Abstract
This last chapter is a general overview on the impact of the European law on the domestic regulations of participatory rights. Mostly inspired by a part of the Attachment, submitted to the national rapporteurs, this chapter aims at pointing out two main features. First, the patent impact that the European law, both the ECHR and the EU law, had during the recent decades on national set-ups of participatory rights in criminal procedure. Second, the multifold pattern by which the European law affected local jurisdictions, inducing different reactions and attitudes within the analysed legal contexts. Such a normative evolution happened against a fast-changing background, in which people tend to move more frequently and where presence at trial may be put in balance with new needs and expectations.
Although this contribution is the result of a joint discussion, Stefano Ruggeri is the author of Sect. 1, while Serena Quattrocolo is the author of Sects. 2 and 3.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
There was evidence of challenging the use of docks in the eighteenth and nineteenth century courtroom (see In the Dock. Reassessing the use of the dock in criminal trials, in www.justice.org.uk, 2015). However, no massive reactions were enacted, with the exception of some law-reform campaigns, in the 1960s and 1970s of the past century (with the active participation of Baron Jeremy Hutchinson, see Grant 2015, p. 27). Recently see Stone and Blackstock (2017), pp. 4–6; Stone (2015), pp. 7–9; Mulcahy (2013), pp. 1139–1156. Actually, no other reports lingered over the topic of using docks in courtrooms. However, the feeling is that such practice is still very common among the European jurisdictions. Recently, the Strasbourg Court (ECtHR, Yaroslav Belousov v. Russia, judgment of 4 October 2016, Appls. Nos. 2653/13, 60980/14) noted that excluding the defendant from the courtroom and, in particular, from her lawyer may amount to a violation of both Article 3 and 6(1) and (3)(b, c) ECHR, hindering her participatory rights.
- 2.
Golser, in this volume, Sect. 7.1. See also, Demetrio Crespo and Sánz Hermida, in this volume, Sect. 3.
- 3.
ECtHR, Stoichkov v. Romania, judgment of 24 March 2005, Appl. No. 9808/02.
- 4.
Petrova, in this volume, Sect. 7.1.
- 5.
Drevet, in this volume, Sect. 7.1.
- 6.
ECtHR, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium, judgment of 21 January 1999, Appl. No. 26103/95.
- 7.
Covolo, in this volume, Sect. 7.1.
- 8.
ECtHR, Schatschaschwili v. Germany, judgement of 15 December 2015, Appl. No. 9154/10.
- 9.
Ruggeri, in this volume, Sect. 4.3.
- 10.
Vogel, in this volume, Sect. 3.6.
- 11.
Billis and Gkaniatsos, in this volume, Sect. 5.2.
- 12.
Quattrocolo, in this volume, Sect. 5.
- 13.
Gácsi et al., in this volume, Sect. 5.1.
- 14.
Mangiaracina, in this volume, Sect. 7.1.
- 15.
Ruggeri, in Part VI of this volume, Sect. 3.2.2.
- 16.
Costa Ramos and Churro, in this volume, Sect. 5.2.
- 17.
Ciopec and Roibu, in this volume, Sect. 7.1.
- 18.
Villamarín López, in this volume, Sect. 7.
- 19.
Leader, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 20.
Golser, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 21.
Vogel, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 22.
Billis and Gkaniatsos, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 23.
Gácsi et al., in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 24.
Mangiaracina, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 25.
Covolo, in this volume, Sect. 5.2.
- 26.
Costa Ramos and Churro, in this volume, Sects. 5.2 and 7.2.
- 27.
Ciopec and Roibu, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 28.
Villamarín López, in this volume, Sect. 7.2.
- 29.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, John Murray v. United Kingdom, judgment of 8 February 1996, Appl. No. 18731/91; ECtHR, Saunders v. United Kingdom, judgment of 17 December 1996, Appl. No. 19187/91.
- 30.
Pollicino and Bassini, in this volume, Sect. 7.
Abbreviations
- CJEU:
-
Court of justice of the European Union
- EAW:
-
European arrest warrant
- ECHR:
-
European Convention on Human Rights
- ECtHR:
-
European Court of Human Rights
- EU:
-
European Union
References
Grant T (2015) Jeremy Hutchinson’s case history. John Murray, London
Mulcahy L (2013) Putting the defendant in their place: why do we still use the dock in criminal proceedings? Br J Criminal (6):1139–1156
Stone J (2015) Is it now time to abolish the dock in all criminal proceedings in England and Wales. Archbold Rev 3:7–9
Stone J, Blackstock J (2017) Violating the right to a fair trial? The secure dock in England and Wales. Archbold Rev 7:4–6
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Quattrocolo, S., Ruggeri, S. (2019). Merging the Different View-Points. Concluding Remarks. 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_22
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01186-4_22
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)