Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Human Rights in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

This chapter examines the existing approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to problems arising from transborder inquiries. It argues that the rights of defendants are particularly vulnerable in connection with such inquiries, and may often slip through the jurisdictional cracks between nations. The chapter examines the Court’s caselaw in a number of areas relevant to international investigation; notably the transfer of witness evidence, the foreign provision of information and DNA evidence, the time taken by inquiries, the recognition of foreign judgements and extradition. It is suggested that this caselaw cannot provide an adequate and comprehensive basis for the protection of rights in transborder inquiries, particularly during a period in which new investigatory methodologies, such as the European Investigation Order or common access to DNA databases, are proliferating.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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.

    Gane and Mackarel (1996).

  2. 2.

    Luchtman (2011).

  3. 3.

    Zimmermann et al. (2011), p. 71.

  4. 4.

    Such as the much-amended 1959 ECMACM.

  5. 5.

    Shelley (2010).

  6. 6.

    Van Hoek et al. (2006), p. 63. See also the six “cluster” models proposed in Vermeulen et al. (2010b).

  7. 7.

    Mitselegas (2009), p. 6.

  8. 8.

    Suominen (2011).

  9. 9.

    Sayers (2011), p. 3.

  10. 10.

    Cited in ibid.

  11. 11.

    European Commission (2009).

  12. 12.

    Article 6, Council of the European Union (2010).

  13. 13.

    Ibid., Article 17.

  14. 14.

    Sayers (2011), p. 12.

  15. 15.

    Peers (2010), p. 6.

  16. 16.

    Guild and Carrera (2009), pp. 1–11.

  17. 17.

    Murphy (2011).

  18. 18.

    Ibid., p. 7.

  19. 19.

    Lach (2009), p. 109. The “Third Pillar” area is now known as “Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.”

  20. 20.

    ECtHR, 5 October, 2006, Marcello Viola v. Italy, Application No. 45106/04 and 8 January 2008, Conde Nast Publications Ltd & Carter v. UK, Application No. 29746/05.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR, 14 December 1999, AM v. Italy, Application No. 37019/97.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, 31 October 2001, Solakov v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Application No. 47023/99.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, 23 March 2010, Sommer v. Italy, Application No. 36586/08.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR, 7 January.2010, Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, Application No. 25965/04.

  25. 25.

    At 241.

  26. 26.

    ECtHR, 25 June 1991, Chinoy v. UK, Application No. 15199/89.

  27. 27.

    Gane and Mackarel (1996).

  28. 28.

    ECtHR, 27 June 2000, Echeverri Rodriguez v. Netherlands, Application No. 43286/98.

  29. 29.

    See ECtHR, 6 March 1989, S. v. Austria, Application No. 12592/86.

  30. 30.

    Paragraph 12 of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1992).

  31. 31.

    See Geyer (2008), pp. 2–3.

  32. 32.

    Bunyan (2007).

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 7.

  34. 34.

    See Council of the European Union (2005).

  35. 35.

    McGinley and Parkes (2007), pp. 10–11; McCartney et al. (2011), pp. 314–315.

  36. 36.

    Geyer (2008), p. 10.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR, 4 December 2008, S & Marper v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 30562/04 & 30566/04. See also the decision of the ECJ, 16 December 2008, Heinz Huber v. Germany, C-524/06.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR, S. & Marper v. the United Kingdom (footnote 37), § 112.

  39. 39.

    ECtHR, 2 August 2000, Ikanga v. France, Application No. 32675/96.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, 22 September 2009, Pietiläinen v. Finland, Application No. 13566/06.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR, 19 October 2000, Włoch v. Poland, Application No. 27785/95.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, 8 November 2001, Sari v. Turkey and Denmark, Application Nr. 21889/93.

  43. 43.

    Clearly the jurisprudence of the ECJ suggests that this question should be answered in the negative. See Borgers (2010).

  44. 44.

    ECtHR, 26 June 1992, Drozd & Janousek v. France and Spain, Application No. 12747/87.

  45. 45.

    At 110.

  46. 46.

    Van Hoek et al. 2006, p. 43.

  47. 47.

    See ECoHR, 6 July 1976, X v. Netherlands, Application No. 7512/76; 6 March 1991, Polley v. Belgium, Application No. 12192/86; 18 January 1996, Bakhtiar v. Switzerland, Application No. 27292/95.

  48. 48.

    ECtHR, 7 July 1989, Soering v. UK, Application Nr. 14038/88.

  49. 49.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002.

  50. 50.

    Although a number of states have introduced a human rights conditionality into their national legislation.

  51. 51.

    ECtHR, 30 June 2005, Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizmve Ticaret AnonimSirket v. Ireland, Application No. 45036/98.

  52. 52.

    At 155.

  53. 53.

    Sanger (2010), p. 43.

  54. 54.

    Ibid.

  55. 55.

    Vermeulen et al. (2010a), pp. 49–50.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 57.

Abbreviations

AFSJ:

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

EAW:

European Arrest Warrant

ECHR:

European Convention on Human Rights

ECJ:

European Court of Justice

ECMACM:

European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters

ECO:

European Confiscation Order

ECoHR:

European Commission of Human Rights

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EEO:

European Enforcement Order

EEW:

European Evidence Warrant

EFO:

European Freezing Order

EIO:

European Investigation Order

EPO:

European Protection Order

ESO:

European Supervision Order

References

  • Borgers MJ (2010) Mutual recognition and the European Court of Justice. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 18:99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunyan T (2007) The principle of availability. Statewatch, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of Europe Committee of Ministers (1992) Recommendation no. R (92) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the use of analysis of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage= 1518265& SecMode=1&DocId=601410&Usage=2. Accessed 8 Mar 2012

  • Council of the European Union (2005) Convention on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/05/st10/st10900.en05.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2012

  • Council of the European Union (2010) Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia, the Kingdom of Sweden for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st09/st09288-ad01.en10.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2012

  • European Commission (2009) Green Paper on obtaining evidence in criminal matters from one member state to another and securing its admissibility, com(2009) 624, Brussels, 11 November 2009(b). European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Gane C, Mackarel M (1996) The admissibility of evidence obtained from abroad into criminal proceedings-the interpretation of mutual legal assistance treaties and use of evidence irregularly obtained. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 4:98–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Geyer F (2008) Taking stock: databases and systems of information exchange in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Guild E, Carrera S (2009) Towards the next phase of the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: The European Commission’s proposals for the Stockholm programme. CEPS policy brief no. 196 Centre for European Policy Studies, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Lach A (2009) Transnational gathering of evidence in criminal cases in the EU de lege lata and de lege ferenda. Eur Crim Law Assoc Forum 3:107–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Luchtman M (2011) Choice of forum in an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Utrecht Law Rev 7:74–101

    Google Scholar 

  • McCartney CI, Wilson TJ et al (2011) Transnational exchange of forensic DNA: viability, legitimacy, and acceptability. Eur J Crim Policy Res 17:305–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGinley M, Parkes R (2007) Data protection in the EU’s internal security cooperation. Fundamental rights vs. Effective cooperation. SWP research paper RP5. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitselegas V (2009) EU criminal law. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy C (2011) The European evidence warrant: mutual recognition and mutual (dis) trust? In: Eckes K (ed) Crime within the area of freedom, security and justice: a European public order. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 224–248

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2010) The proposed European Investigation Order. Assault on human rights and national sovereignty. http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-96-european-investigation-order.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Sanger A (2010) Force of circumstance: the European arrest warrant and human rights. Democracy Secur 6:17–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sayers D (2011) The European Investigation Order-travelling without a ‘roadmap’. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelley L (2010) The globalization of crime. In: Natarajan M (ed) International crime and justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Suominen A (2011) Different implementations of mutual recognition framework decisions. European Criminal Law Associations Forum 1:24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoek AAH et al (2006) The European Convention on Human Rights and transnational cooperation in criminal matters. In: Van Hoek AAH, Hol AM et al (eds) Multilevel governance in enforcement and adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 25–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W et al (2010a) EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Maklu, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermeulen G, De Bondt W et al (2010b) Towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence. In: Pauwels L, Vermeulen G (eds) Actualia Strafrecht en Criminologie. Update in de Criminologie v. Gandaius Publicaties, Ghent, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann F, Glaser S et al (2011) Mutual recognition and its implications for the gathering of evidence in criminal proceedings: a critical analysis of the initiative for a European Investigation Order. Eur Crim Law Rev 1:55–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sussex Law School, University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9QQ, UK

    Richard Vogler

Authors
  1. Richard Vogler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Vogler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Public Law "T. Martines", University of Messina, Piazza Pugliatti 1, Messina, 98100, Messina, Italy

    Stefano Ruggeri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vogler, R. (2013). Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Human Rights in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights. In: Ruggeri, S. (eds) Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32012-5_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation