Advertisement

The Content of Fundamental Rights

  • Antonio Balsamo
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, the content of fundamental rights is analysed in the light both of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, as interpreted by the Strasbourg Court, and of the law of the European Union, which in the last few years has adopted a number of directives aimed at strengthening the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons, as well as the rights and protection of victims in criminal proceedings.

Further Reading

  1. Addo MK, Grief N (1998) Does Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights enshrine absolute rights? Eur J Int Law, pp 510 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguado Correa T (2015) La Directiva 2014/42/UE sobre embargo y decomiso en la Unión Europea: una solución de compromiso a medio camino. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, no. 35Google Scholar
  3. Allegrezza S, Covolo V (2016) The Directive 2012/13/Eu on the right to information in criminal proceedings: status quo or step forward? In: Durdevic Z, Ivicevic Karas E (eds) European criminal procedure law in service of protection if the Union financial interests: state of play and challenges. Croatian Association of European Criminal Law, Zagreb, pp 41 ffGoogle Scholar
  4. Androulakis IN (2014) European perspectives on rights for victims of crime. Eucrim, pp 111 ffGoogle Scholar
  5. Arangüena Fanego C (2014) El derecho a la asistencia letrada en la directiva 2013/48/UE. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashworth A (2008) Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law. A pregnant pragmatism. Cardozo Law Rev, pp 751 ffGoogle Scholar
  7. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The EU Directive on the right to access to a lawyer: a critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human Rights in European Criminal Law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the lisbon Treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) (2008) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  9. Becerril J, Lopez R (2011) The European Protection Order. Eucrim, pp 76 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. Berger M (2007) Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: procedural issues in the enforcement of the right to silence. Eur Human Rights Law Rev, pp 514 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Biral M (2014) The right to examine or have examined witnesses as a minimum right for a fair trial: pitfalls and trends. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 331 ffGoogle Scholar
  12. Cape E, Hodgson J (2014) The right to access to a lawyer at police station: making the European Union Directive work in practice. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 450 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Chenal R, Gambini F, Tamietti A (2012) Commento all'art. 6. In: Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (eds) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell'uomo e delle libertà fondamentali. Cedam, Padova, pp 172 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiavario M (2001) Commento all'art. 6. In: Bartole S, Conforti B, Raimondi G (eds) Commentario alla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell'uomo e delle libertà fondamentali. Cedam, Padova, pp 153 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. Cocq CC (2016) EU data protection rules applying to law enforcement activities: towards an harmonised legal framework? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 263 ffGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa Ramos V (2016) The rights of the defence according to the ECtHR: an illustration in the light of A.T. v. Luxembourg and the right to legal assistance. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 397 ffGoogle Scholar
  17. Coventry T (2017) Pretrial detention. Assessing European Union competence under Article 82(2) TFEU. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 43 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Cras S, De Matteis L (2010) The Directive on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Eucrim, pp 153 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Cras S (2014) The Directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings. Eucrim, pp 32 ffGoogle Scholar
  20. Cras S (2016) The Directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings genesis and descriptive comments relating to selected articles. Eucrim, pp 109 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Cras S, Erbežnik A (2016) The Directive on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial. Eucrim, pp 25 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. Cras S (2017) The Directive on the right to legal aid in criminal and EAW proceedings. Genesis and description of the sixth instrument of the 2009 Roadmap. Eucrim, pp 34 ffGoogle Scholar
  23. Daniele M (2014) Testimony through a live link in the perspective of the right to confront witnesses. Crim Law Rev, pp 189 ffGoogle Scholar
  24. de Hert P, Papakonstantinou V (2016) The new police and criminal justice data protection Directive: a first analysis. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 7 ffGoogle Scholar
  25. de Jong F, van Lent L (2016) The presumption of innocence as a counterfactual principle. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 32 ffGoogle Scholar
  26. Dennis I (2011) The human rights act and the law of criminal evidence: ten years on. Sydney Law Rev, pp 333 ffGoogle Scholar
  27. De Valkeneer C (2009) La provocation policière à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, pp 211 ffGoogle Scholar
  28. De Wet E (2004) The prohibition of torture as an international norm of jus cogens and its implications for national and customary law. Eur J Int Law, pp 97 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Di Chiara G (2013) The protection of the right of freedom on the European Union Level: the European arrest warrant and non-custodial pre trial measures. The guideline of the principle of proportionality: an interpretive perspective. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 241 ffGoogle Scholar
  30. Esen R (2012) Intercepting communications ‘In Accordance with the Law’. J Crim Law, pp 164 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. François L (2007) La procédure italienne par contumace confrontée aux exigences européennes du procès équitable. Revue trimestrielle des droits de l'homme, pp 521 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Gambini R, Salvadori M (eds) (2009) Convenzione europea sui diritti dell'uomo: processo penale e garanzie. ESI, NapoliGoogle Scholar
  33. Gialuz M, Spagnolo P (2012) Commento all'art. 5. In: Bartole S, De Sena P, Zagrebelsky V (eds) Commentario breve alla Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell'uomo e delle libertà fondamentali. Cedam, Padova, pp 107 ffGoogle Scholar
  34. Gillespie A, Bettinson V (2007) Preventing secondary victimisation through anonymity. Mod Law Rev, pp 114 ffGoogle Scholar
  35. González Monje A (2016) La presunción de inocencia en la Unión Europea: Directiva 2016/343 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 9 de marzo de 2016 por la que se refuerzan en el proceso penal determinados aspectos de la presunción de inocencia y el derecho a estar presente en el juicio. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, no. 39Google Scholar
  36. Grasso G, Sicurella R (eds) (2007) Lezioni di diritto penale europeo. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  37. Groenhuijsen MS, Pemberton A (2009) The EU framework decision for victims of crime: does hard law make a difference? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 43 ffGoogle Scholar
  38. Harris D, O’Boyle M, Warbrick C (2014) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Henzelin M, Rordorf H (2014) When does the length of criminal proceedings become unreasonable according to the European Court of Human Rights? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 78 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoyano LCH (2001) Striking a balance between the rights of defendants and vulnerable witnesses: will special measures directions contravene guarantees of a fair trial? Crim Law Rev, pp 968 ffGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacobs FG, White RCA, Ovey C (2010) The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Jackson JD (2005) The effect of Human Rights on criminal evidentiary processes: towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Mod Law Rev, pp 737 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Jebens SE (2007) The scope of the presumption of innocence in article 6 paragraph 2 of the Convention: especially on its reputation-related aspect. Liber amicorum Luzius Wildhaber – Human Rights – Strasbourg Views/Droits de l'homme – Regards de Strasbourg. Engel Verlag, Kehl, pp 207 ffGoogle Scholar
  45. Jimeno-Bulnes M (2017) The use of intelligence information in criminal procedure. A challenge to defence rights in the European and the Spanish panorama. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 171 ffGoogle Scholar
  46. Klip A (2015) On victim’s rights and its impact on the rights of the accused. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 23(3):177 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Kloth M (2010) Immunities and the right of access to court under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  48. Kostoris RE (ed) (2005) La ragionevole durata del processo. Garanzie ed efficienza della giustizia penale. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  49. Kostoris RE (2016) Equità, processo penale, diritto europeo. Riflessioni di un giurista di civil law. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, pp 1653 ffGoogle Scholar
  50. Kuty F (2006) Justice pénale et procès équitable. Larcier, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  51. Lamberigts S (2016) The Directive on the presumption of innocence. A missed opportunit for legal person? Eucrim, pp 36 ffGoogle Scholar
  52. Lamberigts S (2016) The privilege against self-incrimination: A chameleon of criminal procedure. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 418 ffGoogle Scholar
  53. Lonati S (2017) Fair trial and the interpretation approach adopted by the Strasbourg Court. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 52 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Lupària L (ed) (2015) Victim: and criminal Justice. European standards and national good practices. Wolters Kluver, AssagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Manes V, Zagrebelky V (eds) (2011) La Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo nell'ordinamento penale italiano. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  56. Mcbride J (2009) Human rights and criminal procedure. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  57. Mcdonagh M (2013) The right to information in international human rights law. Human Rights Law Rev, pp 25 ffGoogle Scholar
  58. Muraszkiewicz J (2016) Article 12 of the EU human trafficking directive: fulfilling aspirations for victim participation in criminal trials? New J Eur Crim Law 7:331 ffGoogle Scholar
  59. Murdoch JL (2002) Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The protection of liberty and security of person. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  60. Novokmet A (2016) The right of a victim to a review of a decision not to prosecute as set out in Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU and an assessment of its pransposition in Germany, Italy, France and Croatia. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 86 ffGoogle Scholar
  61. O’Keefe R (2011) State immunity and human rights: heads and walls, hearts and minds. Vanderbilt J Transnl Law, pp 999 ffGoogle Scholar
  62. Pettigrew M (2017) Retreating from vinter in Europe: sacrificing whole life prisoners to save the Strasbourg Court?. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 260 ffGoogle Scholar
  63. Pettigrew M, Vinter A (2017) Retreat in Europe. returning to the issue of whole life sentences in Strasbourg. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 128 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Pinto de Albuquerque P (2015) Life Imprisonment and the European Right to Hope. AIC, no. 2Google Scholar
  65. Pradel J (1996) La notion de procès equitable en droit pénal européen. Revue général de droit, pp 514 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. Quattrocolo S (2015) The right to information in EU legislation. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human Rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the lisbon treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 81 ffGoogle Scholar
  67. Rafaraci T (ed) (2011) La cooperazione di polizia e giudiziaria in materia penale nell'Unione europea dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  68. Renucci JF (2017) Droit européen des droits de l'homme. L.G.D.J, ParisGoogle Scholar
  69. Repik B (1995) Réflexions sur la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de la personne concernant la présomption d'innocence. In: Liber Amicorum Marc-André Eisen. L.G.D.J., pp 331 ffGoogle Scholar
  70. Requa M (2010) Absent witnesses and the UK Supreme Court: judicial deference as judicial dialogue? Int J Evid Proof, pp 208 ffGoogle Scholar
  71. Roberts P (2011) Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights require reasoned verdicts in criminal trials? Human Rights Law Rev, pp 213 ffGoogle Scholar
  72. Roberts P, Zuckerman A (2010) Criminal evidence. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  73. Ruggeri S (2016) Inaudito reo proceedings, defence rights, and harmonisation goals in the EU responses of the European Courts and new perspectives of EU law. Eucrim, pp 42 ffGoogle Scholar
  74. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europaieshes Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  75. Soo A (2016) Potential remedies for violation of the right to counsel in criminal proceedings: Article 12 of the Directive 2013/48/EU (22 October2013) and its output in national legislation. Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 284 ffGoogle Scholar
  76. Soo A (2017) Article 12 of the Directive 2013/48/EU: A starting point for discussion on a common understanding of the criteria for effective remedies of violation of the right to counsel. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 31 ffGoogle Scholar
  77. Soo A (2017) How are the member states progressing on transposition of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer? An inquiry conducted among the member states with the special focus on how Article 12 is transposed. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 64 ffGoogle Scholar
  78. Spencer JR (2014) Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  79. Stavros S (1993) The guarantees for accused persons under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Martinus Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  80. Sudre F (2015) Droit européen et international des droits de l'homme. Presses Universitaires de France, ParisGoogle Scholar
  81. Summers SJ (2007) Fair Trials. The European criminal procedural tradition and the European Court of Human Rights. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  82. Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2013) The right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings: the transposition of Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 on national legislation. Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 68 ffGoogle Scholar
  83. Symeonidou-Kastanidou E (2016) Directive 2011/36/EU on combating trafficking in human beings. Fundamental choices and problems of implementation. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 465 ffGoogle Scholar
  84. Thörnich D (2017) Art. 6 Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK und der unerreichbare (Auslands-)Zeuge: Appell zur Stärkung des Konfrontationsrechts bei präjudizierender Zeugenvernehmung im Ermittlungsverfahren. Zugleich Besprechung von EGMR, Urt. v. 15.12.2015 – 9154/10 (Schatschaschwili v. Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 39 ffGoogle Scholar
  85. Trechsel S (2006) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  86. Tulkens F, Lotarski J (2004) Le tribunal indépendant et impartial à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. In: Mélanges Jacques van Compernolle. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 741 ffGoogle Scholar
  87. Ubertis G, Viganò F (eds) (2016) Corte di Strasburgo e giustizia penale. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  88. Van Bockel B (2010) The Ne Bis in Idem Principle in EU law. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  89. van der Aa S (2014) Post-trial victims’ rights in the EU: do law enforcement motives still reign supreme? Eur Law J, pp 239 ffGoogle Scholar
  90. van der Aa S (2016) Variable vulnerabilities? Comparing the rights of adult vulnerable suspects and vulnerable victims under EU law. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 39 ffGoogle Scholar
  91. Vanderpuye K (2010) Traditions in conflict: the internationalization of confrontation. Cornell Int Law J, pp 513 ffGoogle Scholar
  92. Vervaele JAE (2014) Extraordinary rendition and the security paradigm. In: Haeck Y, McGonigle Leyh B, Burbano-Herrera C, Contreras-Garduño D (eds) The realisation of Human Rights: when theory meets practice. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 371 ffGoogle Scholar
  93. Vogel B (2017) “In camera”- Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28 ffGoogle Scholar
  94. VV AA (2009) The right to trial within a reasonable time and short-term reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe, StrasbourgGoogle Scholar
  95. Wieczorek I (2012) A needed balance between security, liberty and justice. Positive signals arrive from the field of victims’ rights. Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 141 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Prosecution Office of the Italian Court of CassationRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations