Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

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

  • 257 Accesses

Abstract

In contrast to domestic criminal proceedings, cross-border proceedings within the framework of international cooperation in criminal matters do not only form part of the criminal justice systems of states but do also affect their foreign relations. Accordingly, transnational criminal proceedings are concerned with the relationship between the requesting and the requested states (international dimension), as well as with the relationship between the requesting or the requested state on the one hand and the individual (defendant, victim, third party) on the other (internal dimension). In the latter relationship, the individual has a right to an effective legal remedy against any measure interfering with his or her rights. However, the international dimension significantly determines the scope and limits of judicial protection in terms of both law (state sovereignty, foreign relations) and fact (physical distance, language problems, etc.).

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.

    See § 74 of the German Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (IRG); Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (BVerfG), decision of 25 March 1981 – 2 BvR 1258/79, official court report (BVerfGE) 57, p. 9 (23 ff.); Hackner (2020a), § 74 para. 1.

  2. 2.

    Vogel and Burchard (2017), Vor § 1 para. 15.

  3. 3.

    See in Germany, Art. 19 para. 4 GG.

  4. 4.

    Art. 19 para. 4 GG.

  5. 5.

    See for the distinction between the so-called “Leistungsebene” and “Vornahmeebene”: Schomburg et al. (2013) § 13 paras. 40 f.

  6. 6.

    Kahl (2013), § 253, paras. 44 f. with further references.

  7. 7.

    Schmidt-Aßmann (2012), p. 2119 (2140 f.).

  8. 8.

    Harings (1998), pp. 223 f.

  9. 9.

    The examination of suspicion (cf. § 10 para. 2 IRG) in the execution of a European Arrest Warrant is therefore controversial: see Böse (2012), § 83a paras. 12 ff. on the one hand Hackner (2020b), § 78 para. 14 on the other hand; see regarding Austrian law: Schallmoser (2012), pp. 211 ff.

  10. 10.

    Art. 14 para. 2 Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European arrest warrant in criminal matters, O.J. L 130/1; see also Art. 11 para. 2 Framework Decision 2033/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution of orders freezing property and evidence, O.J. L 196/45.

  11. 11.

    Esser (2011), p. 1497 (1505 f.); Gaede (2013), § 3 para. 51; Meyer (2014), § 38 paras. 47 ff.

  12. 12.

    Roger (2010), p. 29 (41); Schünemann and Roger (2010), p. 92 (97); see also on judicial protection in administrative matters: von Arnauld (2011), p. 497 (515).

  13. 13.

    BT-Drucks. 18/9757, p. 31; also Böse (2014), p. 152 (160).

  14. 14.

    Art. 68 Regulation (EU) 2018/1862 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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. L 312/56; see in this regard Kahl (2013), § 253 paras. 51 and 53; Meyer and Hüttemann (2016), p. 394 (423 ff.); Administrative Court Wiesbaden, decision of 3. July 2013 – 6 L 329/13 WI, juris; Böse (2013), p. 364 (365 f.).

  15. 15.

    On the establishment of an infringement of conviction by Belgium (requested state) and France (requesting state): European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), judgment of 27 October 2011, Application no 25303/08 (Stojkovic v. France and Belgium); also Gleß (2013), p. 90 (93 f.).

  16. 16.

    See e.g. Art. 1 para. 1 Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, O.J. L 280/1; Art. 1 sentence 2 Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012 on the right to instruction and information in criminal proceedings, O.J. L 142/1; Art. 1, 10 Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to legal assistance in criminal proceedings and in proceedings for the execution of the European arrest warrant and on the right to notify a third party of any measure involving deprivation of liberty and the right to communicate with third parties and with consular authorities when deprived of liberty, O.J. L 294/1.

  17. 17.

    Schomburg et al. (2020), introduction paras. 1, 145 ff.; see also the model of the transnational procedural unit: Schünemann (2006), p. 93 (100).

  18. 18.

    Meyer (2016b), pp. 193 ff.

  19. 19.

    Häde (1997), p. 1 (22 f.); Hofmann (1994), pp. 273 ff.; also BVerfG, decision of 30 June 1964 – 1 BvR 93/64, BVerfGE 18, p. 112 (120 f.).

  20. 20.

    See § 73 sentence 1 IRG.

  21. 21.

    BVerfG, interim order of 26 January 1982 – 2 BvR 856/81, BVerfGE 59, p. 280 (283); BVerfG, decision of 31 March 1987 – 2 BvM 2/86, BVerfGE 75, p. 1 (19 f.).

  22. 22.

    See § 49 para. 1 no. 2 IRG; European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), judgment of 7 July 1989, Application no. 14038/88 (Soering v. United Kingdom); see regarding the case law of the ECtHR on Article 3 ECHR as an obstacle to extradition and deportation: Lorz and Sauer (2010), pp. 389 ff.

  23. 23.

    CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Case C-399/11 (Melloni), paras. 55 ff., 59.

  24. 24.

    Art. 11 para. 1 lit. f Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters, O.J. L 130/1; Art. 20 para. 3 Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, O.J. L 76/16.

  25. 25.

    CJEU, judgment of 5 April 2016, Case C-404/15, C-659/15 PPU (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru), paras. 82 ff.

  26. 26.

    BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, p. 1149 (1150 ff.).

  27. 27.

    See the Manifesto of the European Criminal Policy Initiative on European criminal procedural law (2013), p. 412 (419), also Herrnfeld (2019), Art. 67 AEUV para. 25.

  28. 28.

    Federal Court of Justice of Germany (BGH), decision of 21 November 2012 – 1 StR 310/12, Strafverteidiger 2014, p. 193 (196); for the contrary view see Schuster (2006), pp. 105 ff. with further references.

  29. 29.

    BVerfG, decision of 31 May 1994 – 2 BvR 1193/93, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1994, p. 2883; decision of 29 May 1996 – 2 BvR 66/96, EuGRZ 1996, p. 324 (326).

  30. 30.

    BVerfG, decision of 15 December 2015 – 2 BvR 2735/14, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2016, p. 1149 (1155).

  31. 31.

    BVerfG, decision of 24 June 2003 – 2 BvR 685/03, Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 2003, p. 1499 (1500).

  32. 32.

    CJEU, judgment of 5 April 2016, Case C-404/15, C-659/15 PPU (Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru) paras. 82 ff.; Meyer (2016a), p. 621 (638); Satzger (2016), p. 514 (520).

  33. 33.

    Reinbacher and Wendel (2016), p. 333 (341 f.); on the case-law of the ECtHR: Lorz and Sauer (2010), p. 389 (399 ff.).

  34. 34.

    ECtHR, judgment of 4 September 2014, Application no. 140/10 (Trabelsi v. Belgien); see on this and the differences to the case law of the BVerfG in detail: Kromrey and Morgenstern (2014), pp. 704 ff.

  35. 35.

    see on the death penalty § 8 IRG; See in this respect the case-law of the ECtHR: Lorz and Sauer (2010), p. 389 (402 ff.).

  36. 36.

    See in this regard, Art. 5 Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant; contrary: on prison conditions in conformity with human rights: Meyer (2016a), p. 621 (622).

  37. 37.

    See in this regard the new referral decision of the Higher Regional Court Bremen, decision of 12 September 2016, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2017, p. 48.

  38. 38.

    Ahlbrecht and Schlei (2013), p. 265 (272).

  39. 39.

    See § 101 para. 7 StPO.

  40. 40.

    Johnson (2012), § 61 IRG para. 18; also see § 91i para.2 IRG-E, BT-Druck. 18/9757, pp. 13 and 79.

  41. 41.

    See the “obligation to take into account” according to Art. 14 para. 7 of the Directive 2014/41/EU of 3 April 2014 on the European arrest warrant in criminal matters, O.J. L 130/1; Böse (2014), p. 152 (161).

  42. 42.

    Directive (EU) 2015/413 of 11 March 2015 facilitating cross-border exchange of information on road-safety-related traffic offences, O.J. L 68/9; see §§ 37a, 37b of the German Road Traffic Act (StVG).

  43. 43.

    See Art. 32 of the Council of Europe Convention on Computer Crime of 23 November 2001 (BGBl. 2008 II p. 1242).

  44. 44.

    BVerfG, decision of 21 June 2016 – 2 BvR 637/09, BVerfGE 142, p. 234 with judge Huber dissenting.

  45. 45.

    Schomburg et al. (2012), introduction paras. 234 ff.

  46. 46.

    Suominen (2014), pp. 41 ff.

  47. 47.

    On the model character of the rules in Austria, Portugal, and Switzerland on legal protection in extradition proceedings: Lagodny (2005), p. 515 (518 f.).

  48. 48.

    Cf. recital 22 of Directive 2014/41/EU regarding the European Investigation Order: “… In cases where objections against the EIO are submitted by an interested party in the executing state in respect of the substantive reasons for issuing the EIO, it is advisable that information about such challenge be transmitted to the issuing authority and that the interested party be informed accordingly.”

  49. 49.

    See Art. 59 Council Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007.

  50. 50.

    See Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Grand Chamber), judgment of 6 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), paras. 51 ff.

  51. 51.

    See CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 6 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), para. 60.

  52. 52.

    See CJEU (Grand Chamber), judgment of 6 September 2016, Case C-182/15 (Petruhhin), paras. 25 ff.

  53. 53.

    E.g. Directive (EU) 2016/343 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 OJ L65/1.

  54. 54.

    See, e.g., Art. 3 (6) Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010, OJ 2010 L 280/1; Art. 5 Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012, OJ 2012 L 142/1; Art. 10 Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013, OJ 2013 L 294/1.

  55. 55.

    See, in this context, for instance CJEU, judgment of 12 October 2017, Case C 278/16 (Sleutjes) on the need to translate a penal order (“Strafbefehl”).

References

  • Ahlbrecht H, Schlei M (2013). Verteidigung gegen und mit Rechtshilfe. Strafverteidiger Forum 7:265-278

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2012) § 83 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Böse M (2013) Recommendations on making proportionate use of the European Arrest Warrant. In: Albers P, Beauvais P, Bohnert J-F, Böse M, Langbroek P, Renier A, Wahl T (eds) (2013) Towards a common evaluation framework to assess mutual trust in the field of EU judicial cooperation in criminal matters, Available at https://www.government.nl/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

  • Böse M (2014) Die Europäische Ermittlungsanordnung – Beweistransfer nach neuen Regeln? Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 4:162–164

    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) (2011) Strafrecht als Scientia Universalis - Festschrift für Claus Roxin zum 80. Geburtstag, De Gryter, Berlin/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaede K (2013) § 3. In: Böse M (ed) (2013) Europäisches Strafrecht mit polizeilicher Zusammenarbeit, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol. 9, Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020a) § 74 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackner T (2020b) § 78 IRG. In: Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T, Trautmann S (eds) (2020) Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 6th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Häde U (1997) Die Auslieferung – Rechtsinstitut zwischen Völkerrecht und Grundrechten. Der Staat 36:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Harings L (1998) Grenzüberschreitende Zusammenarbeit der Polizei- und Zollverwaltungen und Rechtsschutz in Deutschland, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrnfeld HH (2019) Art. 67 AEUV. In: Schwarze J, Becker U, Hatje A, Schoo J (eds) (2019) EU-Kommentar, 4th edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann R (1994) Grundrechte und grenzüberschreitende Sachverhalte, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C (2012) §§ 60 – 61 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl W (2013) § 253. In: Isensee J, Kirchhof P (eds) (2013) Handbuch des Staatsrechts, vol.11. Internationale Bezüge, C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Kromrey H, Morgenstern C (2014) Auslieferung bei drohender lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe ohne Aussetzungsmöglichkeit. Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 13:704–716

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagodny O (2005) Eckpunkte für die zukünftige Ausgestaltung des deutschen Auslieferungsverfahrens. Der Strafverteidiger 9:515–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorz A, Sauer H (2010) Wann genau steht Art. 3 EMRK einer Auslieferung oder Ausweisung entgegen? Europäische GRUNDRECHTE-Zeitschrift 37:389–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Manifest zum Europäischen Strafverfahrensrecht (2013) Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 11:406–482

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2014) § 38 Rechtsschutz im europäischen Strafrecht. In: Leible St, Terhechte JP (eds) (2014) Europäisches Rechtsschutz- und Verfahrensrecht, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol. 3, Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2016a) Anmerkung zum Urteil des EuGH vom 05.04.2016 (Az: C-404/15) – “Zur Frage der Auslegung des Rahmenbeschlusses zum Europäischen Haftbefehl”. JuristenZeitung 2016:621–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F (2016b) Verbundstrafverfolgung in der EU. Funktionelle und verfahrensrechtliche Vermessung eines neuen Phänomens. In: Herzog F, Schlothauer R, Wohlers W (eds) in Verbindung mit Wolter J (2016) Rechtsstaatlicher Strafprozess und Bürgerrechte. Gedächtnisschrift für Edda Weßlau, Duckner&Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer F, Hüttemann SD (2016) Internationale Fahndung nach Personen – von Steckbriefen, Rotecken und Funksprüchen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 128:394–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinbacher T, Wendel M (2016) Menschenwürde und Europäischer Haftbefehl – Zum ebenenübergreifenden Schutz grundrechtlicher Elementargarantien im europäischen Auslieferungsverfahren. Europäische GRUNDRECHTE-Zeitschrift 43:333–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Roger B (2010) Europäisierung des Strafverfahrens- oder nur der Strafverfolgung? Zum Rahmenbeschluss über die Europäische Beweisanordnung. Goldtdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 157:27–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger H (2016) Grund- und menschenrechtliche Grenzen für die Vollstreckung eines Europäischen Haftbefehls? – “Verfassungsgerichtliche Identitätskontrolle” durch das BVerfG vs. Vollstreckungsaufschub bei “außergewöhnlichen Umständen” nach dem EuGH. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 9:514–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Schallmoser N (2012) Europäischer Haftbefehl und Grundrechte, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Aßmann E (2012) Ansätze zur Internationalisierung verwaltungsgerichtlichen Rechtsschutzes. In: Hestermeyer HP, König D, Matz-Lück N, Röben V, Seibert-Fohr A, Stoll PT, Vöneky S (eds) (2012) Liber amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Gleß S, Hackner T (eds) (2012) Einleitung. Internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, 5th edn. C.H. Beck, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomburg W, Lagodny O, Schallmoser N (2013) § 13 Grundlagen der Zusammenarbeit. In: Böse M (ed) (2013) Europäisches Strafrecht mit polizeilicher Zusammenarbeit, Enzyklopädie Europarecht, vol. 9, Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann B (2006) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege. In: Schünemann B (ed) (2006) Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Schünemann B, Roger B (2010) Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch der EU-Kommission “Erlangung verwertbarer Beweise in Strafsachen aus einem anderen Mitgliedstaat” (KOM [2009] 624 endg.) Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 2:92–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster FP (2006) Verwertbarkeit im Ausland gewonnener Beweise im deutschen Strafprozess, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Suominen A (2014) The Nordic Arrest Warrant finally in force. Eur Crim Law Rev 4(1):41–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel J, Burchard C (2017) Vor § 1 IRG. In: Grützner H, Pötz PG, Kreß C, Gazeas N (eds) (2019) Internationaler Rechtshilfeverkehr in Strafsachen, 47th suppl. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • von Arnauld A (2011) Die Rückkehr des Bürgers: Paradigmenwechsel im Europäischen und Internationalen Verwaltungsrecht? In: Häberle P (ed) (2011) Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts, Neue Folge, vol. 59, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Martin Böse & Maria Bröcker

  2. University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Anne Schneider

Authors
  1. Martin Böse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Bröcker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anne Schneider
    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., Bröcker, M., Schneider, A. (2021). Introduction. 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_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55796-6_1

  • 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