Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in Criminal Proceedings pp 51–84Cite as

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This study deals with the multilevel protection of the right to liberty and security in criminal proceedings, investigating in particular the influence of the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights on the modern European constitutionalism.

The aim of the study is to clarify the decree of the influence of the case law of the two European Courts, with particular reference to the reactions of some European constitutional courts regarding the protection afforded of individual’s freedom and security in criminal proceedings.

Through the use of two case studies the work examines in the first part whether the Italian Constitutional Court in its decisions has taken into account the principles set by Strasbourg Court or has limited itself to the usual domestic constitutional parameters.

The second part of the work is dedicated to the saga of European Arrest Warrant and will serve to illustrate the positions of some European constitutional courts in matters relating to criminal proceedings in light of European Union law and the decisions of the Luxembourg judges. This comparison will provide an opportunity to outline the latest trends in multilevel protection of fundamental rights.

Prof. Dr. Oreste Pollicino is the author of paragraphs from 4 to 4.4 and of paragraph 5.1. Dr. Giancarlo Rando is the author of paragraphs from 1 to 3 and of paragraph 5.2.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Pace (2001), p. 1.

  2. 2.

    “Legislative powers shall be vested in the State and the Regions in compliance with the Constitution and with the constraints deriving from EU legislation and international obligations.”

  3. 3.

    See Pollicino (2010a, b), pp. 65–111.

  4. 4.

    See Pollicino and Sciarabba (2010), pp. 136–157.

  5. 5.

    See, for further details, the study by Aprile and Spiezia (2009), pp. 117 ff.

  6. 6.

    “Italy rejects war as an instrument of aggression against the freedom of other peoples and as a means for the settlement of international disputes. Italy agrees, on conditions of equality with other States, to the limitations of sovereignty that may be necessary to a world order ensuring peace and justice among the Nations. Italy promotes and encourages international organisations furthering such ends.”

  7. 7.

    ECtHR, 13 November 2007, Bocellari and Rizza v. Italy, Application No. 399/02; 8 July 2008, Perre and others v. Italy, Application No. 1905/05; 5 January 2010, Bongiorno and others v. Italy, Application No. 4514/07.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR, 2 July 2009, Vafiadis v. Grece, Application No. 24981/07.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR, 8 November 2007, Lelievre v. Belgium, Application No. 11287/03.

  10. 10.

    ECtHR, 6 November 2003, Pantano v. Italy, Application No. 60851/00.

  11. 11.

    See, for a study of issues of domestic law, the contribution of Sciarabba (2009), pp. 513 ff.

  12. 12.

    Article 10(1) states “The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognised principles of international law.”

  13. 13.

    See the decisions of the ECtHR cited by the Italian Constitutional Court: Grand Chamber, 17 September 2009, Scoppola v. Italy, Application No. 10249/03, § 147; Grand Chamber, 1 March 2006, Sejdovic v. Italy, Application No. 56581/00, § 119; Grand Chamber, 8 April 2004, Assanidzé v. Georgia, Application No. 71503/01, § 198.

  14. 14.

    See ECtHR, Grand Chamber, 17 September 2009, Scoppola v. Italy, § 152.

  15. 15.

    Sólyom (2003a).

  16. 16.

    Sólyom (2003b), pp. 133 ff.

  17. 17.

    Art. 29 TEU.

  18. 18.

    Art. 29 TEU.

  19. 19.

    Currently, to our knowledge, only Spain, Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden have subscribed to the declaration provided for under Art. 35 EU, conferring the power to rule over preliminary questions to the ECJ. This means that the other Member States, although willing, could not address the ECJ for a preliminary question concerning any third pillar-related issue. For an in-depth study, see Fletcher (2007). See also Tridimas (2003), pp. 9 ff.

  20. 20.

    See point 9 of the Consideranda and Art. 7 FD EAW.

  21. 21.

    See, for comparison, points 5, 6 and 10 of the Consideranda, as well as Art. 1(2) FD EAW.

  22. 22.

    For this and the other outlines concerning the discipline of the decision on the EAW, see the broad study by Tracogna (2007), pp. 288 ff.

  23. 23.

    Plachta (1999), pp. 77 ff.

  24. 24.

    In the pre-amendment version of the constitutional texts, the inadmissibility of nationals’ extradition was ratified by the German [Art. 16(2)], Austrian [Art. 12(1)], Latvian (Art. 98), Slovak [Art. 23(4)], Polish (Art. 55), Slovenian (Art. 47), Finnish [Art. 9(3)], Cypriot [Art. 11(2)] and to a lesser extent, by the Czech (Art. 14 of the Fundamental liberties and rights’ Charter) and Portuguese Constitutions.

  25. 25.

    Other constitutional texts provide, as sole exception to the extradition ban, that a different measure be imposed by an international Treaty. See Art. 36(2) of the Estonian Constitution; Art. 26(1) of the Italian Constitution; Art. 13 of the Lithuanian Constitution.

  26. 26.

    Italy was the last European country to transpose the Framework decision through its adoption, on 22 April 2005, of the Law 69/2005. See Impalà (2005), pp. 56 ff. It is worth noting how some very authoritative doctrine had already highlighted, before the adoption of the Framework Decision’s final version, its incompatibility with the constitutional principle, among others, of the peremptory nature of crime. See Caianello and Vassalli (2002), pp. 462 ff.

  27. 27.

    Under Article 33(3) of the Portuguese Constitution, which followed the review: “the extradition of Portuguese citizens from Portuguese territory shall only be permissible where an international agreement has established reciprocal extradition arrangements, or in cases of terrorism or international organised crime, and on condition that the applicant State’s legal system enshrines guarantees of a just and fair trial.”

  28. 28.

    Before the revision of 2001, Article 23(4) provided the right for the Slovak citizens “not to leave their homeland, be expelled or extradited to another State.” The said revision brought to the elimination of the reference to the right not to be extradited.

  29. 29.

    In Latvia, as Balbo was among the first ones to point out, two acts promulgated respectively on June 16th 2004—and in force as of 30 June 2004—and on 17 June 2004—in force as of 21 October 2004—introduced the necessary amendments to implement the constitutional modifications to Article 98 and the other relevant parts of the code of criminal law, in order to execute the EAW of Lithuanian citizens. See Balbo (2011).

  30. 30.

    In the original version, Article 47 of the Slovenian Constitution, provided the extradition ban of its citizens. Following its review, occurred with the Constitutional Act 24—899/2003, the notion of surrender was added, as autonomous constitutional concept, compared to extradition. Today, Article 47 of the Slovenian Constitution states verbatim that: “no Slovenian citizen may be extradited or surrendered (in execution of a EAW), unless the said extradition or surrender order stems from an international Treaty, through which Slovenia has granted part of its sovereign powers to an international organisation.”

  31. 31.

    The German Constitution, in its original wording, utterly banned the extradition of a German citizen. The 47th review to the Basic Law of 29 November 2000, added to the unconditional ban provided for by Article 16(2), the disposition according to which: “no German may be extradited to a foreign country. The law can provide otherwise for extraditions to a Member State of the European Union or to an international Court of justice, as long as the rule of law is upheld.”

  32. 32.

    Prior to the 2000 revision, Article 16 of the Basic Law was rather strict: “no German citizen may be extradited abroad.”

  33. 33.

    Federal Constitutional Court, 18 July 2005, BVerfGE 113, pp. 237 ff. = NJW 2005, pp. 2289 ff. For interesting comments on the commented decision, see: Palermo (2005), pp. 897 ff. See also Tomuschat (2006), pp. 209 ff.; Pierini (2006), pp. 237 ff.; Woelk (2006), pp. 160 ff.; Molders (2006), pp. 45 ff.; Nohlen (2008), pp. 153 ff.

  34. 34.

    Art. 4(7) FD EAW.

  35. 35.

    Komarek (2007), pp. 9 ff., p. 24.

  36. 36.

    ECJ, 11 February 2003, joint cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge.

  37. 37.

    Judge Gebhardt issued a dissenting opinion on the innovations brought about by the Pupino ruling asserting that the Court’s decision contradicts the ECJ ruling of 16 June 2005, where it is emphasised that the principle of Member States’ loyal cooperation in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters must also be respected by the Member State when implementing framework decisions within the third pillar. See Tomuschat (2006), p. 222.

  38. 38.

    ECJ, 16 June 2005, C-105/03, in ECR I-5285, among which see at least: Mazzocchi (2005), pp. 884 ff.; Spaventa (2007), pp. 5 ff.

  39. 39.

    For a cross-reference to independence see the preamble to the Czech Constitution and Arts. 26 and 130 of the Polish Constitution; for the emphasis on State sovereignty, see Art. 1 of the Czech Constitution, the preamble and Arts. 104(2) and 126(2) of the Polish Constitution. For further reference see also Stein (1994), p. 427.

  40. 40.

    One of the first studies on the decision is by Sileoni (2005), p. 894; More recently, Nußberger (2008), pp. 162 ff.

  41. 41.

    AG Kokott’s opinion to case C-105/03, Pupino, in ECR, I-5285.

  42. 42.

    Polish Constitutional Tribunal, dec. 27-4-2005 (P 1/05).

  43. 43.

    Komarek (2007), p. 16.

  44. 44.

    C-168/95, 26 September 1996, Arcaro, in ECR, I-4705, § 42.

  45. 45.

    Amendments to Article 55 of Constitution were made within the deadline provided for in the decision, and as of 7 November 2006, Poland has agreed to the execution of EAW against its nationals, subject to two conditions, which do not appear to be in line with the EU regulation: the fact that the crime has been committed outside Polish territory and that it is recognised under and also capable of being prosecuted under Polish criminal law.

  46. 46.

    See Pollicino (2006), pp. 819 ff.

  47. 47.

    See Piqani (2007) and Herrmann (2007).

  48. 48.

    They have already shown the same attitude with decision PI US 50/04, 8-3-2006. See Pollicino (2006).

  49. 49.

    Preliminary reference by the Cour d’Arbitrage dated 29 October 2005.

  50. 50.

    As it did, instead, according to the Czech judges, the provision of the corresponding Article 23(4) of the Slovak Constitution which, prior to the constitutional revision of 2001, made express reference of the extradition ban of Slovak citizens.

  51. 51.

    ECJ, 11 February 2003, joint cases C-187/01 and C-385/01, Hüseyin Gözütok and Klaus Brügge.

  52. 52.

    Kumm (1999), pp. 351 ff., p. 366.

  53. 53.

    For a recent contribution on the primary role that sovereignty plays within the European scenario which is characterized, more and more, by conflicts arising within legal orders, see Jakab (2006), pp. 375 ff.

  54. 54.

    See Kowalik-Banczyk (2005), pp. 1360–1361. Along the same lines, Angelika Nußberger, the judgment might seem to suggest that the tribunal denies the supremacy of EU law and is adopting an euro-skeptical position, in fact, the opposite is true: see Nußberger (2008), pp. 162 ff., p. 166.

  55. 55.

    In Italy, one of the most extensive studies of this issue was done by Antonio Ruggeri. Amongst his numerous papers dealing with this subject, see at least the following, Ruggeri (2002), pp. 63 ff.; Ruggeri (2003), pp. 102 ff. Such an axiologically-oriented view seems to share the reconstructive bases of MacCormick and of those supporting the constitutional pluralism rule in the framework of the relationship between the constitutional and supranational legal orders. See MacCormick (1993), at p. 1; MacCormick (1999); Maduro (2003); Walker (2002), pp. 317 ff.

  56. 56.

    Kumm (2005), pp. 262 ff., p. 286.

  57. 57.

    See Ruggeri (2011b).

  58. 58.

    See Ruggeri (2011a).

  59. 59.

    Ruggeri (2011b).

  60. 60.

    Ibid.

  61. 61.

    For this and the subsequent quotations, unless otherwise specified, see Ruggeri (2011b).

Abbreviations

CCP:

Code of Criminal Procedure

CEE:

Central and Eastern European

EAW:

European Arrest Warrant

ECHR:

European Convention on Human Rights

ECJ:

European Court of Justice

ECtHR:

European Court of Human Rights

EU:

European Union

FD EAW:

Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant

ICCPR:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

JHA:

Justice and Home Affairs

TEU:

Treaty on European Union

TFEU:

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

References

  • Aprile E, Spiezia F (2009) Cooperazione giudiziaria penale nell’Unione europea prima e dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. IPSOA, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Balbo P (2011) I sistemi giurisdizionali nazionali di fronte all’interpretazione del mandato di arresto europeo. www.giurcost.org/studi/balbo.html. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Caianello V, Vassalli G (2002) Parere sulla proposta di decisione quadro sul mandato di arresto europeo. Cassazione penale 462 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher M (2007) The European Court of Justice carving itself an influential role in the EU third pillar. Paper submitted for presentation at the Montreal International Conference of May 17–19 2007. www.unc.edu/euce/eusa2007/papers/fletcher-m-08i.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Herrmann CW (2007) Much Ado about Pluto? The unity of the legal order of the European Union revisited. EUI Working paper 2007/05. www.eui.eu/RSCAS/WP-Texts/07_05.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Impalà F (2005) The European Arrest Warrant in the Italian legal system between mutual recognition and mutual fear within the European area of Freedom Security and Justice. Utrecht Law Rev 1:56 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakab A (2006) Neutralizing the sovereignty question. Eur Const Law Rev 2:375 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Komarek J (2007) European Constitutionalism and the European Arrest Warrant: in search of the limits of the “contrapunctual principles”. Common Mark Law Rev 44:9 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowalik-Banczyk K (2005) Should we polish it up? The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the Idea of Supremacy of EU Law. German Law J 6:1360–1361

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (1999) Who is the final arbiter of constitutionality in Europe? Three conceptions of the relationship between the German federal constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. Common Mark Law Rev 36:351 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumm M (2005) The jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe before and after the Constitutional Treaty. Eur Law J 11:262 ff

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1993) Beyond the sovereign State. Mod Law Rev 56:1 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCormick N (1999) Questioning sovereignty. Law State and Nation in European Commonwealth. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Maduro MP (2003) Contrapunctual law: Europe’s Constitutional pluralism in Action. In: Walker N (ed) Sovereignty in transition. Hart, Oxford, pp 501–537

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzocchi V (2005) Il caso Pupino e il principio di interpretazione conforme delle decisioni quadro. Quaderni costituzionali 884 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Molders S (2006) Case note The European Arrest Warrant in the German Federal Constitutional Court. German Law J 7:45 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohlen N (2008) Germany: the European Arrest Warrant case. Int J Const Law 6:153 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Nußberger A (2008) Poland: the Constitutional Tribunal on the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant. Int J Const Law 6:162 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace A (2001) La limitata incidenza della CEDU sulle libertà politiche e civili in Italia. Diritto pubblico 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Palermo F (2005) La sentenza del Bundesverfassungsgericht sul mandato di arresto europeo. Quaderni costituzionali 897 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierini J P (2006) Il mandato d’arresto europeo alla prova del Bundesverfassungsgericht tedesco: «schiaffo» all’Europa o cura negligente dei diritti del nazionale da parte del legislatore? Cassazione penale 237 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Piqani D (2007) Supremacy of European Law revisited: new developments in the context of the Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe. Paper presented at the VII World Conference of the Constitutional Law International Association. Athens, June 11–15 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Plachta M (1999) (Non) extradition of nationals: a never ending story? Emory Int Law Rev 13:77 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2006) Dall’Est una lezione sui rapporti tra diritto costituzionale e diritto comunitario. Diritto dell’Unione Europea 819 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2010a) Allargamento dell’Europa a Est e rapporto tra Corti costituzionali e Corti europee. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O (2010b) The relationship between Member States and the European Courts after enlargement: toward a Unitarian Theory of Jurisprudential Supranational Law?. YB Eur Law 65–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollicino O, Sciarabba V (2010) Interazione fra funzioni della politica e funzioni delle Corti sovranazionali europee (Interactions betweens the role of Political Powers and the role of the European Courts in Italian). In: De Vergottini G, Frosini TE (eds) Percorsi costituzionali 2/2010 – Corti costituzionali e politica, pp 136–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri A (2002) Prospettive metodiche di ricostruzione del sistema delle fonti e Carte Internazionali dei diritti tra teoria delle fonti e teoria dell’interpretazione. Ragion Pratica 63 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri A (2003) Tradizioni costituzionali comuni e “controlimiti” tra teoria delle fonti e teoria dell’interpretazione. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 102 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggeri A (2011a) La Corte fa il punto sul rilievo interno della CEDU e della Carta di Nizza-Strasburgo (a prima lettura di Corte costituzionale 80/2011). www.forumcostituzionale.it/site/images/stories/pdf/documenti_forum/giurisprudenza/2011/0002_nota_80_2011_ruggeri.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Ruggeri A (2011b) La cedevolezza della cosa giudicata all’impatto con la CEDU dopo la svolta di Corte cost 113/2011 ovverosia quando la certezza del diritto è obbligata a cedere il passo alla certezza dei diritti. Legislazione penale 2:481–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarabba V (2009) La “riapertura” del giudicato in seguito a sentenze della Corte di Strasburgo: questioni generali e profili interni. Giurisprudenza costituzionale 1:513 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Sileoni S (2005) La Corte costituzionale polacca il mandato arresto europeo e la sentenza sul trattato di Adesione all’UE. Quaderni costituzionali 894 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Sólyom L (2003a) Constitutional justice some comparative remarks Conference on “Constitutional Justice and the Rule of Law” on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania (Vilnius 4–5 September 2003). www.venice.coeint/docs/2003/CDL-JU(2003)030-easp. Accessed 22 Aug 2011

  • Sólyom L (2003b) The Role of Constitutional Courts in the transition to democracy. Int Sociol 18:133 ff

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spaventa E (2007) Opening Pandora’s Box: some reflections on the constitutional effect of the decision in Pupino. Eur Const Law Rev 3:5 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein E (1994) International Law in Internal Law. Am J Int Law 88:427 ff

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2006) Inconstencies. The German Federal Constitutional Court on the European Arrest Warrant. Eur Const Law Rev 2:209 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracogna C (2007) La tutela della libertà personale nel procedimento di consegna attivato dal mandato d'arresto europeo. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale 988 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Tridimas T (2003) Knocking on Heaven’s Door: fragmentation efficiency and defiance in the preliminary reference procedure. Common Mark Law Rev 40:9 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker N (2002) The idea of constitutionalism pluralism. Mod Law Rev 65:317 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Woelk J (2006) Parlare a nuora perché suocera intenda: il BVerfG dichiara incostituzionale la legge di attuazione del mandato d’arresto europeo. Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 160 ff

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Studies “A. Sraffa”, “L. Bocconi” University, Via Roentgen No. 1, Milano, Italy

    Oreste Pollicino

  2. University “G. Fortunato”, Viale Raffaele Delcogliano No. 12, Benevento, Italy

    Giancarlo Rando

Authors
  1. Oreste Pollicino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giancarlo Rando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oreste Pollicino .

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

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. (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_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation