Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Information in EU Legislation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Human Rights in European Criminal Law

Abstract

This paper analyzes EU Directive 2012/13 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. This is the second step in the implementation of the EU Roadmap, settled after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force, aimed at strengthening some of the guarantees envisaged under the ECHR. The aim of the present study is to reflect, first of all, on the meaning of the measures adopted and, second, on the impact that these may have on national systems. This reflection is intended as being general, since its goal is not to constitute a comparative study among the 28 EU domestic legal systems. Many provisions, in fact, although appearing to have highly innovative potential, may be interpreted restrictively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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 Chiavario (1982), passim; see also Renucci (2013), p. 309.

  2. 2.

    See Hecker (2012), p. 10.

  3. 3.

    See Pollicino and Rando (2013), pp. 53 ff.

  4. 4.

    See Herlin-Karnell (2009), p. 242; Miettinen (2013), pp. 85 ff.; Vergès (2012), pp. 635 ff.

  5. 5.

    Van Puyenbroeck and Vermeulen (2011), pp. 1018 ff. See Vogler, in this book.

  6. 6.

    See Ambos (2005), p. 235.

  7. 7.

    Commission of the European Communities, COM(2004) 328 final, Bruxelles 28 April 2004.

  8. 8.

    See Rafaraci (2013), The right to defence, pp. 333 ff.

  9. 9.

    Van Puyenbroeck and Vermeulen (2011), pp. 1022 ff.; Spronken and de Vocht (2011), pp. 437 ff. See also Morgan (2007), pp. 27 ff.

  10. 10.

    Spronken and de Vocht (2011), p. 443. See the Brighton Declaration, 19 April 2012; see also the European Council Committee of Ministers’ 2012 annual report, finally showing a decrease of repetitive cases submitted to the ECtHR.

  11. 11.

    Cf. Imbert (2003), pp. 10 ff.

  12. 12.

    ECtHR, 25 July 2000, Mattoccia v. Italy, Application No. 23969/94.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 27 November 2008, Salduz v. Turkey, Application No. 36391/02.

  14. 14.

    This was one of the first judgments given against Italy, which accepted quite late the individual jurisdiction of the ECtHR: ECtHR, 13 May 1980, Artico v. Italy, Application No. 6694/74.

  15. 15.

    See Spronken and de Vocht (2011), pp. 453 ff.; Herlin-Karnell (2009), pp. 229 ff.; Spencer (2009), pp. 447 ff.

  16. 16.

    See Rafaraci, in this book; Bargis (2013), pp. 91 ff.; Cras and De Matteis (2010), pp. 153 ss.

  17. 17.

    See the European Commission Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the right to information in criminal proceedings COM(2010) 392 final, submitted on 20 July 2010.

  18. 18.

    See Ciampi (2013), pp. 21 ff.

  19. 19.

    Amalfitano (2014b), p. 19.

  20. 20.

    This lexical choice was highly appreciated in those national systems in which human rights guarantees depend on the individual investigative act rather than on a person’s status as a suspect. See, for example, Vergès (2012), p. 638.

  21. 21.

    See the debate in Council on 7 October 2010 (2010/0215 (COD)), during which the Council asked the preparatory bodies to add the right to remain silent.

  22. 22.

    RR\885029EN.doc; PE452.900v03-00, rapporteur J.P. Albrecht, submitted on 27 January 2011.

  23. 23.

    See Vergès (2012), p. 639.

  24. 24.

    The Italian system, for instance, provides a very low level of information on the charge during the pretrial phase (see arts. 335, 369, 369-bis, 415-bis CCP-Italy): it might happen that the suspect will not be informed of his/her situation until the end of the investigation, if the prosecutor does not decide to assume one of those investigative acts that make the counsel’s presence mandatory. For an extensive overview, see Ciampi (2010), passim. See also Candito, in this book.

  25. 25.

    In this sense, see Vergès (2012) p. 641: “cette ambigüité est dommageable. Elle crée un conflit d’interprétation et pourrait entraîner une transposition a minima.”

  26. 26.

    Amalfitano (2014b), p. 20.

  27. 27.

    Ciampi (2013), p. 23.

  28. 28.

    See the recent reform of the very discussed garde à vue, entered into force since April 2011 (l. no. 93–2011, 14.4.2011); according to the new article 63–1 CCP-France, the person submitted to garde à vue must be immediately informed of his right—among others—to be visited by a doctor, as provided under article 63–3 CCP-France, which was introduced in 1993 and integrated by Law no. 93–2011. See, among others, Mauro (2012), pp. 73 f.; Vergès (2011), p. 3005; Alix (2011), p. 1703; Gindre (2011), p. 298; Roujou de Boubée (2011), p. 1128; Matsopoulou (2011), p. 3039.

  29. 29.

    For a comparative point of view, see Ruggeri (2012), p. 185 ff.

  30. 30.

    See Vergès (2012), p. 642.

  31. 31.

    See Ciampi (2013), p. 26.

  32. 32.

    See arts. 407 and 406 CCP-Italy.

  33. 33.

    See the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (fn. 10), in which the rapporteur affirms “on the whole, your rapporteur for opinion considers the Commission proposal to be strong and worthy of support. Unfortunately, the Council, in its general approach contained in Document No. 17503/10 dated 6 December 2010, would severely weaken it by including several references to national law and adding more conditions for the giving of the Letter of Rights.”

  34. 34.

    Ciampi (2013), p. 23.

  35. 35.

    See Bachmaier Winter, in this book.

  36. 36.

    Böse (2011), p. 45; Amalfitano (2014a), pp. 12 ff.

  37. 37.

    See Rafaraci (2013), p. 340 f.

References

  • Alix J (2011) Les droits de la défense au cours de l’enquête de police après la réforme de la garde à vue: état des lieux et perspectives. Recueil Dalloz, pp 1699–1707

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalfitano C (2014a) Art. 82 TFEU. In: Tizzano A (ed) Le fonti del diritto italiano. Trattati sull’Unione europea, 2nd edn. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 866–896

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalfitano C (2014b) Le prime direttive sul ravvicinamento “processuale”: il diritto all’interprete, alla traduzione e all’informazione nei processi penali. In: Pistoia E, Del Coco R, Lo straniero dinanzi alla giustizia penale. Cacucci, Bari, pp 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K (2005) Mutual recognition versus procedural guarantees? In: de Hoyos Sancho M (ed) Criminal proceedings in the European union: essential safeguards. Lex Nova, Valladolid, pp 235 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargis M (2013) L’assistenza linguistica per l’imputato: dalla direttiva europea 64/2010 nuovi inputs alla tutela fra teoria e prassi. In: Bargis M (ed) Scritti in memoria di Maria Gabriella Aimonetto. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 91–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2011) Der Grundsatz der gegenseitigen Anerkennung unter dem Vertrag von Lissabon. In: Ambos K (ed) Europäisches Strafrecht post-Lissabon. Universitätsverlag Göttingen, Göttingen, pp 45–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiavario M (1982) Processo e garanzie delle persone, vol I and II. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciampi S (2010) L’informazione dell’indagato nel procedimento penale. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciampi S (2013) Il commento. Diritto Penale e Processo, pp 21–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Cras S, De Matteis L (2010) The directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. EuCrim, pp 153–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Gindre E (2011) Une réforme en urgence: la loi n. 2011–392 du 14 avril 2011, relative à la garde à vue. Revue Pénitentiaire et de Droit penal, pp 297–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Hecker B (2012) Europäisches Strefrecht, 4th edn. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Herlin-Karnell M (2009) Waiting for Lisbon… constitutional reflections on the embryonic general part of EU criminal law. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 17:222–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbert PH (2003) L’exécution des arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Le role du Comité des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe. In: AA.VV., La Corte europea dei diritti umani e l’esecuzione delle sue sentenze. Atti del Convegno della S.I.O.I., E.S., Napoli, pp 20–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsopoulou H (2011) Les dispositions de la loi du 14 avril 2011 sur la garde à vue declarées conformes à la Constitution. Recueil Dalloz, pp 3034–3039

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauro C (2012) La garde à vue: sotto pressione la procedura penale francese. La Legisalzione penale 32:73–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Miettinen S (2013) Criminal law and policy in the European Union. Routledge, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M (2007) Are Art. 6 ECHR and ECtHR enough to protect defense rights? J Eur Crim Law 27–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O, Rando G (2013) Judicial cooperation and multilevel protection of the right to liberty and security in criminal proceedings. The influence of European courts’ case-law on the modern constitutionalism in Europe. In: Ruggeri S (ed), Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 53 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Rafaraci T (2013) The right to defence in EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 331–344

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renucci JF (2013) Droit européen des droits de l’homme, 5th edn. Lextenso, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Roujou de Boubée G (2011) La réforme attedue de la garde à vue. Recueil Dalloz, pp 1128–1229

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri S (2012) Personal liberty in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. V&R Unipress, Osnabrück, pp 185 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer J (2009) EU fair trail rights – progress at last. New J Eur Crim Law 1(4):447 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Spronken T, de Vocht D (2011) EU policy to guarantee procedural rights in criminal proceedings: “Step by Step”. North Carol J Int Law Commer Regul 37:436–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Puyenbroeck L, Vermeulen G (2011) Towards minimum procedural guarantees for the defense in criminal proceedings in the EU. Int Comp Law Q 60:1017–1038

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergès E (2011) Garde à vue: le rôle de l’avocat au coeur d’un conflit de normes nationales et éuropéennes. Recueil Dalloz, pp 3005–3006

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergès E (2012) Émergence européenne d’un régime juridique du suspect, une nouvelle rationalité juridique. Revue de Science Criminelle et de droit penal comparé 3:635–647

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Torino, Lungo Dora Siena 100, 10153, Torino, Italy

    Serena Quattrocolo

Authors
  1. Serena Quattrocolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Serena Quattrocolo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Quattrocolo, S. (2015). The Right to Information in EU Legislation. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Human Rights in European Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12042-3_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation