Abstract
The creation of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office stems from a need extraneous to defence guarantees. However, the Author tries to draw a map of the provisions from which a guarantee statute can be extracted for those who will be subject to investigation and actions by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Author concludes with an altogether positive assessment about the defence statute before the European Public Prosecutor’s Office but underlines that some critical points still remain, above all the risk that relying on provisions and principles in diverse normative texts may undermine accessibility to such a statute, known to only a small number of experts.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
ECrtHR November 27th 2008, Salduz vs. Turkey, Case no. 36391/02.
- 2.
ECrtHR, Salduz v. Turkey, cited before.
- 3.
ECrtHR 13/10/2009, Dayanan v. Turkey, case no. 73377/03.
- 4.
ECrtHR, October 14th 2010, Brusco vs. France, case no. 1466/07.
- 5.
ECrtHR, December 11th 2008, Panovits vs. Cyprus, case no. 4268/04.
- 6.
ECrtHR, March 13th 2007, Castravet vs. Moldavia, case no. 23393/05; ECrtHR, March 27th 2007, Istratii vs. Moldavia, case no. 8721/05.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reale, E.P. (2019). Defence Areas and Limits in the Investigations of the European Public Prosecutor. In: Rafaraci, T., Belfiore, R. (eds) EU Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97318-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97319-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)