1 / 19

Welcome

Welcome. to Maastricht University. Oral v. written evidence in the European Union. Prof. André Klip Maastricht University, Ravenna 14 May 2011. Cornerstones, internal markets and areas of freedom, security and justice. European integration and criminal law An internal market principle

kisha
Download Presentation

Welcome

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to Maastricht University

  2. Oral v. written evidence in the European Union Prof. André Klip Maastricht University, Ravenna 14 May 2011

  3. Cornerstones, internal markets and areas of freedom, security and justice • European integration and criminal law • An internal market principle • Free flow of “criminal products”? • Can criminal law deal with the principle?

  4. Compatibility of two convergent areas • Internal market • Area of freedom, security and justice • Whose interests are protected by mutual recognition? • Member States’ interests v. the accused

  5. What is mutual recognition? • No definition • Relationship with the five freedoms • Services • Workers • Goods • Capital • Residence (Art. 21 TFEU) • EU-citizen entitled to fundamental freedoms • Charter of Fundamental Rights

  6. Examples of mutual recognition • Driving licenses • Regulation 44/2001 on civil judgments • Ne bis in idem • European arrest warrant

  7. What questions are raised? • Who recognizes whom? • What is being recognized? • What is recognition? • What is mutual recognition?

  8. Absolute recognition? What discretion do Member States have not to recognise? • Prevailing obligations • Obvious shortcomings • Applicable grounds for refusal • Irreconcilable decisions See Klip, European Criminal Law, p. 330-353

  9. EEW-1 (FD 2008/978) • Implementation period lapsed 19 January 2011 • EEW is parallel to the regular international cooperation in criminal matters • EEW is a judicial decision concerning existing evidence (Art.4 par. 4): NB: not a request to collect new evidence • Evidence = objects, documents, data

  10. EEW-2 • EEW may only concern evidence which could be obtained under the law of the issuing Member State (art.7) • Executing Member State must execute, unless art. 13 • Abolition of double criminality, list offences (art.14) • Absent: - standarisation of the collection of evidence - the conclusions to be drawn from admissible evidence

  11. EEW-3 European Investigation Order • Member States are negotiating a new Directive • Differences with the FD EEW

  12. On-line consultation of data • Prüm and Decisions 2008/615 en 2008/616 • Availability principle => standarisation on DNA (art.7 Decision 2008/616 + Annex); and on finger prints (art. 12 Decision 2008/616 + Annex), license plates • First stage, investigatory purposes, no collection of evidence yet • Conditional of purpose: art.26 Decision 2008/615 • Limitation of access: specialists only (art.30 Decision 2008/615)

  13. Division of tasks • Issuing Member State • Grounds/ necessity of EEW • Applicability of list offence • Executing Member State • Application of grounds for refusal • Double criminality (non list offences) • Purpose within the Framework Decision? • Assessment of the interests of the requested person

  14. Article 82, par. 1 – a closer look • Judicial cooperation based on mutual recognition • Approximation • Measures to: • A. ensure recognition • B. prevent/settle conflicts of jurisdiction • C. support training judiciary • D. facilitate cooperation

  15. Article 82, par. 2 TFEU • Minimum rules to facilitate mutual recognition: • A. mutual admissibility of evidence • B. rights of individuals in criminal procedure • C. rights of victims of crime • D. any other aspect

  16. The emergency break • Articles 82, par. 3 and 83, par. 3 TFEU • Draft Directive affecting fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system

  17. Proliferation of Mutual Recognition • Transitionary period of EAW comes to an end • MR in all areas of cooperation • see FD’s to be implemented • Art. 82 TFEU • Co-existence of alternatives requires a new balance to be found • Conflicting MR warrants

  18. Character of EU law on evidence • Predominantly influenced by civil law • Predominantly influenced by the internal market (see for instance Directive 2011/16 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation) • Focus on written evidence • However: Directive 2010/64 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings

  19. Future perspectives • Further development of common criminal policy • in legislation => more influence on national criminal law • in establishing structures • More intensive cooperation • Separate EU criminal justice system • Balance between the internal market and the area of freedom, security and justice

More Related