Abstract
It is certainly not an easy task to ascertain whether and to what extent the European Convention acknowledges participatory rights to the individuals involved in transnational criminal procedures. Recourse to the European Convention to ensure respect for human rights in transnational cases has been a relatively recent challenge. This is principally due to the general approach of the provisions of this Charter relevant in the field of criminal justice, provisions that were traditionally interpreted as mainly aimed at protecting individuals involved in domestic proceedings, except for a few provisions relating to cross-border cases. This approach was in turn the result of a markedly territorial conception of the Convention (and of international human rights law more broadly). The Strasbourg Court has on several occasions confirmed this conception, despite referring to the ‘territorial’ scope of the States’ commitment to ‘secur[ing] to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined’ as involving both the acts committed within their territory and the people falling within their jurisdiction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
A significant example is Article 5(1)(f), which allows the arrest or detention of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. From this it follows that the provisions of Article 5 (with the sole exception of paragraph 3) should also apply to deportation or extradition procedures. However, we will see that the Strasbourg case-law has somehow softened this conclusion. See below, D.II.1.
- 3.
Art. 1 ECHR.
- 4.
van Hoek and Luchtmann (2006), p. 31 f.
- 5.
Art. 35 ECHR.
- 6.
See already ECtHR, X v. Netherlands.
- 7.
Vogler (2013), p. 37.
- 8.
ECtHR, Mamatkulov and Abdrurasulovic v. Turkey.
- 9.
For in-depth reconstruction of this problem area see van Hoek and Luchtmann (2006), p. 31 f.
- 10.
ECtHR, Soering v. United Kingdom.
- 11.
Vogler (2013), p. 37.
- 12.
For some criticisms see also Krüßmann (2009), p. 705, who stressed the relativism of fair trial protection in the Soering judgment.
- 13.
ECtHR, Drozd & Janousek v. France and Spain.
- 14.
The applicants claimed that prosecution witnesses had not been isolated and they were not put in a position to follow the proceedings, which were held in Catalan, a language that they did not understand.
- 15.
ECtHR, Drozd & Janousek v. France and Spain, § 110.
- 16.
Ibid.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
ECtHR, Pellegrini v. Italy.
- 19.
In the instant case, the proceedings had been held before the Roman Rota.
- 20.
ECtHR, Pellegrini v. Italy, § 40.
- 21.
van Hoek and Luchtmann (2006), p. 38 f.
- 22.
ECtHR, Ilaşcu and Others v Moldova and Russia.
- 23.
ECtHR, Mamatkulov and Abdrurasulovic v. Turkey, § 91.
- 24.
ECtHR, Colozza v. Italy, § 28.
- 25.
ECtHR, T. v. Italy, § 28.
- 26.
ECtHR, Brozicek v. Italy, § 16.
- 27.
ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy, § 33.
- 28.
Ibid., § 23.
- 29.
EComHR, Caprino v. United Kingdom.
- 30.
Trechsel (2005), p. 459.
- 31.
Renzikowski (2004), p. 227.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
Trechsel (1987), p. 72.
- 34.
In this sense see instead Trechsel (1987), p. 72.
- 35.
Trechsel (2005), p. 154.
- 36.
Trechsel (1987), p. 72.
- 37.
Trechsel (2005), p. 482.
- 38.
ECtHR, Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, § 51.
- 39.
ECtHR, Wloch v. Poland, § 126.
- 40.
ECtHR, Battisti v. France. See on this decision Galgani (2013), p. 174 f.
- 41.
In this sense see instead Galgani, who examined in detail the complex problems arisen in the Battisti case. Cf. Galgani (2013), p. 175.
- 42.
Chapter 5, C.
- 43.
Galgani (2013), p. 175.
- 44.
EComHR, X., Y. and Z. v. Austria.
- 45.
Austria had already ratified in 1958 the European Convention, which thus formed part of the ‘existing legislation’ in force at that time.
- 46.
Below, D.III.2.
- 47.
ECtHR, Solakov v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, § 41.
- 48.
Below, D.III.4.
- 49.
EComHR, P.V. v. Federal Republic of Germany.
- 50.
ECtHR, Solakov v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, § 62.
- 51.
In this sense Trechsel (2005), p. 311 f.
- 52.
EComHR, X., Y. and Z. v. Austria.
References
Galgani B (2013) Extradition, political offence and the discrimination clause. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 167–191
Krüßmann T (2009) Transnationales Strafprozessrecht. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Renzikowski J (2004) Die nachträgliche Sicherungsverwahrung und die Europäische Menschenrechts konvention. Juristische Rundschau, pp 271–275
Trechsel S (1987) Grundrechtsschutz bei der internationalen Zusammenarbeit in Strafsachen. Europäische GRUNDRECHTE-Zeitschrift, pp 69–78
Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
van Hoek A, Luchtmann M (2006) The European convention on human rights and transnational cooperation in criminal matters. In: van Hoek A et al (eds) Multilevel governance in enforcement and adjudication. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 25–92
Vogler R (2013) Transnational inquiries and the protection of human rights in the case-law of the European court of human rights. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. A study in memory of Vittorio Grevi and Giovanni Tranchina. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 27–40
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruggeri, S. (2017). Participatory Rights and Transnational Criminal Justice in the European Convention. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)