satzger H, von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) Europäisches Strafrecht, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 569–591

    Google Scholar 

  • Weißer B (2014) Anmerkung zu EuGH (Große Kammer), Urt. v. 27.5.2014 - C-129/14 PPU. Zeitschrift für das Juristische Studium:589–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Zöller MA (2016) Das transnationale europäische Doppelbestrafungsverbot - Luxemburgum locutum, causa finita? Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 163(5):325–335

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and White Collar Crime, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Anne Schneider

Authors
  1. Anne Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Schneider .

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

Schneider, A. (2019). In Absentia Trials and Transborder Criminal Procedures. The Perspective of EU 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_19

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_19

  • 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