Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Judicial Protection in International and EU Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Protection in Transnational Criminal Proceedings

Abstract

Comparative analysis has shown that the right to an effective legal remedy is a common feature of the examined criminal justice systems. To a wide extent, the mechanisms of judicial protection are construed by analogy with the corresponding rules in domestic criminal proceedings, thereby extending existing loopholes to transnational proceedings. Instead of addressing the vulnerability of individuals in this particular transnational setting, the states tend to limit judicial protection in international cooperation in criminal matters by the principle of trust in and respect for the sovereignty of other states and the understanding that cross-border cooperation forms part of interstate relations that do not affect the rights of individuals as such. The comparative analysis has already revealed that this traditional understanding does not reflect recent developments in international and European human rights standards. This chapter shall, therefore, analyse and explore the international and EU rules on judicial protection in transnational criminal proceedings. To this end, the first subsection will give a brief overview on the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the corresponding guarantees in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU-CFR) and EU legislation on the law of criminal procedure. On this basis, the second part will elaborate on judicial protection in transnational proceedings in the light of human rights standards and EU legislation and the principle of mutual recognition in particular.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Meyer (2020), § 44 para. 3.

  2. 2.

    ECtHR, judgment of 16 December 1997, Application no. 21353/93 (Camenzind v. Switzerland), para. 53.

  3. 3.

    Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 13 paras. 2, 12.

  4. 4.

    Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 13 paras. 10, 21.

  5. 5.

    Breuer (2015), Art. 13 para. 21.

  6. 6.

    ECtHR, judgment of 25 March 1983, Application no. 5947/72 (Silver and other v. United Kingdom), para. 116; Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 13 para. 14.

  7. 7.

    ECtHR, judgment of 27 January 2005, Application no. 55057/00 (Sidjimov v. Bulgaria), para. 41.

  8. 8.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 4 July 2006, Application no. 59450/00, (Ramirez Sanchez v. France), para. 165.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR, judgment of 29 March 2006, Application no. 36183/97 (Scordino v. Italy No. 1), para. 187.

  10. 10.

    ECtHR, judgment of 5 February 2002, Application no. 51564/99 (Conka v. Belgium), para. 79.

  11. 11.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 13 December 2012, Application no. 22689/07 (De Souza Ribeiro v. France), paras. 82, 83; for extradition see ECtHR, judgment of 5 July 2016, Application no. 29094/09 (A.M. v. the Netherlands), para. 66.

  12. 12.

    Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 5 paras. 40, 41, with further references.

  13. 13.

    ECtHR, judgment of 7 June 2011, Application no. 277/05 (S.T.S. v. the Netherlands), para. 48.

  14. 14.

    ECtHR, judgment of 18 March 2008, Application no. 11036/03 (Ladent v. Poland), para. 74.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 25 March 1999, Application no. 31195/96 (Nikolova v. Bulgaria), para. 49.

  16. 16.

    European Commission of Human Rights, report of 15 July 1983, Application no. 8582/79 (Skoogström v. Sweden), paras. 77–79; ECtHR, judgment of 28 October 1998, Application no. 24760/94 (Assenov v. Bulgaria), paras. 146, 149; judgment of 23 November 2010, Application no. 37104/06 (Moulin v. France), para. 57; see also ECtHR, judgment of 4 December 1979, Application no. 7710/76 (Schiesser v. Switzerland), para. 34.

  17. 17.

    ECtHR, judgment of 3 October 2006, Application no. 543/04 (McKay v. United Kingdom), para. 33.

  18. 18.

    Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 5 para. 32; Meyer (2015), Art. 5 para. 216, with further references.

  19. 19.

    ECtHR, judgment of 27 June 2013, Application no. 62736/09 (Vassis v. France), para. 60.

  20. 20.

    Meyer (2015), Art. 5 para. 221.

  21. 21.

    ECtHR, judgment of 16 December 1997, Application no. 21353/93 (Camenzind v. Switzerland), para. 45; judgment of 15 October 2013, Application no. 34529/10 (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria), para. 220.

  22. 22.

    ECtHR, judgment of 12 January 2016, Application no. 37138/14 (Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary), para. 77.

  23. 23.

    ECtHR, ibid., referring to judgment of 22 November 2012, Application no. 39315/06 (Telegraaf Media Nederland v. the Netherlands), paras. 100, 101 (media), and judgment of 25 March 1998, Application no. 23224/94 (Kopp v. Switzerland), para. 74 (legal professional privilege).

  24. 24.

    ECtHR, judgment of 7 June 2007, Application no. 71362/01 (Smirnov v. Russia), para. 45; judgment of 15 October 2013, Application no. 34529/10 (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria), para. 225.

  25. 25.

    ECtHR, judgment of 12 January 2016, Application no. 37138/14 (Szabó and Vissy v. Hungary), paras. 77, 83.

  26. 26.

    CJEU, judgment of 29 January 2013, Case C-396/11 (Radu), paras. 32 ff.; judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-399/11 (Melloni), paras. 48 ff.; Allegrezza (2018), pp. 103 f.

  27. 27.

    Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America of 25 June 2003, O.J. 2003 L 181/27.

  28. 28.

    Agreement between the European Union and Japan on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters of 15 December 2009, O.J. 2010 L 39/20.

  29. 29.

    CJEU, judgment of 10 April 2018, Case C-191/16 (Pisciotti), paras. 31–32, 35; see also CJEU, judgment of 2 April 2020, Case C-897/19 (IN), paras. 63–64, on the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

  30. 30.

    Explanations relating to Art. 51 EU-CFR, O.J. 2007 C 303/17 (32).

  31. 31.

    CJEU, judgment of 6 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), para. 52; see also CJEU, judgment of 10 April 2018, Case C-191/16 (Pisciotti), paras. 33, 35.

  32. 32.

    CJEU, judgment of 6 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), paras. 55 ff.; judgment of 2 April 2020, Case C-897/19 (IN), paras. 64 ff.

  33. 33.

    Allegrezza (2018), pp. 104 ff. (also with regard to the investigation and prosecution of harmonised offences).

  34. 34.

    Explanations relating to Art. 51 EU-CFR, O.J. 2007 C 303/17 (29).

  35. 35.

    The case-law of the ECtHR on the requirement of an “arguable claim” (above Sect. 11.1) applies accordingly, see Hofmann (2014), paras. 47.55.

  36. 36.

    Allegrezza (2018), p. 100.

  37. 37.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 May 1986, Case 222/86 (Johnston), para. 18.

  38. 38.

    Explanations relating to Art. 51 EU-CFR, O.J. 2007 C 303/17 (29).

  39. 39.

    Hofmann (2014), para. 47.52.

  40. 40.

    CJEU, judgment of 17 September 1997, Case C-54/96 (Dorsch Consult), para. 23.

  41. 41.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 January 2004, Case C-235/02 (Saetti and Frediani), para. 23.

  42. 42.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 1996, Case C-74/95 (X), paras. 19, 20; see also Allegrezza (2018), pp. 110 f.

  43. 43.

    Hofmann 2014, para. 47.56, referring to CJEU, judgment of 19 June 1990, Case C-213/89 (Factortame), paras. 19, 20.

  44. 44.

    Art. 12 Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, O.J. 2013 L 294/1; Art. 10 Directive 2016/343/EU of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2016 L 65/1; see the analysis by Covolo (2018), pp. 86 f.

  45. 45.

    CJEU, judgment of 15 March 2017, C-528/15 (Al Chodor), para. 37; judgment of 14 September 2017, C-18/16 (K.), para. 50; judgment of 12 February 2019, Case C-492/18 PPU (TC), para. 57.

  46. 46.

    Covolo (2018), p. 91.

  47. 47.

    CJEU, judgment of 26 March 2019, Case C-129/18 (SM), para. 65, with further references.

  48. 48.

    CJEU, judgment of 17 December 2015, Case C-419/14 (WebMindLicenses), paras. 77, 78.

  49. 49.

    Art. 21 para. 3 Regulation (EC) 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, O.J. 2003 L 1/1.

  50. 50.

    CJEU, judgment of 17 December 2015, Case C-419/14 (WebMindLicenses), paras. 87 ff.

  51. 51.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 8 July 2004, Application no. 48787/99 (Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia), para. 311.

  52. 52.

    Meyer (2015), Art. 1 para. 20.

  53. 53.

    Schomburg et al. (2020), Introduction paras. 145 ff.

  54. 54.

    ECtHR, judgment of 21 April 2009 Application no. 11956/07 (Stephens v. Malta), para. 52; judgment of 2 May 2017, Application no. 15944/11 (Vasiliciuc v. Moldova), paras. 23 f.

  55. 55.

    ECtHR, decision of 3 April 2007, Application no. 29453/02 (Collmann v. Germany), para. 1.

  56. 56.

    ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 1989, Application no. 14038/88 (Soering v. United Kingdom), para. 111; see also Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 3 paras. 13 ff., with further references.

  57. 57.

    ECtHR, ibid., para. 91.

  58. 58.

    ECtHR, ibid., paras. 100 ff.

  59. 59.

    ECtHR, judgment of 29 October 2015, Application no. 44095/14 (A.L. [X.W.] v. Russia), para. 64.

  60. 60.

    ECtHR, judgment of 24 July 2014, Application no. 28761/11 (Al Nashiri v. Poland), para. 576.

  61. 61.

    ECtHR, judgment of 4 September 2014, Application no. 140/10 (Trabelsi v. Belgium), para. 138.

  62. 62.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 4 February 2005, Application no. 46827/99 and 46951/99 (Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey), paras. 88 ff.; judgment of 15 June 2017, Application no. 71537/14 (Harkins v. United Kingdom), paras. 62 ff.; ECtHR, judgment of 7 July 1989, Application no. 14038/88 (Soering v. United Kingdom), para. 113; judgment of 2012, Application no. 8139/09 (Othman [Abu Qatada v. United Kingdom), paras. 258 ff., 285; judgment of 9 July 2019, Application no. 3598/10 (Kislov v. Russia), paras. 77, 105 ff.

  63. 63.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 15 June 2017, Application no. 71537/14 (Harkins v. United Kingdom), paras. 63 f.; ECtHR, judgment of 17 January 2012, Application no. 8139/09 (Othman [Abu Qatada v. United Kingdom), paras. 259 f.

  64. 64.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 13 December 2012, Application no. 39630/09 (El-Masri v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), para. 239; ECtHR, judgment of 17 January 2012, Application no. 8139/09 (Othman [Abu Qatada v. United Kingdom), para. 233.

  65. 65.

    See also with regard to Art. 3 ECHR: Meyer (2015), Art. 2 para. 32, Art. 3 para. 93.

  66. 66.

    ECtHR, judgment of 21 April 2009 Application no. 11956/07 (Stephens v. Malta), para. 52; judgment of 2 May 2017, Application no. 15944/11 (Vasiliciuc v. Moldova), para. 24.

  67. 67.

    See ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 13 December 2012, Application no. 39630/09 (El-Masri v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), paras. 248 f.

  68. 68.

    ECtHR, judgment of 9 October 2003, Application no. 48321/99 (Slivenko v. Latvia), paras. 93 f.

  69. 69.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 18 October 2006, Application no. 46410/99 (Üner v. Switzerland), paras. 57 f.; ECtHR, judgment of 2 August 2001, Application no. 54273/00 (Boultif v. Switzerland), para. 48.

  70. 70.

    Esser (2012), Art. 8 para. 129; Meyer (2015), Art. 8 para. 252.

  71. 71.

    Art. 3 f) UN Model Treaty on Extradition, General Assembly resolution 45/116 of 14 December 1990; see also Art. 3 g) (judgments rendered in absentia), Art. 4 d) (death penalty) and h) (humanitarian considerations in view of age, health or other personal circumstances).

  72. 72.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-399/11 (Melloni), para. 38.

  73. 73.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 5 April 2016, Case C-404/15 (Aranyosi and Caldararu), paras. 83 ff.

  74. 74.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 25 July 2018, Case C-216/18 PPU (LM), paras. 60 ff.

  75. 75.

    Burchard (2020), § 14 para. 36.

  76. 76.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 30 June 2005, Application no. 45036/98 (Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland), paras. 155 f.

  77. 77.

    ECtHR, judgment of 17 April 2018, Application no. 21055/11 (Pirozzi v. Belgium), paras. 57, 62 f.

  78. 78.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 5 April 2016, Case C-404/15 (Aranyosi and Caldaru), para. 80.

  79. 79.

    Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European investigation order in criminal matters, O.J. 2014 L 130/1.

  80. 80.

    See e.g. Art. 3 no. 1 (amnesty), no. 2 (ne bis in idem), no. 3 (protection of minors).

  81. 81.

    Cour de Cassation, judgment of 12 April 2016, N° 16-82175.

  82. 82.

    Higher Regional Court Stuttgart, decision of 25 February 2010 – no. 1 Ausl (24) 1246/09; see the comparative analysis of the implementation practice in France, Germany and the Netherlands: Böse (2013), p. 349.

  83. 83.

    Commission Notice of 28 September 2017, O.J. 2017 C 335/1 (14 f., 34).

  84. 84.

    Supra note 53.

  85. 85.

    ECtHR, judgment of 27 October 2011, Application no. 25303/08 (Stojkovic v. France and Belgium).

  86. 86.

    ECtHR, ibid., para. 55.

  87. 87.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 4 February 2005, Application no. 46827/99 and 46951/99 (Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey); ECtHR, decision of 27 June 2006, Application no. 28578/03 (Szabó v. Sweden).

  88. 88.

    ECtHR, judgment of 1 April 2010, Application no. 27804/05 (Buijens v. Germany), para. 42. During trial, the public prosecutor had given an assurance that the defendant, after a final conviction, would be transferred to the Netherlands for the purpose of enforcement of his sentence.

  89. 89.

    Gleß (2013), p. 108; Meyer (2015), Art. 6 para. 65.

  90. 90.

    Art. 2 para. 7, Art. 3 para. 6 Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2010 L 280/1; Art. 5 Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2012 L 142/1; Art. 10 Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty, O.J. 2013 L 294/1; Art. 17 Directive 2016/800/EU of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2016 L 132/1; Art. 5 Directive 2016/1919/EU of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings, O.J. 2016 L 297/1.

  91. 91.

    Grabenwarter (2014), Art. 2 para. 22, Art. 3 para. 8, with further references.

  92. 92.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 29 January 2019, Application no. 36925/07 (Güzelyurtlu v. Cyprus and Turkey), paras. 230 ff.

  93. 93.

    ECtHR, judgment of 13 April 2017, Application no. 10653/10 (Huseynova v. Azerbaijan), para. 111.

  94. 94.

    ECtHR, judgment of 9 July 2019, Application no. 8351/17 (Romeo Castaño v. Belgium), paras. 80 ff., 91.

  95. 95.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 4 December 2015, Application no. 47143/06 (Roman Zakharov v. Russia), para. 233.

  96. 96.

    See the comparative analysis 10.1.2.2.

  97. 97.

    Meyer (2015), Art. 8 para. 144.

  98. 98.

    See the comparative analysis 10.1.2.2.

  99. 99.

    Art. 6 para. 1 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant, O.J. 2002 L 190/1; Art. 2 c) Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European investigation order in criminal matters, O.J. 2014 L 130/1.

  100. 100.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 67–68; CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-509/18 (PF), paras. 45–46.

  101. 101.

    AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 30 April 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 57 ff.

  102. 102.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 67–68; CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-509/18 (PF), paras. 45–46.

  103. 103.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-509/18 (PF), paras. 55–56.

  104. 104.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Joined Cases C-566/19 PPU and C-626/19 PPU (JR and YC), paras. 45-56; CJEU, order of 21 January 2020, Case C-819/19 PPU (MN), paras. 40–41.

  105. 105.

    AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 30 April 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 90 ff., 100.

  106. 106.

    Böse (2020), 1269-1270; see also the detailed reasoning per Lord Phillips, UK Supreme Court, judgment of 30 May 2012 (Assange v. The Swedish Prosecution Service) [2012] UKSC 22, paras. 39 ff., 60 ff.

  107. 107.

    AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 30 April 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 59, 62–63.

  108. 108.

    See with regard to validation by courts: CJEU, judgment of 9 October 2019, Case C-489/19 PPU (NJ), paras. 46–48.

  109. 109.

    See the comparative analysis 10.1.2.2.

  110. 110.

    Albers et al. (2013), p. 365; Burchard (2020), para. 52.

  111. 111.

    Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 5 November 2003, 2 BvR 1506/03, (109) official court reports (BVerfGE) 38, p. 59. For the different legal tradition in common law states see Supreme Court of Canada, decision of 21 July 2006, United States of America v. Ferras, SCC 33 paras. 19 ff.

  112. 112.

    See in this regard, Art. 17 and 23 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant, O.J. 2002 L 190/1; see also CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, Case C-237/15 (Lanigan); CJEU, judgment of 12 February 2019, Case C-492/18 PPU (TC).

  113. 113.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU (ZB), paras. 26–27.

  114. 114.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU (ZB), paras. 35, 39.

  115. 115.

    Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 26 November 2019, Case C-627/19 (ZB), paras. 26 ff.

  116. 116.

    AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 30 April 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), paras. 38–39.

  117. 117.

    Art. 2 c) Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European investigation order in criminal matters, O.J. 2014 L 130/1.

  118. 118.

    Cf. Knytel (2019), pp. 350 f. (with regard to European investigation orders issued by French and to be executed by German authorities). On the other hand, foreign authorities cannot be expected to abide by the German provisions on the protection of the core area of private life when executing surveillance measures according to a European investigation order issued by Germany (§ 100e German Code of Criminal Procedure), e.g. to interrupt the measure when statements concerning this core area are recorded.

  119. 119.

    Art. 14 para. 2 Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European investigation order in criminal matters, O.J. 2014 L 130/1; Art. 33 para. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, O.J. 2018 L 303/1.

  120. 120.

    In the framework of transnational enforcement of sentences, the term ‘requesting’ state refers to the sentencing state irrespective of whether the sentencing or the administering state files the request.

  121. 121.

    Art. 6 para. 3 Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, O.J. 2008 L 327/27.

  122. 122.

    See for the corresponding requirement in Germany and Italy the comparative analysis 10.1.2.2.

  123. 123.

    Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 25 March 1981, 2 BvR 1258/79, (34) Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, pp. 1154 (1156).

  124. 124.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), para. 75; judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-509/18 (PF), para. 53.

  125. 125.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Case C-625/19 PPU (XD), paras. 43 f., 50 ff.; judgment of 12 December 2019, Joined Cases C-566/9 PPU and C-626/19 PPU (JR and YC), paras. 64 f., 68 ff.

  126. 126.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU (ZB), paras. 35–36.

  127. 127.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU (ZB), para. 38.

  128. 128.

    Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona of 26 November 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU, paras. 26, 30, 32.

  129. 129.

    Commission Notice – Handbook on how to issue and execute a European arrest warrant, O.J. 2017 L 335/1 (14).

  130. 130.

    Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona of 26 November 2019, Case C-627/19 PPU, paras. 29, 33.

  131. 131.

    CJEU, judgment of 12 December 2019, Joined Cases C-566/9 PPU and C-626/19 PPU (JR and YC), paras. 70–71.

  132. 132.

    CJEU, ibid., para. 72.

  133. 133.

    See also Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona of 2 November 2019, Joined Cases C-566/19 PPU and C-626/19 PPU (JR and YC), para. 91.

  134. 134.

    Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona of 2 November 2019, Joined Cases C-566/19 PPU and C-626/19 PPU (JR and YC), paras. 91, 97.

  135. 135.

    Opinion of AG Bot of 11 April 2019, Case C-324/17 (Gavanozov), paras. 54–56, 68.

  136. 136.

    Ibid. paras. 56–57.

  137. 137.

    CJEU, judgment of 24 October 2019, Case C-324/17 (Gavanozov), paras. 25 ff., 37.

  138. 138.

    Opinion of AG Bot of 11 April 2019, Case C-324/17 (Gavanozov), paras. 65–66.

  139. 139.

    See e.g. §§ 79 ff. German Penal Code. In this regard, the executing state will not provide judicial protection as the scope of judicial review will be limited to the assessment of whether enforcement is time-barred under domestic law (see e.g. Art. 7 para. 2 lit. c Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties of 24 February 2005, O.J. L76/16).

  140. 140.

    ECtHR, judgment of 1 April 2010, Application no. 27804/05 (Buijen v. Germany), paras. 62–63.

  141. 141.

    ECtHR, ibid., paras. 43–44.

  142. 142.

    ECtHR, judgment of 15 June 2004, Application no. 40847/98 (Tamminen v. Finland), paras. 39–41.

  143. 143.

    Cf. Bachmeier Winter (2010), p. 587, referring to the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings as an element of the right to a fair trial (Art. 6 ECHR).

  144. 144.

    Administrative Court Cologne, judgment of 7 December 2010, 5 K 7161, commented by Wilkitzki (2011), pp. 1117 ff.

  145. 145.

    Meyer (2015), Art. 5 ECHR para. 205.

  146. 146.

    See the request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium), 4 July 2019 (YU, ZV v AZ), Case C-510/19 (pending).

  147. 147.

    See also recital (8) FD EAW: “Decisions on the execution of the European arrest warrant must be subject to sufficient controls, which means that a judicial authority of the Member State where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender.”

  148. 148.

    CJEU, judgment of 30 May 2013, Case C-168/13 (Jeremy F), paras. 42, 45–47.

  149. 149.

    Ibid., para. 48. In Jeremy F (note 148), the applicant had appealed the decision of the Appellate Court of Bordeaux (acting as executing authority).

  150. 150.

    Ibid., para. 55.

  151. 151.

    Ibid., paras. 58, 60–61.

  152. 152.

    See the most recent overview provided by the General Secretariat of the Council, Doc. No. 5471/20 of 11 February 2020.

  153. 153.

    Art. 2 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, O.J. 2005 L 76/16; Art. 2 Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union, O.J. 2008 L 327/27.

  154. 154.

    Art. 2 para. 9 Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders, O.J. 2018 L 303/1.

  155. 155.

    Art. 2 d) Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European investigation order in criminal matters, O.J. 2014 L 130/1.

  156. 156.

    See also Art. 14 para. 1 Directive 2014/41/EU.

  157. 157.

    See also Art. 14 para. 3 Directive 2014/41/EU.

  158. 158.

    See the mechanism in the Netherlands, comparative analysis (Sect. 10.1.2.).

  159. 159.

    ECtHR, judgment of 13 December 2012, Application no. 22689/07 (De Souza Ribeiro v. France), para. 82; judgment of 14 February 2017, Application no. 46721/15 (Allanazarova v. Russia), paras. 98–99.

  160. 160.

    See e.g. Art. 9 ff. of the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983 (ETS N. 112), and the explanatory report, paras. 49, 54.

  161. 161.

    ECtHR, judgment of 21 October 1986, Application no. 9862/82 (Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland), para. 57.

  162. 162.

    ECtHR, judgment of 28 April 2005, Application no. 41604/98 (Buck v. Germany), para. 45; judgment of 7 June 2007, Application no. 71362/01 (Smirnov v. Russia), para. 44.

  163. 163.

    Kahl (2013), para. 50.

  164. 164.

    ECtHR, judgment of 13 December 2012, Application no. 22689/07 (De Souza Ribeiro v. France), para. 82.

  165. 165.

    ECtHR, judgment of 28 June 2011, Application no. 8319/07 (Sufi and Elmie v. United Kingdom), paras. 213–214.

  166. 166.

    ECtHR, judgment of 23 October 2008, Application no. 2440/07 (Soldatenko v. Ukraine), para. 72; judgment of 19 November 2009, Application no. 41015/04 (Kaboulov v. Ukraine), para. 112.

  167. 167.

    ECtHR, judgment of 28 June 2011, Application no. 8319/07 (Sufi and Elmie v. United Kingdom), para. 213.

  168. 168.

    ECtHR, judgment of 17 January 2012, Application no. 8139/09 (Othman [Abu Qatada v. United Kingdom]), para. 260.

  169. 169.

    See for the Court’s holistic approach (overall fairness of proceedings): ECtHR (GC), judgment of 25 March 1999, Application no. 25444/94 (Pélissier and Sassi v. France), paras. 45–46.

  170. 170.

    ECtHR, judgment of 9 July 2019, Application no. 3598/10 (Kislov v. Russia), paras. 110 ff.

  171. 171.

    Art. 12 Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, O.J. 2002 L 190/1.

  172. 172.

    CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, Case C-237/15 (Lanigan), paras. 54–55, 58–59; judgment of 12 February 2019, Case C-492/18 PPU (TC), paras. 55–56.

  173. 173.

    AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, opinion of 30 April 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), para. 63.

  174. 174.

    Art. 12 Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant; CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, Case C-237/15 (Lanigan), para. 61; judgment of 12 February 2019, Case C-492/18 PPU (TC), para. 48.

  175. 175.

    Cf. CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, Case C-237/15 (Lanigan), para. 59.

  176. 176.

    CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 5 April 2016, Case C-404/15 (Aranyosi and Caldaru), paras. 83 ff.

  177. 177.

    Esser (2011), pp. 1505 f.

  178. 178.

    Ahlbrecht (2018), p. 607, with further references.

  179. 179.

    See also Zimmermann (2020), para. 55.

  180. 180.

    CJEU, judgment of 27 May 2019, Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 (OG and PI), para. 75; judgment of 27 May 2019, Case C-509/18 (PF), para. 53.

  181. 181.

    Opinion of AG Bot of 11 April 2019, Case C-324/17 (Gavanozov), paras. 54–56, 68.

  182. 182.

    See the comparative analysis, 10.2.3.

  183. 183.

    Art. 68 para. 2 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of 28 November 2018 on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, O.J. 2018 L 312/56.

  184. 184.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), judgment of 4 February 2005, Application no. 46827/99 and 46951/99 (Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey), paras. 81–82.

  185. 185.

    ECtHR, Decision of 27 June 2006, Application no. 28578/03 (Szábo v. Sweden).

  186. 186.

    ECtHR, judgment of 27 October 2011, Application no. 25303/08 (Stojkovic v. Belgium and France), para. 38.

  187. 187.

    Meyer 2019, Art. 6 para. 65, with further references.

  188. 188.

    Meyer 2019, Art. 6 para. 65.

  189. 189.

    Art. 1 para. 1 Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2010 L 280/1; Art. 1 Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings, O.J. 2012 L 142/1.

  190. 190.

    ECtHR, judgment of 9 July 2019, Application no. 8351/17 (Romeo Castaño v. Belgium), paras. 80 ff., 91.

References

  • Ahlbrecht H (2018) Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung – Durchsuchung à la Europäischer Haftbefehl In. Strafverteidiger 38:601–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert J-F, Böse M, Langbroek P, Renier A, Wahl T (2013) Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2013/09/27/final-report-towards-a-common-evaluation-framework-to-assess-mutual-trust-in-the-fieldof-eu-judicial-cooperation-in-criminal-m/j-18664-web-rapport-rechtsstaatmonitor-en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020

  • Allegrezza S (2018) Judicial review as a fundamental right: Article 47 of the Charter. In: Allegrezza S, Covolo V (eds) Effective defence rights in criminal proceedings. A European and comparative study on judicial remedies. Wolters Kluwer Italia, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachmeier Winter L (2010) European investigation order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings study of the proposal for a European directive. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 5(9):580–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2013) Comparative overview of the country reports and surveys. In: Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert J-F, Böse M, Langbroek P, Renier A, Wahl T (eds) Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters. https://www.government.nl/binaries/government/documents/reports/2013/09/27/final-report-towards-a-common-evaluation-framework-to-assess-mutual-trust-in-the-field-of-eu-judicial-cooperation-in-criminal-m/j-18664-web-rapport-rechtsstaatmonitor-en.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2020

  • Böse M (2020) The European Arrest Warrant and the independence of public prosecutors: OG & PI, PF, JR & YC. Common Market Law Review Vol. 57 no. 4: 1259-1282

    Google Scholar 

  • Breuer M (2015) Art. 13 EMRK. In: Karpenstein U, Mayer FC (eds) EMRK Kommentar, 2nd edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchard C (2020) § 14 Auslieferung (Europäischer Haftbefehl). In: Böse M (ed) Europäisches Strafrecht. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 11, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Covolo V (2018) Ensuring the effectiveness of defence rights: remedial obligations under the ABC Directives. In: Allegrezza S, Covolo V (eds) Effective defence rights in criminal proceedings. A European and comparative study on judicial remedies. Wolters Kluwer Italia, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser R (2011) Auswirkungen der Europäischen Beweisanordnung auf das deutsche Strafverfahren. In: Heinrich M, Jäger C, Achenbach H, Amelung K, Bottke W, Haffke B, Schünemann B, Wolter J (eds) Strafrecht als Scientia Universalis – Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 80. Geburtstag. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser R (2012) Art. 8 EMRK. In: Erb V, Esser R, Franke U, Graalmann-Scheerer K, Hilger H, Ignor A (eds) Löwe/Rosenberg. Die Strafprozeßordnung und das Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz, vol 11, 26th edn. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleß S (2013) Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the guarantee of a fair trial: approaches to a general principle. Utrecht Law Rev 9(4):90–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter C (2014) European Convention on Human Rights Commentary. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos/Helbing Lichtenhahn, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden/Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann HCH (2014) Article 47: right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - specific provisions (meaning). In: Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) The EU Charter of fundamental rights. C.H. Beck/Hart/Nomos, München/Oxford/Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2013) § 253: Rechts- und Sachkontrolle in grenzüberschreitenden Sachverhalten. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) Internationale Bezüge. Handbuch des Staatsrechts der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, vol 11, 3rd edn. CF Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Knytel D (2019) Die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung und ihre Umsetzung in die deutsche und französische Rechtsordnung. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02478831/document. Accessed 12 May 2020

  • Meyer F (2015) Artikel 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 EMRK. In: Wolter J (ed) Systematischer Kommentar zur Strafprozessordnung, vol 10: Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, 5th edn. Carl Heymanns, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2020) § 44: Rechtsschutz im europäischen Strafrecht. In: Leible S, Terhechte JP (eds) Europäisches Rechtsschutz- und Verfahrensrecht. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 3, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (2020) Einleitung. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) Einleitung. Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkitzki P (2011) German government not obliged to seek extradition of CIA agents for ‘extraordinary rendition’: comments on the El-Masri Judgment of the Cologne Administrative Court. J Int Crim Just 9(5):1117–1127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann F (2020) § 16 Beweisrechtshilfe. In: Böse M (ed) Europäisches Strafrecht. Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol 11, 2nd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Martin Böse

Authors
  1. Martin Böse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Martin Böse

  2. Department of Law, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Maria Bröcker

  3. Department of Law, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Anne Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Böse, M. (2021). Judicial Protection in International and EU Law. In: Böse, M., Bröcker, M., Schneider, A. (eds) Judicial Protection in Transnational Criminal Proceedings. Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55796-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55796-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55795-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55796-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation