The European Court of Human Rights on the ‘Access to a Lawyer’ Directive 2013/48/EU: the Quest for a Coherent Application of the Right to a Legal Assistance in Europe?

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-241
Author(s):  
Nasiya Daminova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Direct Analysis ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Police Interrogation ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
The Right ◽  
Due Process Rights

The right to a custodial legal assistance has always been considered a key procedural guarantee in criminal proceedings, which allowed for the effective realisation of other ‘due process’ rights of the suspected or accused person. The ‘Access to a lawyer’ Directive 2013/48/EU is one of the outcomes of the massive legal reform which followed the famous Salduz ruling (2008), where the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) prominently stated that the accused shall be provided with assistance of counsel since the initial stages of police interrogation. At the same time, scholars have not paid attention to the possible effects of Directive 2013/48/EU on the practice of the Strasbourg Court. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the way the ‘Access to a lawyer’ Directive is perceived by the ECtHR, given the incredible uncertainty surrounding this issue. The author argues that - paradoxically - the Directive text seems to have had significant impact on the Ibrahim, Simeonovi, Beuze lines of reasoning, framing possible derogations from maximum guarantees of access to a lawyer stemming from the earlier Salduz judgement. Even though the ECtHR tends to avoid direct analysis of the Directive 2013/48/EU provisions, it seems to have accepted the lowest level of protection provided by this EU Law act. This could be rather problematic for the non-EU Convention signatories’ criminal justice systems, being encouraged to follow the standard of procedural guarantees stemming from the EU legal order - which these states preferred not to join (or were not allowed to join).

scholarly journals Ireland: Curtailment of the right to silence through statutory adverse inferences

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110283
Author(s):  
Yvonne M. Daly
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Police Questioning

In Ireland, the right to silence has been significantly impacted by the legislative introduction of adverse inference provisions. In specified circumstances, with varying threshold requirements, a suspect’s failure to answer questions or provide information during Garda (police) questioning can form the basis of an inference against them at trial. Ireland has not opted in to either Directive 2016/343/EU on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence or Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings. This article examines the constitutional and common law context of the protection of the right to silence in Ireland; the operation, and expansion, of the statutory inference regime; the lack of legislative provision for a right to legal assistance during Garda interview; and relevant European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. While there are some benefits to overt legislation and safeguards attached to the drawing of inferences from pre-trial silence, the question must be asked whether a detained suspect in Ireland truly has a protected right to silence in real terms, given the proliferation of inference provisions.

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

2014 ◽  
pp. 33-48
Author(s):  
Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Extradition Between European and African Countries: Overcoming the Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-319
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
African Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Although EU states use the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the purpose of surrendering a person who is accused of committing an offence or who has been convicted of an offence, they use extradition when dealing with countries outside the EU. However, they use surrender when dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Thus, extradition is one of the ways in which African and European countries (especially EU members) are cooperating in the fight against crime. Case law from courts in some African and European countries and from the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, shows that extraditions between African and European countries have been delayed or hampered by allegations of human rights violations in the requesting state. These allegations have focused on mainly two rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from torture. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the extradition of a person should not go ahead if his or her trial was or will amount to a flagrant denial of justice or where there is a real risk of being subjected to torture. Although African courts and international human rights bodies have also held that extradition should not go ahead where there is a real risk that the person will be subjected to torture or where his/her trial will be unfair, they have not adopted the ‘flagrant denial of justice’ test. The case law also shows that some people have challenged the legal basis for their extradition. This article highlights this case law and suggests ways in which some of the challenges associated with extradition could be overcome. The article demonstrates that courts in some African and European countries have considered the nature of extradition enquiries. In some countries, such as Kenya, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings of a special type. There is consensus that extradition enquiries are not civil proceedings.

Does the Unborn Child Have a Right to Life? The Insufficient Answer of the European Court of Human Rights in the Judgment Vo v. France

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jakob Pichon
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Pregnant Woman ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Unborn Child ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
European Court ◽  
French Court ◽  
The Right

In the July 8, 2004 case of Vo v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) dealt with the question of whether the embryo/fetus (“the fetus”) enjoys the protection of the right to life provided by Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”). Below, a pregnant woman lost her fetus due to an error made by the attending doctor, and the Cour de Cassation, the French court of last instance, acquitted the doctor of involuntary homicide on the grounds that a fetus is not a person within the meaning of the French Criminal Code. Claiming a violation of her child's right to life within the meaning of the Convention, the woman appealed to the ECtHR. The ECtHR left open the question whether or not a fetus falls within the scope of Article 2; declaring that, even assuming Article 2 was applicable to a fetus, there had been no failure by France to comply with its obligations under Article 2, because the ECtHR deemed the institution of criminal proceedings unnecessary. Rather, it considered the possibility for the applicant to bring an action for damages as sufficient and therefore found that there had been no violation of the fetus's right to life.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

Diritto a una tutela giurisdizionale effettiva e revisione dei processi penali: la Corte costituzionale e il caso Dorigo

2009 ◽  
pp. 85-110
Author(s):  
Stefano Dorigo ◽  
Pietro Pustorino
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Comment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Italian Constitution ◽  
Italian Norms

- The work is a critical comment to the judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 30 April 2008, n. 129, on the reopening of the criminal proceedings requested by the European Court of Human Rights. The work begins dealing deeply with the problem of the customary nature in international law of the right to a fair trial and the consequent possibility to invoke, in the framework of the Italian national system, Article 10, paragraph 1, of the Constitution. The authors suddenly stress the relevance of other constitutional norms in order to recognize a constitutional or quasi-constitutional rank to the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights, demonstrating that the Italian Constitution offers several possibilities on the matter. A very recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, adopted on 11 December 2008, confirms this opinion interpreting the Italian norms on the reopening of the criminal proceeding on the basis of Articles 111 and 117 of the Constitution.

Remote Participation in Criminal Proceedings: Does the Reformed Italian Regulation Represent an Application Extension Able to Conflict with the Right to a Fair Trial?

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-201
Author(s):  
Giulia Angiolini
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Italian Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Reform ◽  
The Right ◽  
Remote Participation

The purpose of this paper is to try to analyse the Italian regulation of accused persons’ remote participation in criminal proceedings. The interest in this matter arises from the suspected frictions of the provisions at hand with fundamental rights to be guaranteed for a fair trial. These suspicions, aroused right after the introduction of the institute in Italian law, have been increased by the recent reform of the discipline of remote participation, and they become even clearer after a comparison of Italian regulation with those of other European Countries. Hence, an inescapable question occurs: will the European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court save the new regulation as they did with the previous one?

scholarly journals ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL STANCES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 56-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

The article is devoted to the analysis of the stances developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the content, scope, general principles of ensuring the right of access to justice, and permissible limits applied to restrict the right in question. The author has substantiated the conclusion that the European Court of Human Rights associates access to justice with Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Thus, the concept of access to justice includes a number of elements: the right to have recourse to court; the right to have a case heard and resolved in compliance with the requirements of a fair trial; the right to have the judgment enforced; the set of safeguards that allow the person to exercise the rights under consideration effectively. According to the European Court of Human Rights, access to justice should be ensured at all stages including pre-trial (criminal) proceedings and reviewing of court decisions by higher courts. However, the right of access to justice is not absolute. The restrictions imposed must have a legitimate purpose and reasonable proportionality must be obtained between the means used and the goal determined. In view of the requirement mentioned above, the national legislation may provide for the particularities of application of Paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention to proceedings in different types of courts and at different stages, for example, by establishing a certain procedure for the court to grant individuals the right to appeal to a higher court. The author has demonstrated the main directions of applying the legal stances of the European Court of Human Rights regarding access to justice to improve the Russian criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practices, as well as for further scientific research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document