Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fair Trial, Due Process and Rights of Defence in the EU Legal Order

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 8))

  • 2153 Accesses

Abstract

The Chapter analyses the relation between Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the procedure before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The author critically examines the relevant normative and jurisprudential framework with a particular focus on fair trial and due process issues. The degree of compatibility with the relevant case law of the Strasbourg Court is assessed considering the Bosphorus precedent. Some final remarks pinpoint the added value of the Lisbon treaty in terms of procedural guarantees and judicial protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pursuant to the most recent version, these Explanations “have been have been updated under the responsibility of the Praesidium of the European Convention, in the light of the drafting adjustments made to the text of the Charter by that Convention (notably to Arts. 51 and 52) and of further developments of Union law”. [2007] OJ C 303/17. On this topic, see K. Lenaerts, P. V. Van Nuffel, R. Bray (eds.), Constitutional law of European Union (Sweet & Maxwell, 2007); K. Lenaerts, D. Arts, I. Maselis (eds.), Procedural law of European Union (Sweet & Maxwell, 2006); V. Constantinesco, Y. Gautier, V. Michel (eds.), Le Traité établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe. Analyses & commentaires (Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2005); G. Zagrebelsky, Diritti e Costituzione nell’Unione europea (Laterza, 2003).

  2. 2.

    The Explanations set out the background of each Charter Article and try to define its scope. To be sure, pursuant to Art. 6 (1) TEU, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty: “The rights, freedoms and principles in the Charter shall be interpreted […] with due regard to the explanations referred to in the Charter, that set out the sources of those provisions”. See J. Ziller (ed.), Il nuovo Trattato europeo (Il Mulino, 2007) 112.

  3. 3.

    For instance, with regard to Art. 47 CFR, no reference is made to the Vermeulen judgment by the ECtHR (Appl. No 19075/91, Vermeulen v. Belgium, (1996) Reports 1996-I).

  4. 4.

    Case C-547/03P Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) [2005] ECR I-845, AG Stix-Hackl.

  5. 5.

    On the current and future relation between these two courts in the field of fundamental rights protection, see in this volume G. Di Federico, “Chapter 2”.

  6. 6.

    Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar [2000] ECR I-665. See the contribution by P. Oliver in (2002) 39 Common Market Law Review 337.

  7. 7.

    Vermeulen v. Belgium, n. 3 above, and Appl. No 39594/98, Kress v. France, (2001) Reports 2001-VI.

  8. 8.

    Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar, n. 6 above, para 13.

  9. 9.

    On the use of the Charter by National and supranational and international courts, see in this volume V. Bazzocchi, “Chapter 3”.

  10. 10.

    Case 222/84 M. Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [1986] ECR 1651, para 18, see L. Dubouis, ‘A propos de deux principes généraux du droit communautaire (droit au contrôle juridictionnel effectif et motivation des décisions des autorités nationales qui portent atteinte à un droit conféré par la règle communautaire)’, (1988) Revue française de droit administrative 691; Case C-50/00 P Union de Pequenos Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677, para 39, see on this topic the contributions by P. Cassia, ‘Quelles perspectives pour la recevabilité du recours en annulation des particuliers?’, (2002) Recueil Le Dalloz Jur. 2825; P.G. Ludewig, ‘A lost opportunity: No new approach to the concept of locus standi under Article 230 EC’, (2002) European Law Reporter 259; M. Granger, ‘Standing for the judicial review of community acts potentially harmful to the environment: some light at the end of the tunnel?’, (2003) 5 Environmental Law Review 45; F. Ragolle, ‘Access to justice for private applicants in the Community legal order: recent (r)evolutions’, (2003) 28 European Law Review 90; J. Temple Lang, ‘Actions for declarations that Community regulations are invalid: the duties of national courts under Article 10 EC’, (2003) 28 European Law Review 102.

  11. 11.

    Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophone et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, paras 29–31, see G. De Amicis, O. Villoni, ‘Mandato d’arresto europeo e legalità penale nell’interpretazione della Corte di giustizia’, (2008) Cassazione penale 383; Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric SA [2007] ECR II-2237.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe [1998], ECR I-8417, paras 26–54, see further A. Tizzano, ‘Durata “ragionevole” dei processi comunitari e problemi di convivenza a Lussemburgo’, (1999) Il Diritto dell’Unione Europea 174; H. Toner, ‘Case C-185/95 P, Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission’, (1999) 36 Common Market Law Review 1345; M.C. Baruffi, ‘Sul diritto di accesso al fascicolo nei procedimenti giurisdizionali comunitari’, (1999) Diritto pubblico comparato ed europeo 691; Case C-523/04, Commission v. The Nederlands [2006] ECR I-3267, AG Mengozzi, paras 57–60.

  13. 13.

    The right to legal aid is laid down in Art. 76 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and in Art. 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

  14. 14.

    Case 222/84 M. Johnston, n. 10 above, para 18.

  15. 15.

    Case 50/00 P Union de Pequenos Agricultores, n. 10 above, para 39; Case C-263/02 P Commission v. Jégo-Quéré [2004] ECR I-3425, para 29, see J. Schwarze, ‘The legal protection of the individual against regulations in European Union law’, (2004) 10 European Public Law 285; B. Jack, ‘Locus standi and the European Court of Justice: A faint light on the horizon?’, (2004) 6 Environmental Law Review 266; C. Brown, J. Morijn, ‘Case C-263/02 P, Commission v. Jego-Quere & Cie SA’, (2004) 41 Common Market Law Review 1639; Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran v. Council [2006] ECR I-4665, para 110, see further C. Eckes, ‘Case T-22802, Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v. Council and UK (OMPI)’, (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1117; O. Cotte, ‘Des précisions bienvenues quant aux garanties applicables lors de l’adoption de mesures de gels de fonds dans le cadre de la lutte contre le terrorisme’, (2007) 22 L’Europe des libertés: revue d’actualité juridique 19; Y. Moiny, ‘Le contrôle, par le juge européen, de certaines mesures communautaires visant à lutter contre le financement du terrorisme’, (2008) 149 Journal des tribunaux/droit européen 137; Case C-432/05 Unibet Ltd v. Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR I-2271, see the contributions by G. Anagnostaras, ‘The quest for an effective remedy and the measure of judicial protection afforded to putative Community law rights’, (2007) 32 European Law Review 727; A. Arnull, ‘Case C-432/05, Unibet (London) Ltd and Unibet (Internationa l) Ltd v. Justitiekanslern’, (2007) 32 Common Market Law Review 1763.

  16. 16.

    Case C-260/05 P Sniace SA [2007] ECR I-10005, paras 64–65, see B. Cheynel, ‘Intérêt à agir et participation à la procédure’, (2008) 14 Revue Lamy de la Concurrence: droit, économie, regulation 43; E. Fridensköld, ‘Locus standi in Article 88(2) cases: No cure for the Plaumann-blues I’, (2008) European Law Reporter 17; J. Battista, ‘Is participation in the Commission’s administrative procedure a necessary condition for legal standing?’, (2008) European State Aid Law Quarterly 317.

  17. 17.

    Case C-131/03 P Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. [2006] ECR I-7795, para 81, see the contributions by D. Simon, ‘Non-recevabilité de l’action contre une décision de recours en justice’, (2006) 303 Europe 10; M. Varju, ‘Case C-131/03, Reynolds tobacco and others v. Commission’, (2007) 44 Common Market Law Review 1101; Case C-167/02 P Rothley et a. v. EP [2004] ECR I-3149, para 47.

  18. 18.

    Case C-50/00 P Union de Pequenos Agricultores, n. 10 above, para 40; Case C-263/02 P Jégo-Quéré, n. 15 above, para 30.

  19. 19.

    Case C-263/02P Jégo-Quéré, n. 15 above, para 30. It is well known that national courts are not entitled to review the legality of Community acts. Cf. Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, see G. Bebr, ‘The reinforcement of the constitutional review of community acts under Article 177 EEC Treaty’, (1988) 25 Common Market Law Review 667; A. Arnull, ‘National courts and the validity of community acts’, (1988) 14 European Law Review 125; L. Goffin, ‘De l’incompétence des juridictions nationales pour constater l’invalidité des actes d’institutions communautaires’, (1990) Cahiers de droit européen 216 and Case 461/03 Gaston Schul [2005] ECR I-513. On the latter judgment, see L. Coutron, ‘L’arrêt Schul: une occasion manquée de revisiter la jurisprudence Foto-Frost?’, (2007) 43 Revue trimestrielle de droit européen 491.

  20. 20.

    Case C-441/05 Roquette Frères [2007] ECR I-1993, paras 30 e 33.

  21. 21.

    Case C-131/03 P Reynolds Tabacco Holdings Inc and Others, n. 17 above, para 82.

  22. 22.

    Case C-521/04 P (R) Hans-Martin Tillack [2005] ECR I-3103, para 38; Joined cases C-20/00 e C-64/00 Booker Aquacultur Ltd and Hydro Seafood GSP Ltd [2003] ECR I-7411, para 88.

  23. 23.

    Case C-521/04P(R) Tillack, n. 22 above, para 38.

  24. 24.

    Case C-13/01 Safalero Srl [2003] ECR I-8679, para 50.

  25. 25.

    Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophone, n. 11 above, paras 29–31 that refers to the following European Court of Human Rights judgments: Appl. No 4451/70, Golder v. UK, (1984) A18; Appl. Nos 7819/77 and 7878/77, Campbell-Fell v. UK, (1984) A80; Appl. No 12005/86, Borgers v. Belgium, (1991) A214-B.

  26. 26.

    Case T-351/03 Schneider Electric SA, n. 11 above, para 181.

  27. 27.

    Case T-309/03 Camos Grau [2006] ECR II-1173, paras 102–103, see the contribution by A. García Ureta, ‘“Qui custodiat custodes?” Sobre las investigaciones de la Oficina Europea de Lucha contra el Fraude’, (2006) 8–9 Unión Europea Aranzadi 13.

  28. 28.

    Ex multis, Case C-173/99 The Queen v. BECTU [2001] ECR I-4881, AG Tizzano, para 26, underlining for the first time the Charter of fundamental right of the European Union, in particular Art. 31. For an extensive review of the use of the Charter by Advocates General, cf. in this volume V. Bazzocchi, “Chapter 3”, and G. Ricci, ‘BECTU: An unlimited right to annual paid leave’, (2001) 30 Industrial Law Journal 401; S. Mouthaan, ‘The BECTU Case: A la recherche de la charte oubliée’, (2001) 12 European Current Law xi.

  29. 29.

    Case C-39/02 Mærsk Olie & Gas A/S v. Firma M. de Haan en W. de Boer [2004] ECR I-9657, para 36.

  30. 30.

    Case C-105/03 Criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino [2004] ECR I-5285, para 66, on this topic see the contributions by J.R. Spencer, ‘Child witnesses and the European Union’, (2005) 64 The Cambridge Law Journal 569; E. Broussy, F. Donnat, C. Lambert, ‘L’obligation d’interpréter le droit national conformément au droit communautaire s’applique également aux décisions-cadres, (2005) L’actualité juridique – Droit Administratif 2336; M. Fletcher, ‘Extending “indirect effect” to the third pillar: The significance of Pupino?’, (2005) 30 European Law Review 862; A. Weyembergh, P. De Hert, P. Paepe, ‘L’effectivité du troisième pilier de l’Union européenne et l’exigence de l’interprétation conforme: la Cour de justice pose ses jalons (note sous l’arrêt Pupino, du 16 juin 2005, de la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes)’, (2007) 18 Revue trimestrielle des droits de l’homme 269; G. Gebbie, ‘“Berlusconi” v. “Pupino”: Conflict or Compatibility?’, (2007) 1 Journal of European Criminal Law 31; E. Spaventa, ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: some reflections on the constitutional effects of the decision in Pupino’, (2007) 3 European Constitutional Law Review 5.

  31. 31.

    Case C-523/04 Commission v. The Netherlands [2006] ECR I-3267, AG Mengozzi, paras 57–60.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., para 59.

  33. 33.

    Case C-185/95 P Baustahlgewebe, n. 12 above, paras 26–54.

  34. 34.

    Appl. No. 9616/81, Erkner-Hofauer v. Austria, (1987) A124-D, para 66, “Le caractère raisonnable de la durée d’une procédure s’apprécie suivant les circonstances de la cause et eu égard aux critères consacrés par la jurisprudence de la Cour, en particulier le degré de complexité de l’affaire, le comportement des requérants et celui des autorités compétentes”; Appl. Nos 12325/86 and 14992/89, Kemmache v. France, (1991) A-218, para 60; Appl. No 11804/85, Manzoni v. Italy, (1991) A 195-B, para 17.

  35. 35.

    Case C-39/00P SARL [2000] ECR I-11201, para 46.

  36. 36.

    Case C-105/04P CEF BV and CEF Holdings Ltd v. Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging and Technische Unie BV [2006] ECR I-8725, para 43, see the contribution by F. Zivy, ‘Le prolongement excessif de la phase d’instruction peut permettre une violation des droits de la défense’, (2006) 4 Revue des droits de la concurrence 115.

  37. 37.

    Case C-194/99 P Thyssen Stahl AG [2003] ECR I-10821, paras 154 to156 and 165 to 167.

  38. 38.

    In Case C-403/04P Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd and Nippon Steel Corp. [2007] ECR I-729, paras 115 to 123, the Court reaffirmed that the right to a fair trial – and in particular the right to a fair trial in a reasonable time – is enshrined in Art. 6 ECHR.

  39. 39.

    Case C-238/99P, Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij NV [2002] ECR I-8375, para 234.

  40. 40.

    Appl. No 2122/64, Wemhoff v. Germany, (1968) A7 and Appl. No 1936/6327, Neumeister v. Austria, (1968) A8.

  41. 41.

    Joined cases C-439/05 P and C-454/05 P Land Oberosterreich and Austria [2007] ECR I-7141, para 36, see F. M. Fleurke, ‘What use for Article 95(5) EC?’, (2008) 20 Journal of Environmental Law 267.

  42. 42.

    Ex multis, Case C-287/02 Spain v. Commission [2005] ECR I-5093, para 37.

  43. 43.

    Case C-199/99 P Corus UK Ltd [2003] ECR I-11177, paras 19–25, 41–43, 50–59.

  44. 44.

    Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar, n. 6 above.

  45. 45.

    According Art. 61 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice “may after hearing the Advocate General order the reopening of the oral procedure”.

  46. 46.

    Vermeulen v. Belgium, n. 3 above.

  47. 47.

    Kress v. France, n. 7 above.

  48. 48.

    Pursuant to Art. 59 of the Rules of Procedure: “The Advocate General shall deliver his opinion orally at the end of the oral procedure” and “After the Advocate General has delivered his opinion, the President shall declare the oral procedure closed”.

  49. 49.

    Appl. No 13645/05, Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie van de Nederlandse Kokkelvissarij v. The Netherlands, (2009) unreported.

  50. 50.

    Case C-212/06 Government of the French Community and Walloon Government v. Flemish Government [2008] ECR I-1683.

  51. 51.

    Case C-127/02 Landelijke Vereniging tot Behoud van de Waddenzee and Others [2004] ECR I-7405.

  52. 52.

    Case C-185/95P Baustahlgewebe, n. 33 above.

  53. 53.

    Under the Lisbon Treaty the CFI is referred to as the General Court (cf. Art. 19 TEU).

  54. 54.

    The General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine actions and proceedings brought against decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Art. 235 TEC.

  56. 56.

    Cf. Art. 288 TEC.

  57. 57.

    Appl. No 45036/98, Bosphorus v. Ireland [2005] 42 EHRR, para 155 and Cooperatieve Producentenorganisatie, n. 49 above.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Political Science, Forlì Campus, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Marco Borraccetti

Authors
  1. Marco Borraccetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Borraccetti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Centro Interdipartimentale Ricerche sul, University of Bologna, Viale Filopanti 9, Bologna, 40100, Italy

    Di Federico Giacomo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Borraccetti, M. (2011). Fair Trial, Due Process and Rights of Defence in the EU Legal Order. In: Giacomo, D. (eds) The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0156-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation