Personal Participation and Trials In Absentia. A Comparative Constitutional Law Perspective

  • Oreste PollicinoEmail author
  • Marco Bassini
Part of the Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law book series (LSCL, volume 2)


Personal participation in criminal proceedings is subject to a very different consideration among the various legal orders as an inviolable duty of the defendant rather than as a waivable right of the same. Depending on how the latter is framed, states may either permit or ban or subject to some limitations trials in absentia. The purpose of this essay is to provide a comparative overview focusing on the attitude of some legal orders towards trials in absentia in order to determine whether the US and European constitutionalism had an impact on the framing of these principles in the various legal orders. Particularly, it is argued that, in the absence of any black-or-white distinction, the dichotomy between common law and civil law systems would not provide an appropriate perspective to capture the existence of different attitudes between the understanding of personal participation as a duty and as a right.


European Convention ECHR case-law Participatory rights In absentia trials CJEU case-law 



Court of Justice of the European Union


European Convention on Human Rights


European Court of Human Rights


European Union


International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights


  1. Bassini M, Pollicino O (2017a) The Taricco Decision: a last attempt to avoid a clash between EU law and the Italian Constitution. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  2. Bassini M, Pollicino O (2017b) The opinion of advocate general bot in Taricco II: seven “deadly” sins and a modest proposal. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  3. Bassiouni MC (1993) Human rights in the context of criminal justice: identifying international procedural protections and equivalent protections in national constitutions. Duke J Comp Int Law 3:235–298Google Scholar
  4. Bognetti G (1974) Political role of the Italian Constitutional Court. Notre Dame Law Rev 49:981–999Google Scholar
  5. Böse M (2011) Harmonizing procedural rights indirectly: the framework decision on trials in Absentia. N C J Int Law 37:489–510Google Scholar
  6. Chelo A (2015) Le “istruzioni sovranazionali” sui limiti al processo in absentia: dalle pronunce della Corte europea dei diritti dell”Uomo al diritto di partecipare al processo nella normativa dell”Unione europea. Archivio penale, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  7. Ciavola A (2016) Assenza dell”imputato e dubbia sintomaticità dell”elezione di domicilio presso il difensore d”ufficio: una lettura costituzionalmente orientata. Archivio penale, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  8. Claes M, Reestman J (2015) The protection of national constitutional identity and the limits of European integration at the occasion of the Gauweiler Case. Germ Law J 18:917–970Google Scholar
  9. De Caro A (2014) Processo in absentia e sospensione. Una primissima lettura della legge n. 67 del 2014. Archivio penale, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  10. de Poorter JCA (2013) Constitutional review in the Netherlands: a joint responsibility. Utrecht Law Rev 9:89–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fabbrini F, Pollicino O (2017) Constitutional identity in Italy: European integration as the fulfilment of the constitution. EUI Working Papers LAW 2017/06, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  12. Faraguna P (2016) Solange II: il BVerfG colpisce ancora. Quaderni costituzionali, pp 123–126Google Scholar
  13. Faraguna P (2017) The Italian Constitutional Court in re Taricco: “Gauweiler in the Roman Campagna”. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  14. Fontanelli F, Biondi Dal Monte F (2008) The Decisions No. 348 and 349/2007 of the Italian Constitutional Court: the efficacy of the European Convention in the Italian legal system. Germ Law J 9:889–932Google Scholar
  15. Galantini N (2011) Giusto processo e garanzia costituzionale del contraddittorio nella formazione della prova. Diritto penale contemporaneo, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  16. Golser F (2017) Personal participation in criminal proceedings. Austrian reportGoogle Scholar
  17. Hong P (2016) Human Dignity and Constitutional Identity: The Solange-III-Decision of the German Constitutional Court. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  18. Ianovska O (2015) Participation of an accused in proceedings: right or obligation. Law Ukrain, pp 26–33Google Scholar
  19. Mangiaricina A (2010) Garanzie partecipative e giudizio in absentia. Giappichelli, TorinoGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinico G (2017) Studio sulle forme alternative di judicial review: il caso dei Paesi Bassi e della Svizzera., pp 1–27Google Scholar
  21. Marzaduri E (2000) Commento all’art. 1 legge costituzionale 2/1999. La Legislazione penale, pp 762–804Google Scholar
  22. Mitsilegas V (2010) European criminal law and resistance to communautarisation after Lisbon. New J Eur Crim Law 4:458–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mitsilegas V (2016) EU criminal law after Lisbon rights, trust and the transformation of Justice in Europe. Hart, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Negri S (2008) Giudizio in absentia e garanzie processuali internazionali: note a margine della sentenza della Corte cost. n. 117/2007. Diritto penale e processo, pp 665–679Google Scholar
  25. Öhlinger T (1990) Austria and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Eur J Int Law 1:286–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pollicino O (2008a) Incontri e scontri tra ordinamenti e interazioni tra giudici nella nuova stagione del costituzionalismo europeo: la saga del mandato d”arresto europeo come modello di analisi. Eur J Leg Stud 2:220–268Google Scholar
  27. Pollicino O (2008b) Constitutional Court at cross road between constitutional parochialism and cooperative constitutionalism. Eur Const Law Rev 4:363–382Google Scholar
  28. Pollicino O (2008c) European arrest warrant and constitutional principles of the member states: a case law-based outline in the attempt to strike the right balance between interacting legal systems. Germ Law J 9:1313–1355Google Scholar
  29. Pollicino O (2015) The European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court: No “Groovy Kind of Love”. In: Siegler K (ed) The UK and of European Court of Human Rights - a strained relationship? Hart, London, pp 362–378Google Scholar
  30. Pradel J (1995) Droit pénal compare. Dalloz, ParisGoogle Scholar
  31. Quattrocolo S (2016) Assenza e irreperibilità dell”imputato. Enciclopedia del diritto, Annali IX. Giuffré, Milano, pp 29–57Google Scholar
  32. Rossi LS (2009) Corte costituzionale (Italian Constitutional Court): Decisions 348 and 349/2007 of 22 October 2007, and 102 and 103/2008, of 12 February 2008. Common Mark Law Rev 46:319–331Google Scholar
  33. Rossi LS (2017) How could the ECJ escape from the Taricco Quagmire?. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  34. Sarmiento D (2016) The German Constitutional Court and the European Arrest Warrant: the latest twist in the judicial dialogue. Accessed 14 Nov 2017
  35. Shapiro EL (2012) Examining an underdeveloped constitutional standard: trial in Absentia and the relinquishment of a criminal defendant’s right to be present. Marquette Law Rev 96:591–625Google Scholar
  36. Stamhuis E (2001) In Absentia trials and the right to defend: the incorporation of a European human rights principle into the Dutch criminal justice system. Vic Univ Wellington Law Rev 32:715–728Google Scholar
  37. Starkey JG (1978) Trial in absentia. St John’s Law Rev, 721–745Google Scholar
  38. Tassara L (2009) Trial in Absentia: rescuing the “Public Necessity” requirement to proceed with a trial in the defendant’s absence. Barry Law Rev 12:153–171Google Scholar
  39. Triffterer O (1999) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: observers’ notes, article by article. Beck-Hart-Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  40. van der Schyff G (2010) Constitutional review by the judiciary in the Netherlands: a bridge too far? Germ Law J 11:275–290Google Scholar
  41. Vigoni D (2014) Panorama europeo in tema di giudizio senza imputato. In: Vigoni D (ed) Il giudizio in assenza dell’imputato. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 31–71Google Scholar
  42. Weissbrodt D (2009) The administration of justice and human rights. City Univ Hong Kong Law Rev 1:23–47Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.“Angelo Sraffa” Department of Legal StudiesBocconi UniversityMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations