Abstract
This study analyses the issue of transnational prosecution and investigation. It starts with the premise that transborder criminal investigations and the gathering of overseas evidence cannot be adequately dealt with independently of the assignment of the power to prosecute and adjudicate cross-border crimes. The present study analyses the solutions provided by some of the main models of international cooperation and stresses that in the European scenario, characterised by an increasingly transcultural criminal law, the choice of the forum and of the applicable criminal law cannot be left to a bargaining among the competing authorities on the basis of uncoordinated national laws. The need for legal certainty requires clear rules on the assignment of the prosecutorial power that meet the requirements inherent in the essential principles of criminal law, such as nullum crimen sine lege and nulla pena sine culpa. Moreover, in a common area of freedom, security and justice, any form of discrimination among EU citizens must be avoided. The choice of the forum pursuant to these fundamental requirements is of crucial importance for establishing both the form of conducting cross-border investigations and collecting evidence overseas, and the applicable procedural criminal law.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Vogel (2010), pp. 1ff.
- 2.
Vallines García (2006), passim.
- 3.
See, among others, Satzger (2011), p. 42.
- 4.
Two examples are noteworthy. Pursuant to Article 6(1), the requested country could delay the handing over of any property, records or documents requested, if it required the said property, records or documents in connection with pending criminal proceedings. Furthermore, According to Article 11(1)(b), the transfer of a person in custody whose personal appearance as a witness or for purposes of confrontation was applied for by the requesting country could be refused if his or her presence was “necessary at criminal proceedings pending in the territory of the requested Party.”
- 5.
For instance, see Art. 4(1) EUCMACM.
- 6.
Thus, Article 13(3)(b) EUCMACM states that the JIT must carry out its operations “in accordance with the law of the Member State in which it operates.” Even more explicitly, according to Article 14(3) EUCMACM covert investigations must take place “in accordance with the national law and procedures of the Member States on the territory of which the covert investigation takes place.”
- 7.
Gascón Inchausti (2007), pp. 137f.
- 8.
For instance, Article 695-9-14 of the French CCP, inserted by Act 570/2005, while stating that the decisions freezing pieces of evidence must as a rule be executed according to French procedural law, allows for the application of foreign law, if so requested in the certificate, within the limits of the second paragraph of Article 694-3, i.e., on the condition, under penalty of nullity, that foreign rules “do not reduce the rights of the parties or the procedural guarantees provided for by the present Code” (English translation of the French CCP with the participation of Prof. J. Spencer). On this general guarantee, laid down in the field of letters rogatory, see Lelieur (2013), pp. 402f.
- 9.
Criticism against the discretionary character of the refusal in case of ne bis in idem has been raised by Vervaele (2009), p. 158. Concerning the case of ongoing investigation, moreover, it is noteworthy that according to the FD EEW only a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor of the executing State may take the decision on postponement.
- 10.
Peers (2010), pp. 1ff.
- 11.
Cf. Ruggeri, Introduction, above, Sect. 3.3.
- 12.
Ibid.
- 13.
Ruggeri (2013a), p. 307
- 14.
In the CISA the possibility of conducting criminal investigations overseas was subject to the prior authorisation of specific investigative measures (surveillance, hot pursuit) by the host state in response to a request for legal assistance [see respectively Arts. 40(1) and 41(1)].
- 15.
See Klip (2012), p. 361.
- 16.
All extraterritorial powers may, under the EUCMACM, be activated only upon request. For instance, under Article 12, “Each Member State shall undertake to ensure that, at the request of another Member State, controlled deliveries may be permitted on its territory in the framework of criminal investigations into extraditable offences.”
- 17.
Both controlled deliveries and covert investigations constitute clear interferences with fundamental rights.
- 18.
See Klip (2012), p. 361.
- 19.
See respectively Art. 13(3)(b) EUCMACM. Similarly see Art. 20(3)(b) SAP ECMACM.
- 20.
Art. 1(3)(b) FD 2002/465/JHA. In these terms see Art. 13(3)(b) EUCMACM.
- 21.
Along the same lines, see Klip (2012), p. 392.
- 22.
It is noteworthy that the greatest resistance in Italy to the implementation of the FD JIT, which has not yet been transposed in national law, has been mainly due to concerns relating to the use at trial of the results of overseas investigations carried out by the team. On the Italian situation, see Caprioli (2013), p. 453.
- 23.
For instance, Article 695-3 of the French CCP, inserted by Law 204/2004, provides that “French judicial police officers and agents attached to a joint investigation team may carry out operations ordered by the head of the team, over the whole of the territory of the State in which they are operating, within the limit of the powers conferred on them by the present Code” (English translation of the French CCP with the participation of Prof. J. Spencer).
- 24.
See Art. 1(9) FD JIT.
- 25.
Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 3.
- 26.
Ibid.
- 27.
Ibid.
- 28.
Schünemann (2006b), passim.
- 29.
Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 5.
- 30.
Ibid.
- 31.
In a different sense see Schünemann (2006a), p. 100.
- 32.
See Art. 2(2) of the Proposal for the Regulation of Trans-national Criminal Proceedings in the European Union containing the model of transnational procedural unity. See Schünemann (2006b), p. 6.
- 33.
Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 3.
- 34.
Along the same lines, see Bitzilekis et al. (2006), pp. 250f.
- 35.
This was, instead, the proposal of Bitzilekis et al. (2006), p. 251, in cases of coercive means.
- 36.
- 37.
See the Decision of the PCIJ in the Lotus case of 7 September 1927: PCIJ Series A No. 10.
- 38.
Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 38.
- 39.
American Law Institute (1988).
- 40.
In this sense see especially Böse (2013), pp. 75ff.
- 41.
- 42.
A clear analysis of these limits has been conducted by Böse and Meyer (2011), pp. 338ff.
- 43.
Along these lines, explicitly, see Böse (2013), p. 79.
- 44.
ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Decision of 17 September 2009, Kamasinski v. Austria, Application No. 9783/82, §§ 79–80.
- 45.
On this topic see Basile (2009), pp. 206ff.
- 46.
Schünemann (2003), p. 188.
- 47.
BVerfGE 92, pp. 325ff.
- 48.
BVerfGE 113, pp. 308f. See Böse (2012), para. 47.
- 49.
See Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 339.
- 50.
See especially Böse and Meyer (2011), pp. 341ff.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
- 54.
Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 5.
- 55.
See the Italian Court of Cassation, 2nd Section, Decision of 7 April 1999, Cohau. Massimario Cassazione penale 1999 nr. 212974.
- 56.
See Sinn (2007), pp. 649f. Specific concerns arise in relation to the Italian legal system in cases of the so-called “external accomplices” to mafia-typed criminal organisations, a notion that, albeit frequently invoked by national case law, lacks clear legal provision and therefore does not meet the requirement of legal certainty with regard to those who are not familiar with the Italian cultural context. Cf., among others, Visconti (2003), passim.
- 57.
- 58.
In this regard, see Gropp (2012), pp. 41ff.
- 59.
For a modern reflection on the relationship between criminal law and territorial borders, see Di Martino (2006), passim.
- 60.
On the so-called Menschengerechtes transnationales Strafrecht, see Lagodny (2005), pp. 777ff.
- 61.
See, among others, Padovani (2012), pp. 242f.
- 62.
For an in-depth analysis of the normative elements of criminal law provisions, see Risicato (2004), passim.
- 63.
Padovani (2012), p. 245.
- 64.
To be sure, the Italian CCP provides for the application of foreign procedures in the execution of letters rogatory in response of a request for legal assistance issued by a foreign authority under the condition that these procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of the Italian legal system [Art. 725(2)].
- 65.
See Panebianco (2010), pp. 336ff.
- 66.
See Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 342.
- 67.
In the same sense, with regard to Denmark, see Cornils and Greve (2012), p. 194.
- 68.
See Ruggeri (2013b), § 4.2.2.1.
- 69.
For an in-depth study of the linguistic problems in EU cooperation in criminal matters see, among others, Ruggieri (2013).
- 70.
Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA. See, among others, Rafaraci (2012), pp. 67ff.
- 71.
Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 (2009/295/01).
- 72.
The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens (2010/C 115/01), point 2.4.
- 73.
Directive 2010/64/EU.
- 74.
See Article 21(2) Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA. For some criticism in this regard, cf. Ruggeri (2012), pp. 66f.
- 75.
For a flexible solution concerning the choice of the jurisdiction to enforce, see, instead, Böse (2013), pp. 85f., who, moreover, requires respect for the dual criminality requirement in the event of the choice of derivative jurisdiction.
- 76.
In the “statutory determination model,” proposed by the research project coordinated by Arndt Sinn, the law of residence plays instead a subsidiary role in cases in which criminal conduct spans multiple Member States, but none of the conduct took place in a jurisdiction where the consequences of the conduct were also felt. See Article 1(3) of the proposed Directive on the avoidance of jurisdictional conflicts in criminal proceedings. In: Sinn (2012b), pp. 609f.
- 77.
In this regard, Brazil provides an interesting model as to the criteria of activation of national jurisdiction to fight international crimes such as genocide. In this case, albeit being a universally recognised crime, the Brazilian Strafanpruch is only apparently unconditioned, since it is mitigated by the recourse to the principle of active personality in terms of Brazilian citizenship or the offender’s domicile in Brazil. See D’Avila (2013), § 1.7.
- 78.
In Hungary the new criminal code (Btk.), which came into force in July 2013, has strengthened the role of the passive personality principle in light of a conception of criminal law aimed at protecting either natural or legal persons if they have links with Hungary. See Karsai (2013), § 5.
- 79.
Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 341.
- 80.
As seen above (fn. 76), also models based on the primacy of territorial jurisdiction, such as that elaborated by Martin Böse and Frank Mayer, require an identical criminal law provision in lex loci for the exercise of derivative jurisdiction.
- 81.
In this regard, see Wörner (2013), § 2.4.
- 82.
Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 342.
- 83.
Böse and Meyer (2011), pp. 342f.
- 84.
The concerns relating to the infringement of the principle of the judge established in advance by the law do not have the same weight by means of the enhancement of the role of Eurojust in cases of positive and negative conflicts of jurisdiction. In the former, Eurojust should, by solving a jurisdictional concurrence, oblige a national authority to waive prosecution in favour of another. In the latter, taking into account what has been noted in the text, Eurojust should, by solving a negative conflict, ask the authority with primary jurisdiction, by means of a binding opinion, to prosecute the crime.
- 85.
Lagodny (2002), p. 263.
- 86.
Di Martino (2006), pp. 29ff.
- 87.
See Gleß (2011), p. 59.
- 88.
Cornils and Greve (2012), p. 186.
- 89.
Greve (2005), pp. 753ff.
- 90.
On the application of foreign criminal law, see Cornils (1978), passim. Concerning cases such as those set forth in the text, it is widely assumed that foreign law is not to be applied but only taken into consideration. See, for example, Sinn (2012a), p. 538. I cannot share this opinion, since if national law is applied within the limits established by foreign law, these limits are to be applied, not just taken into consideration. Significantly, although some national legislation explicitly states that the case is to be adjudicated according to national law [e.g., Art. 86(1) of the Swiss IRG], the same provision concerning the applicable law allows for the application of foreign law, whenever more lenient.
- 91.
Alongside with Bernd Schünemann, several scholars look at the application of foreign law with concern. See, in German literature, Ambos (2011), pp. 128f.
- 92.
To be sure, where the affected country is not the State in whose territory the conduct took place, also the territorial criminal law should be applied as lex mitior to avoid discriminations among EU citizens. Upon closer examination, this solution is excessive and unnecessary. Indeed, where neither the offender substantially belongs to the State in which the conduct took place nor this State’s essential interests have been touched upon, nothing seems to justify intervention of the territorial criminal law.
- 93.
For a similar conclusion in relation to the solution provided by the law of residence, cf. Wörner (2012), § 4.1.
- 94.
Along these lines, see Böse and Meyer (2011), p. 343. To be sure, in Germany, although the StGB, following the Gesamtlösung, provides for the application of German law to the accomplice’s contribution, which took place in German territory, to a criminal action mainly committed abroad [§ 9(2)], the StPO considerably attenuates the severity of this regulation, thus empowering the Public Prosecutor to waive prosecution where the accomplice’s conduct in Germany has contributed to a criminal action that mainly took place overseas [§ 153c(1)(1)].
- 95.
De Francesco (2013), pp. 137s.
- 96.
This shortcoming also relates to the model of transnational procedural unity. See Satzger (2006), p. 148.
- 97.
- 98.
Böse (2013), p. 85.
- 99.
Art. 2. See Sinn (2012b), p. 611.
- 100.
Art. 2(2). See Schünemann (2006b), pp. 5f.
- 101.
For an analysis of evidence-gathering models, see Gleß (2006), respectively, pp. 109ff. and 121ff.
- 102.
Schünemann, Part IV, Sect. 3.
- 103.
See Böse (2013), p. 80, with extensive reference to ECtHR case law.
- 104.
Nobili (1982), p. 2138.
- 105.
See, among others, Volk (1978), pp. 147f.
- 106.
Along these lines, see Negri (2004), pp. 51ff.
- 107.
ECtHR, Decision of 5 October 2004, H.L. v United Kingdom, Application No. 45508/99, § 114.
- 108.
See, for example, Art. 65(2) of the Swiss IRG. Cf. Gleß (2011), p. 89.
- 109.
Vogler, Part IV, passim.
- 110.
Indeed, the awareness has grown today that human rights requirements must be assessed on the basis of the actual case in hand. Sanders et al. (2012), pp. 29f.
- 111.
From a similar perspective, Klip (2012), p. 393, points out that domestic judicial products are no longer products once they go across the border, where different requirements apply.
- 112.
Outside Europe, the USA has developed extensive case law on overseas investigations conducted by foreign officials in a “joint venture” with US authorities. And it is noteworthy that, if US law enforcement officials have “substantially participated” in conducting investigations overseas, US courts require US constitutional law governing the gathering of evidence to be applied. This doctrine has allowed for the application of the Fourth Amendment to overseas searches, the “Miranda warnings” to extraterritorial interrogations and the Sixth Amendment to depositions of witnesses abroad. See extensively Thaman (2013), pp. 518ff.
- 113.
Ruggeri (2001), pp. 544ff.
- 114.
Lagodny (2002), pp. 264ff.
- 115.
The chapter contributions contained in this book have been quoted with the only reference to the Author’s surname, the Part in which the contribution is contained and the number of the paragraph concerned.
References
The chapter contributions contained in this book have been quoted with the only reference to the Author’s surname, the Part in which the contribution is contained and the number of the paragraph concerned.
Ambos K (2003) §§ 3–4 StGB. In: von Heintschel-Heinegg B, Joecks W, Miebach K (eds) Münchner Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch, vol I. C.F. Beck, München
Ambos K (2011) Internationales Strafrecht, 3rd edn. C.F. Beck, München
American Law Institute (ed) (1988) Third restatement of the law – the foreign relations of the United States, vol 1. West, St. Paul
Basile F (2009) Localismo e non-neutralità culturale del giudice penale “sotto tensione” per effetto dell’immigrazione. In: Risicato L, La Rosa E (eds) Laicità e multiculturalismo. Profili penali ed extrapenali. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 206ff.
Biehler A, Kniebühler R, Lelieur-Fischer J, Stein S (2003) Freiburg proposal on concurrent jurisdictions and the prohibition of multiple prosecutions in the European Union. Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationals Strafrecht, Freiburg i. Br.
Bitzilekis N, Kaiafa-Gbandi M, Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2006) Alternativüberlegungen zur Regelung transnationaler Strafverfahren in der EU. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege/A programme for European criminal justice. Carl Heymanns, Köln, pp 250–253
Böse M (2012) Vor § 3. In: Kindhäuser U, Neumann U, Paeffgen H-U (eds) Nomos Kommentar – Strafgesetzbuch, vol I, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Böse M (2013) Choice of the forum and jurisdiction. In: Luchtman M (ed) Choice of the forum in cooperation against EU financial crime. Freedom security and justice and the protection of specific EU-interests. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, pp 73–87
Böse M, Meyer F (2011) Die Beschränkung nationaler Strafgewalten als Möglichkeit zur Vermeidung von Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der Europäischen Union. Zeitschrift für internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 336–344
Böse M, Meyer F, Schneider A (eds) (2013) Conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal matters in the European Union. National reports and comparative analysis, vol I. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Caprioli F (2013) Report on Italy. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in Memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 439–455
Cornils K (1978) Die Fremdrechtsanwendung im Strafrecht. De Gruyter, Berlin
Cornils K, Greve V (2012) Dänemark. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. Ein Rechtsvergleich zum internationalen Strafrecht/Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border crime situations. A comparative law study of international criminal law. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp 181ff.
D’Avila FR (2013) Normativa e giurisprudenza brasiliane in tema di conflitti transnazionali di giurisdizione in materia penale. La legislazione penale (in press)
De Francesco G (2013) Diritto penale, vol II, Forme del reato. Giappichelli, Torino
Di Martino A (2006) La frontiera e il diritto penale. Natura e contesto delle norme di “diritto penale transnazionale.” Giappichelli, Torino
Gascón Inchausti F (2007) El decomiso transfronterizo de bienes. Colex, Madrid
Gleß S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Gleß S (2011) Internationales Strafrecht – Grundriss für Studium und Praxis. Helbing Lichtenhahn, Basel
Greve V (2005) Strafzumessung im internationalen Strafrecht. In: Arnold J, Burkhardt B, Gropp W, Heine G, Koch H-G, Lagodny O, Perron W, Walther S (eds) Menschengerechtes Strafrecht. Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag. C.F. Beck, München, pp 751ff.
Gropp W (2012) Kollision nationaler Strafgewalten – nulla prosecutio transnationalis sine lege. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. V&R Unipress, Göttingen, pp 41–63
Karsai K (2013) La via ungherese alla risoluzione dei conflitti: più paternalismo, meno flessibilità. La legislazione penale (in press)
Klip A (2012) European criminal law, 2nd edn. Intersentia, Antwerp
Lagodny O (2002) Viele Strafgewalten und nur ein transnationales ne-bis-in-idem? In: Donatsch A, Forster M, Schwarzenegger C (eds) Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Menschenrechte. Festschrift für Stefan Trechsel zum 65. Geburtstag. Schulthess, Zürich, pp 253–267
Lagodny O (2005) Überlegungen zu einem menschengerechten transnationalen Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht. In: Arnold J, Burkhardt B, Gropp W, Heine G, Koch H-G, Lagodny O, Perron W, Walther S (eds) Menschengerechtes Strafrecht. Festschrift für Albin Eser zum 70. Geburtstag. C.F. Beck, München, pp 777–795
Lelieur J (2013) Report on France. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in Memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 309–407
Negri D (2004) Fumus commissi delicti. La prova per le fattispecie cautelari. Giappichelli, Torino
Nobili M (1982) Successione nel tempo di norme sui termini massimi della custodia preventiva e principi costituzionali. Foro italiano I
Oehler D (1983) Internationales Strafrecht, 2nd edn. Carl Heymanns, Köln
Padovani T (2012) Diritto penale, 10th edn. Giuffrè, Milano
Panebianco G (2010) L’esercizio di un diritto. In: de Vero G (ed) La legge penale, il reato, il reo, la persona offesa. Trattato teorico-pratico di diritto penale, coordinated by Palazzo F, Paliero CE, vol I. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 329ff.
Peers S (2010) The proposed European Investigation Order. Assault on human rights and national sovereignty, www.statewatch.org
Rafaraci T (2012) The application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress, Göttingen, pp 67–83
Risicato L (2004) Gli elementi normativi della fattispecie penale. Profili generali e problemi applicative. Giuffrè, Milano
Ruggeri A (2001) Sovranità dello Stato e sovranità sovranazionale, attraverso i diritti umani, e le prospettive di un diritto europeo “intercostituzionale”. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 2:544ff.
Ruggeri S (2012) Libertà personale e procedimento penale nel diritto comparato: tutela del processo e tutela della persona in Europa. Revista de Estudos Criminais 9–69
Ruggeri S (2013a) Horizontal cooperation, obtaining evidence overseas and the respect for fundamental rights in the EU. From the European Commission’s proposal to the proposal for a directive on a European Investigation Order: towards a single tool of evidence gathering in the EU? In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 279–310
Ruggeri S (2013b) Concorrenza tra potestà punitive, conflitti transnationali di giurisdizione. Il contributo della comparazione giuridica al diritto penale transnationale orientato ai diritti della persona. La legislazione penale (in press)
Ruggieri F (ed) (2013) Criminal proceedings, language and the European Union. Linguistic and legal issues. Springer, Heidelberg
Sanders A, Young R, Burton M (2012) Criminal justice, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York
Satzger H (2006) Die europäische Vollstreckungsübernahme. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege/A programme for European criminal justice. Carl Heymanns, Köln, pp 146–159
Satzger H (2011) Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht, 5th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Schünemann B (2003) Europäischer Haftbefehl und EU-Verfassungsentwurf auf schiefer Ebene – Die Schranken des Grundgesetztes. Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik 185–480
Schünemann B (2006a) Die Grundlagen eines transnationalen Strafverfahrens. In: Schünemann B (ed) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege/A programme for European criminal justice. Carl Heymanns, Köln, pp 93–111
Schünemann B (ed) (2006b) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege/A programme for European criminal justice. Carl Heymanns, Köln
Sinn A (2007) Rechtsvergleichende Beobachtungen zu organisierter Kriminalität/kriminellen Organisationen und Terrorismus. In: Gropp W, Sinn A (eds) Organisierte Kriminalität und kriminelle Organisationen. Präventive und repressive Maßnahmen vor dem Hintergrund des 11. September 2001. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 641ff.
Sinn A (2012a) Jurisdictional law as the key to solving conflicts: comparative law observations. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. Ein Rechtsvergleich zum internationalen Strafrecht/Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border crime situations. A comparative law study of international criminal law. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp 531–554
Sinn A (2012b) Draft models of a regulatory mechanism for the avoidance of jurisdictional conflicts. In: Sinn A (ed) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. Ein Rechtsvergleich zum internationalen Strafrecht/Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border crime situations. A comparative law study of international criminal law. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp 597–615
Sinn A (ed) (2012c) Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. Ein Rechtsvergleich zum internationalen Strafrecht/Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border crime situations. A comparative law study of international criminal law. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück
Thaman SC (2013) Report on USA. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 509–529
Vallines García E (2006) Los equipos conjuntos de investigación penal. Ed. Colex, Madrid
Vervaele JAE (2009) Il progetto di decisione quadro sul mandato di ricerca della prova. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, pp 153–160
Visconti C (2003) Contiguità alla mafia e responsabilità penale. Giappichelli, Torino
Vogel J (2010) Transkulturelles Strafrecht. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 1:1–13
Volk K (1978) Prozeßvoraussetzungen im Strafrecht. Zum Verhältnis von materiellem Recht und Prozessrecht. Gremer, Ebelsbach am Main
Wörner L (2013) Conflitti transnazionali di giurisdizione in materia penale. La prospettiva del diritto tedesco. La legislazione penale (in press)
Wörner L, Wörner M (2012) Landesbericht Deutschland. In: Sinn A (ed), Jurisdiktionskonflikte bei grenzüberschreitend organisierter Kriminalität. Ein Rechtsvergleich zum internationalen Strafrecht/Conflicts of jurisdiction in cross-border crime situations. A comparative law study of international criminal law. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp. 203–261
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruggeri, S. (2014). Transnational Investigations and Prosecution of Cross-Border Cases in Europe: Guidelines for a Model of Fair Multicultural Criminal Justice. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02569-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02570-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)