Audi alteram partem in Criminal Proceedings Under the European Convention on Human Rights

Ruggeri, Stefano

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_8

Audi alteram partem in Criminal Proceedings Under the European Convention on Human Rights

Stefano Ruggeri²

Chapter
First Online: 13 April 2017

263 Accesses

Abstract

The examination of the developments that have occurred in the domestic law of the selected countries and the persistent deficiencies in both the areas of domestic and transnational criminal justice provide the basis for the subsequent discussion. At this point, the present study should now focus on the models for solutions provided by international human rights law and EU law to solve the deficiencies existing in Brazilian and Italian criminal justice in relation to the issues under examination.

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

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
On this issue also see from the viewpoint of Brazilian law Giacomolli (2014), p. 12 ff.
2.
Jackson (2005), p. 737 f.; Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 334 f.
3.
Below, F.II–III.
4.
Ubertis (2009), p. 49.
5.
It is noteworthy that the English version of Article 6(1) ECHR acknowledges the right to ‘a fair hearing’, whereas the French text may seem to adopt a more subjective perspective by granting the accused the right that ‘sa cause soit entendue équitablement’. Most translations into Romance languages have followed the same perspective.
6.
Art. 14(1) ICCPR provides for that “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law”.
7.
Art. 6(1) ECHR.
8.
ECtHR, Imbrioscia v. Switzerland.
9.
For an overview of Strasbourg case-law on the notion of ‘charge’ from the perspective of the right to a trial in a reasonable time cfr. Ubertis (2009), p. 26 ff.
10.
ECtHR, Quadrelli v. Italy.
11.
For further references see Trechsel (2005), p. 91 f.
12.
See Chiavario (2008), p. 21, who calls for the introduction of international general statute of victim’s rights.
13.
Findlay (2011), p. 112.
14.
ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria.
15.
ECtHR, Fodale v. Italy, § 42. In this sense see already ECtHR, Laukkanen and Manninen v. Finland, § 34.
16.
In this sense cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 90.
17.
ECtHR, Rowe and Davis v. United Kingdom.
18.
Trechsel (2005), p. 89.
19.
ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy.
20.
‘[Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:] (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing […]’.
21.
Trechsel (2005), p. 244.
22.
Below, D.II.
23.
Below, F.II.
24.
Below, G.
25.
Art. 5(3) ECHR.
26.
ECtHR, Constantinescu v. Romania.
27.
ECtHR, Döry v. Sweden.
28.
See, e.g., Art. 613(1) CCP-Italy.
29.
Below, F.IV.
30.
Trechsel (2005), p. 362.
31.
ECtHR, Liebreich v. Germany.
32.
ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy, § 30.
33.
ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy.
34.
To be sure, in Colozza v. Italy, the Court left open the question of whether the right to personal participation could be waived. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 255 f.
35.
ECtHR, Neumeister v. Austria.
36.
In Franquesa Freixas v. Spain, the Court regarded with disfavour the defendant’s choice not to defend himself precisely because he was a lawyer.
37.
Trechsel (2005), p. 256.
38.
ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, § 35.
39.
Negri (2014), p. 149 ff.
40.
ECtHR, Poitrimol v. France, § 38.
41.
See, among others, ECtHR, Lala v. The Netherlands.
42.
Colozza v. Italy, § 29.
43.
Ibid.
44.
Chapter 14, D.II.
45.
ECtHR, Gray v. Germany.
46.
Ibid., § 3.
47.
Ibid., § 61.
48.
Ibid., § 87.
49.
Ibid.
50.
ECtHR, Hugh Jordan v. United Kingdom, § 109.
51.
ECtHR, Gray v. Germany, § 87.
52.
Ibid., § 91.
53.
Ibid.
54.
Below, D.II.1.
55.
ECtHR, Gray v. Germany, § 91.
56.
Ibid., § 91.
57.
ECtHR, Stanford v. United Kingdom, § 26. See Trechsel (2005), p. 253.
58.
ECtHR, Foucher v. France.
59.
ECtHR, Stanford v. United Kingdom.
60.
In the same sense Trechsel (2005), p. 253 fn. 41.
61.
Ibid., 193.
62.
ECtHR, Mattoccia v. Italy.
63.
In this sense see also Kühne (2009), Rn. 494.
64.
Trechsel (2005), p. 194 f.
65.
ECtHR, Sipavicius v. Lithuania.
66.
ECtHR, De Cubber v. Belgium.
67.
See already Trechsel (2005), p. 194.
68.
This is not always the case. In Mattoccia v. Italy, the Court clearly stresses that information ‘rests entirely on the prosecuting authority’s shoulders’.
69.
Trechsel (2005), p. 204.
70.
Chapter 11, C.
71.
Trechsel (2005), p. 201.
72.
Ibid., 198 f.
73.
Ibid., 199 f.
74.
ECtHR, Brozicek v. Italy.
75.
Cf. ECtHR, Deweer v. Belgium; ECtHR, Eckle v. Germany; ECtHR, Corigliano v. Italy.
76.
ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy.
77.
Trechsel (2005), p. 458 f.
78.
Ibid., 458.
79.
Ibid., 154.
80.
Vogler (1986), Rn. 477; Kühne (2009), Rn. 496.
81.
Trechsel (2005), p. 458.
82.
Ibid., 222.
83.
ECtHR, Haxhia v. Albania.
84.
Trechsel (2005), p. 200 f.
85.
Ibid., 200.
86.
Ibid., 232.
87.
Ibid., 234.
88.
According to Kühne, the risk of tampering with evidence should instead be taken into account also in relation to the prosecutorial interest not to communicate details that might undermine the investigation. See Kühne (2009), Rn. 494.
89.
Weigend (2000), p. 385.
90.
ECtHR, Kremzow v. Austria.
91.
Trechsel (2005), p. 225.
92.
Ibid., 225 f.
93.
ECtHR, Edwards v. United Kingdom, § 36.
94.
Stavros (1993), p. 181 ff.
95.
Trechsel (2005), p. 229.
96.
ECtHR, Jasper v. United Kingdom.
97.
Trechsel (2005), p. 227.
98.
Ibid., 93, who moreover considers the Court’s self-restraint as realistic and unavoidable.
99.
Art. 5(3) ECHR.
100.
Trechsel (2005), p. 514.
101.
ECtHR, Piersack v. Belgium. See Trechsel (2005), p. 66 f.
102.
ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom.
103.
See, among others, ECtHR, Magee v. United Kingdom.
104.
Below, F.II.1.
105.
Below, F.III.3.b.
106.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands.
107.
ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden.
108.
Art. 14(3)(g) ICCPR.
109.
ECtHR, Funke v. France.
110.
Zacchè (2008), p. 181.
111.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom. See Trechsel (2005), p. 348.
112.
ECtHR, Lückhof and Spanner v. Austria.
113.
Zacchè (2008), p. 180.
114.
The question was dealt with in Serves v. Italy, in which the Court did not engage, however, in assessing whether the investigating judge’s decision to summon the applicant to appear as a witness rather than charging him, due to the existence of substantial evidence against him, gave rise to a coercion incompatible with the privilege against self-incrimination.
115.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Gäfgen v. Germany, § 107.
116.
Ibid., § 106.
117.
Trechsel (2005), p. 342.
118.
Zacchè (2008), p. 183.
119.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.
120.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom.
121.
ECtHR, P.G. and J.H. v. United Kingdom.
122.
Trechsel (2005), p. 342.
123.
ECtHR, Funke v. France.
124.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.
125.
Zacchè (2008), p. 190 f.
126.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Jalloh v. Germany, § 102.
127.
ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom, § 47.
128.
Ibid.
129.
Ibid.
130.
See, inter alia, ECtHR, Condron v. United Kingdom.
131.
Below, F.III.3.a.
132.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom, § 67.
133.
ECtHR, Shannon v. United Kingdom.
134.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Saunders v. United Kingdom, § 67.
135.
Trechsel (2005), p. 344.
136.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands.
137.
Art. 6(3)(d) ECHR.
138.
Ibid.
139.
According to Trechsel the right to confrontation is the only guarantee specifically concerned with criminal evidence. Cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 293.
140.
As noted, the Italian fair trial reform of 1999 enacted the right to confrontation into Article 111 of the Constitution. Outside Europe, the US Constitution still contains one of the most significant expressions of the right to confrontation. Over the last decade, the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution has been re-interpreted by the US Supreme Court from the aforementioned landmark decision Crawford v. Washington onwards.
141.
For a comparative overview cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 291.
142.
ECtHR, Asch v. Austria.
143.
Trechsel (2005), p. 292 f.
144.
Art. 14(3)(e) ICCPR.
145.
Trechsel (2005), p. 311. Similarly cf. Maffei (2012), p. 17; Spencer (2014), p. 48.
146.
ECtHR, Isgrò v. Italy, § 36.
147.
Trechsel (2005), p. 310.
148.
Jackson and Summers (2012), p. 349.
149.
For in-depth analysis see Vogel (2017), p. 28 f.
150.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, A. et al. v. United Kingdom.
151.
ECtHR, Sher et al. v. United Kingdom, § 149.
152.
Ibid.
153.
For further criticisms cf. Vogel (2017), p 29 ff.
154.
ECtHR, Asch v. Austria.
155.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands. On the importance of this judgment see among others Chiavario (2008), p. 21. More recently cf. ECtHR, Bocos-Cuesta v. The Netherlands.
156.
ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands, §§ 54 et seq.
157.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 60.
158.
ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands.
159.
Trechsel (2005), p. 319 f.
160.
ECtHR, S.N. v. Sweden, § 49.
161.
Trechsel (2005), p. 322.
162.
ECtHR, A.S. v. Finland.
163.
On the importance of European case-law in this problematic area see Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 362 f.; Spencer (2014), p. 53 ff.
164.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 78.
165.
ECtHR, Camilleri v. Malta.
166.
Trechsel (2005), p. 305 f.
167.
Ibid., 309.
168.
Ibid., 307.
169.
For instance, Scotland has a historical 110 day rule within which serious cases must be brought to court. See s. 65 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. England and Wales lack exact time-limits on the institution of the trial phase, which has given rise to many criticisms. See, among others, Jackson and Johnstone (2005), p. 3 ff.; Vogler (2012), p. 96.
170.
In the same sense Trechsel (2005), p. 309.
171.
ECtHR, Barberá, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain.
172.
ECtHR, Doorson v. The Netherlands, § 76; ECtHR, van Mechelen v. The Netherlands, § 55.
173.
ECtHR, Ellis and Simms v. United Kingdom, §§ 74 et seqq.; ECtHR, Pesukic v. Switzerland, §§ 45 et seqq.
174.
Balsamo and Lo Piparo (2008), p. 346.
175.
ECtHR, Saunders v. United Kingdom.
176.
ECtHR, Pello v. Estonia.
177.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom.
178.
ECtHR, Schatschaschwili v. Germany.
179.
Above, F.III.2.
180.
ECtHR, Brandstetter v. Austria.
181.
Trechsel (2005), p. 90.
182.
Above, A.
183.
On this issue see Quattrocolo (2011), p. 3 ff.; Casiraghi (2012), p. 115 ff.
184.
ECtHR, I.H. and others v. Austria.
185.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Pélissier and Sassi v. France, § 60. The Court overcame this approach in its subsequent case-law. See among others ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy. For a similar criticism to that expressed in the text see De Matteis (2008), p. 222 f.
186.
ECtHR, Sipavičius v. Lithuania, § 31.s.
187.
See respectively ECtHR, Drassich v. Italy and ECtHR, D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria.
188.
ECtHR, D.M.T. and D.K.I. v. Bulgaria, § 83.
189.
From the perspective of the countries selected in this study, see, as far as Italy is concerned, Quattrocolo (2011), p. 61 ff., and, in relation to Brazil, Lopes Jr (2017), p. 889 f.
190.
Vogler (2012), p. 88 f.
191.
Art. 5(2) ECHR.
192.
To be sure, national law does not always require the arrested person to be formally charged with a criminal offence. See Trechsel (2005), p. 502 f.
193.
Ibid., 458.
194.
In the same sense see Peukert (2009), Rn. 91.
195.
ECtHR, X. v. United Kingdom.
196.
ECtHR, van der Leer v. The Netherlands.
197.
Trechsel (2005), p. 458.
198.
ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 40.
199.
Art. 5(3) ECHR.
200.
ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 41.
201.
Trechsel (2005), p. 461.
202.
ECtHR, Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. United Kingdom, § 41.
203.
Trechsel (2005), p. 461.
204.
Ibid., 459 f.
205.
On this delicate issue see Peukert (2009), Rn. 92.
206.
Trechsel (2005), p. 502.
207.
See among others ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, § 123. On the protection against arbitrary detentions see Marzaduri (2012), p. 18 ff.
208.
Trechsel (2005), p. 505.
209.
ECtHR, Kurt v. Turkey, § 123.
210.
Trechsel (2005), p. 506.
211.
ECtHR, McGoff v. Sweden.
212.
Trechsel (2005), p. 514.
213.
ECtHR, Schiesser v. Switzerland.
214.
Trechsel (2005), p. 514 f.
215.
ECtHR, John Murray v. United Kingdom, § 63.
216.
ECtHR, Tomasi v. France. See extensively Trechsel (2005), p. 523 ff.
217.
Maggio (2012), p. 37.
218.
Vogler (2012), p. 90.
219.
ECtHR, De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp (‘Vagrancy’) v. Belgium.
220.
For extensive criticisms see Trechsel (2005), p. 470 ff.
221.
Chapter 2, J.III.2.
222.
See among others ECtHR, Wloch v. Poland.
223.
In these terms cf. Trechsel (2005), p. 480 f.
224.
ECtHR, Keus v. The Netherlands.
225.
ECtHR, Garcia Alva v. Germany, § 39.
226.
For this observation see Trechsel (2005), p. 484.
227.
ECtHR, Keus v. The Netherlands, § 25.
228.
ECtHR, Fodale v. Italy.
229.
ECtHR, Varbanov v. Bulgaria, § 58.
230.
On this issue see Trechsel (2005), p. 486.
231.
See respectively ECtHR, 1st Chamber, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 72 et seq. and ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 131 et seqq.
232.
ECtHR, Winterwerp v. The Netherlands.
233.
ECtHR, Bouamar v. Belgium.
234.
Trechsel (2005), p. 486 f.
235.
ECtHR, Megyeri v. Germany, § 23.
236.
Trechsel (2005), p. 487.
237.
ECtHR, Lamy v. Belgium, § 29.
238.
Cf. among others ECtHR, Danov v. Bulgaria.
239.
In this sense Trechsel (2005), p. 485, who also raised the concerns reported in the text.
240.
ECtHR, Garcia Alva v. Germany, § 42. On this important ruling see Trechsel (2005), p. 485 f.
241.
Section 147(2) CCP-Germany.

References

Balsamo A, Lo Piparo A (2008) Principio del contraddittorio, utilizzabilità delle dichiarazioni predibattimentali e nozione di testimone tra giurisprudenza europea e criticità del sistema italiano. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 333–372
Google Scholar
Chiavario M (2008) La “lunga marcia” dei diritti dell’uomo nel processo penale. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 11–31
Google Scholar
De Matteis L (2008) Diversa qualificazione giuridica dell’accusa e tutela del diritto di difesa. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 215–233
Google Scholar
Findlay M (2011) Locating victim communities within global justice and governance. In: Crawford A (ed) International and comparative criminal justice and Urban Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–139
Chapter Google Scholar
Giacomolli NJ (2014) O devido processo penal. Abordagem conforme a Constituição Federal e o Pacto de São José da Costa Rica. Atlas S.A., São Paulo
Google Scholar
Jackson JD (2005) The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Mod Law Rev 68:737–764
Google Scholar
Jackson J, Johnstone J (2005) The reasonable time requirement: an independent and meaningful right. Crim Law Rev, pp 3 ff.
Google Scholar
Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Kühne H-H (2009) In: Kühne H-H, Miehsler H and Vogler T, Article 6. In: Pabel K, Schmahl S (eds) (2013) Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Carl Heymanns, Köln et al
Google Scholar
Lopes A Jr (2017) Direito Processual Penal, 14th edn. Saraiva, São Paulo
Google Scholar
Maffei S (2012) The right to confrontation in Europe. Absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses. Europa Law Publishing
Google Scholar
Maggio P (2012) Judicial reviews against deprivation of liberty. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 33–44
Google Scholar
Marzaduri E (2012) The application of pre-trial precautionary measures. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 17–32
Google Scholar
Negri D (2014) L’imputato presente al processo. Una ricostruzione sistematica. Giappichelli, Torino
Google Scholar
Peukert W (2009) Art. 5. In: Frowein J, Peukert W (eds) EMRK-Kommentar. Engel Verlag, Rehl am Rein, pp 70–139
Google Scholar
Quattrocolo S (2011) Riqualificazione del fatto nella sentenza penale e tutela del contraddittorio. Jovene, Napoli
Google Scholar
Spencer JR (2014) Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, II edn. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Google Scholar
Stavros S (1993) The guarantees for accused persons under Article 6 of the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dortmund et al
Google Scholar
Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Ubertis G (2009) Principi di procedura penale europea, 2nd edn. Raffaello Cortina, Milano
Google Scholar
Vogel B (2017) “In camera”-Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28–38
Google Scholar
Vogler R (2012) England and Wales. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 87–103
Google Scholar
Vogler T (1986) Article 6. In: Golsong H, Karl W, Miehsler H, Petzold H, Rogge K, Vogler T, Wildhaber L (eds) Internationaler Kommentar zur Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Carl Heymanns, Köln
Google Scholar
Weigend T (2000) Die Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention als deutsches Recht - Kollisionen und ihre Lösung. Strafverteidiger 2000, pp 384–390
Google Scholar
Zacchè F (2008) Gli effetti della giurisprudenza europea in tema di privilegio contro le autoincriminazioni e diritto al silenzio. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 179–195
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
Stefano Ruggeri

Authors

Stefano Ruggeri
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2017). Audi alteram partem in Criminal Proceedings Under the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_8
Published: 13 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics