The Protection of Fundamental Rights

Chapter

Abstract

The chapter analyzes in Sect. 2.1 the multilevel protection of fundamental rights, also considered in a historical perspective. Special focus is given to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Art. 6 TEU, and the perspective of the accession of the European Union to the ECHR. Section 2.2 is dedicated to legislative harmonization, which has been developed from Art. 82 TFEU, namely with the directives on fundamental rights of suspected and accused persons and on victim’s rights. Finally, Sect. 2.3 deals with judicial protection of fundamental rights, in the relationship (and the conflicts) between the two European courts and national judges.

Further Reading

  1. Alkema EA, Van Der Hulle R, Van Der Hulle R (2015) Safeguard rules in the European legal order: the relationship between Article 53 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Hum Rights Law J, pp 8 ffGoogle Scholar
  2. Allegrezza S (2013) The interaction between the ECJ and the ECtHR with respect to the protection of procedural safeguards after Lisbon: the accession of the EU to the ECHR. In: Ligeti K (ed) Toward a Prosecutor for the European Union. I, A comparative analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 905 ffGoogle Scholar
  3. Androulakis IN (2014) European perspectives on rights for victims of crime. Eucrim, pp 111 ffGoogle Scholar
  4. Arai-Takashi Y (2002) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Arangüena Fanego C (2014) El derecho a la asistencia letrada en la directiva 2013/48/UE. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  6. Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The EU directive on the right to access to a lawyer: a critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon Treaty. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Bargis M (2012) La cooperazione giudiziaria penale nell’Unione europea tra mutuo riconoscimento e armonizzazione: analisi e prospettive. Riv. dir. proc., pp 914 ffGoogle Scholar
  8. Benoit-Rohmer F (2005) A propos de l’arrêt Bosphorus Air Lines du 30 Juin 2005: l’adhésion contrainte de l’Union à la Convention. Rev. trim. droits de l’homme, pp 827 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. Billis E (2016) The European Court of Justice: a “Quasi-Constitutional Court” in criminal matters? The Taricco judgment and its shortcomings. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 20 ffGoogle Scholar
  10. Böse M (2011) The principle of proportionality and the protection of legal interests (Verhältnismäßigkeit und Rechtsgüterschutz). EuCLR, pp 35 ffGoogle Scholar
  11. Caianiello M (2014) Il principio di proporzionalità nel procedimento penale. Dir pen cont – Riv trim 3–4, pp 143 ffGoogle Scholar
  12. Caianiello M (2017) You can’t always counterbalance what you want. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice, pp 283 ffGoogle Scholar
  13. Cardone A (2011) Diritti fondamentali (tutela multilivello dei). Enc. dir., Annali IV, Giuffrè, Milano, pp 335 ffGoogle Scholar
  14. Cortés Martín JM (2016) Sobre la plena vigencia de la presunción de equivalencia (Bosphorus) y su aplicación al principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, pp 819 ffGoogle Scholar
  15. Costello C (2006) The Bosphorus ruling of the European Court of Human Rights: fundamental rights and blurred boundaries in Europe. Hum Rights Law Rev, pp 87 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coventry T (2017) Pretrial detention. Assessing European Union Competence under Article 82(2) TFEU. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 43 ffGoogle Scholar
  17. Cras S (2014) The directive on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings. Eucrim, pp 32 ffGoogle Scholar
  18. Cras S (2016) The directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings genesis and descriptive comments relating to selected articles. Eucrim, pp 109 ffGoogle Scholar
  19. Cras S, Erbežnik A (2016) The directive on the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial. Eucrim, pp 25 ffGoogle Scholar
  20. Cras S (2017) The directive on the right to legal aid in criminal and EAW proceedings. Genesis and description of the sixth instrument of the 2009 roadmap. Eucrim, pp 34 ffGoogle Scholar
  21. Daniele M (2016) La triangolazione delle garanzie processuali fra diritto dell’Unione europea, CEDU e sistemi nazionali. Dir pen cont – Riv trim 4, pp 48 ffGoogle Scholar
  22. De Bondt W, Vermeulen G (2010) The procedural rights debate. A bridge too far or still not far enough. Eucrim, pp 164 ffGoogle Scholar
  23. De Jong F, van Lent L (2016) The presumption of innocence as a counterfactual principle. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 32 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Delmas Marty M (1986) Le flou du droit. Du code pénal aux droits de l’homme. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Douglas-Scott S (2011) The European Union and human rights after the Treaty of Lisbon. Hum Rights Law Rev, pp 629 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dzehtsiarou K, Konstadinides T, Lock T, O’Meara N (eds) (2014) Human rights law in Europe: the influence, overlaps and contradictions of the EU and the ECHR. Routledge, London-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Eeckhout P (2015) Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR and judicial dialogue – autonomy or autarchy? Jean Monnet working paper 1/15, pp 36 ffGoogle Scholar
  28. Favreau B (2016) L’Europe à la poursuite des droits fondamentaux. Eucrim, pp 104 ffGoogle Scholar
  29. Flick GM (2015) The principle of legality: reflections on the dialogue between the Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 553 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gianfrancesco E (2010) Incroci pericolosi: Cedu, Carta dei diritti fondamentali e Costituzione italiana tra Corte costituzionale, Corte di giustizia e Corte di Strasburgo. In: Pedrazza Gorlero M (ed) Corti costituzionali e Corti europee dopo il Trattato di Lisbona. Esi, Napoli, pp 151 ffGoogle Scholar
  31. Giannopoulos C (2015) Considerations on Protocol N° 16: can the new advisory competence of the European Court of Human Rights breathe new life into the European Convention on Human Rights? German Law J, pp 337 ffGoogle Scholar
  32. Gless S (2013) Transnational cooperation in criminal matters and the guarantee of a fair trial: approaches to a general principle. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 90 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. González Monje A (2016) La presunción de inocencia en la Unión Europea: Directiva 2016/343 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 9 de marzo de 2016 por la que se refuerzan en el proceso penal determinados aspectos de la presunción de inocencia y el derecho a estar presente en el juicio. Revista General de Derecho Europeo, no. 39Google Scholar
  34. Grasso G (2015) The instruments of harmonisation of national criminal law, their enforcement and the role of the court of justice. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 494 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Groenhuijsen MS, Pemberton A (2009) The EU framework decision for victims of crime: does hard law make a difference? Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just, pp 43 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Halberstam D (2015) “It’s the Autonomy Stupid!”. A modest defense of Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR. German Law J, pp 106 ffGoogle Scholar
  37. Halleskov Stogaard L (2015) EU law autonomy versus European fundamental rights protection — on Opinion 2/13 on EU accession to the ECHR. Hum Rights Law Rev, pp 485 ffGoogle Scholar
  38. Hecker B (2015) The development of individual rights protection in European criminal law after the Lisbon Treaty. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in European criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon Treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  39. Herlin-Karnell E (2014) All roads lead to Rome: the new AFSJ package and the trajectory to Europe 2020. Eucrim, pp 27 ffGoogle Scholar
  40. Jaeger M (2016) The judge and citizenship of the union. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 210 ffGoogle Scholar
  41. Kargopoulos AI (2015) ECHR and the CJEU. Competing, overlapping or supplementary competences? Eucrim, pp 96 ffGoogle Scholar
  42. Klip A (2015) On victim’s rights and its impact on the rights of the accused. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just, pp 177 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Kostoris RE (2015) Processo penale, diritto europeo e nuovi paradigmi del pluralismo giuridico post-moderno. Riv it dir e proc pen, pp 1177 ffGoogle Scholar
  44. Kostoris RE (2016) Equità, processo penale, diritto europeo. Riflessioni di un giurista di civil law. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, pp 1653 ffGoogle Scholar
  45. Krenn C (2015) Autonomy and effectiveness as common concerns: a path to ECHR accession after Opinion 2/13. German Law J, pp 147 ffGoogle Scholar
  46. Laffranque J (2012) Who has the last word on the protection of human rights in Europe? Juridica Int – Law Rev Univ Tartu, pp 117 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Lavranos N (2008) Towards a Solange-method between international courts and tribunals? In: Dhany Y, Broude T (eds) The shifting allocation of authority in international law: considering sovereignty, supremacy and subsidiarity. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 217 ffGoogle Scholar
  48. Lazowski A, Wesse RA (2015) When caveats turn into locks: Opinion 2/13 on accession of the European Union to the ECHR. German Law J, pp 179 ffGoogle Scholar
  49. Le Bot O (2003) Charte de l’Union européenne et Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme: la coexistence de deux catalogues de droits fondamentaux. Rev. trim. droits de l’homme, pp 781 ffGoogle Scholar
  50. Lock T (2011) A critical account of the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Just J 8(2):58 ffGoogle Scholar
  51. Lonati S (2017) Fair trial and the interpretation approach adopted by the Strasbourg Court. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just, pp 52 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Manzano MP (2013) The Spanish Constitutional Court and the multilevel protection of fundamental rights in Europe; matters relating to ACT 86/2011, of 6 June. Eur Crim Law Rev, pp 79 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Martín Rodríguez PJ (2016) La emergencia de los límites constitucionales de la confianza mutua en el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia en la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia Aranyosi y Caldararu. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, pp 859 ffGoogle Scholar
  54. Mitsilegas V (2015) Judicial concepts of trust in Europe’s multi-level security governance. Eucrim, pp 90 ffGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitsilegas V (2015) The symbiotic relationship between mutual trust and fundamental rights in Europe’s area of criminal justice. New J Eur Crim Law 6(4):457 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Novokmet A (2016) The right of a victim to a review of a decision not to prosecute as set out in Article 11 of Directive 2012/29/EU and an assessment of its transposition in Germany, Italy, France and Croatia. Utrecht Law Rev, pp 86 ffGoogle Scholar
  57. Nowak C (2014) Judicial control of the prosecutors’ activities in the light of the ECHR. Eucrim, pp 60 ffGoogle Scholar
  58. Øbi Johansen S (2015) The reinterpretation of TFEU Article 344 in Opinion 2/13 and its potential consequences. German Law J, pp 169 ffGoogle Scholar
  59. Ojanen T (2016) Making the essence of fundamental rights real: the Court of Justice of the European Union clarifies the structure of fundamental rights under the Charter. Eur Constitut Law Rev, pp 318 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peers S, Hervey T, Kenner J, Ward A (eds) (2014) The EU Charter of fundamental rights. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Peers S (2015) The EU’s accession to the ECHR: the dream becomes a nightmare. German Law J, pp 213 ffGoogle Scholar
  62. Pernice I (2008) The Treaty of Lisbon and fundamental rights. In: Griller S, Ziller J (eds) The Lisbon Treaty. EU constitutionalism without a constitutional treaty? Springer, Heidelberg, pp 235 ffGoogle Scholar
  63. Rafaraci T (2014) Diritti fondamentali, giusto processo e primato del diritto UE. Proc pen e giust 3:1 ffGoogle Scholar
  64. Reestman JH, Besselink LFM (2013) Editorial after Akerberg Fransson and Melloni. Eur Constitut Law Rev, pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  65. Ritleng D (2014) The contribution of the Court of Justice to the structuring of the European space of fundamental rights. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 507 ffGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosas A, Kaila H (2011) L’application de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne par la Cour de justice: un premier bilan. Il dir. Unione eur., pp 1 ffGoogle Scholar
  67. Rossi LS (2008) How fundamental are fundamental principles? Primacy and fundamental rights after Lisbon. In: Eeckhout P, Tridimas T (eds) Yearbook of European law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 65 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ruggeri S (ed) (2013) Transnational inquiries and the protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  69. Ruggeri S (2016) Inaudito reo proceedings, defence rights, and harmonisation goals in the EU responses of the European Courts and new perspectives of EU law. Eucrim, pp 42 ffGoogle Scholar
  70. Salazar L (2014) EU’s criminal policy and the possible contents of a new multi-annual programme. From one city to another… Eucrim, pp 22 ffGoogle Scholar
  71. Sánchez MA (2016) Integración europea y legitimidad de la jurisdicción constitucional. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, pp 941 ffGoogle Scholar
  72. Satzger H (2015) Legal effects of directives amending or repealing pre-Lisbon framework decisions. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 528 ffGoogle Scholar
  73. Scalia V (2015) Protection of fundamental rights and criminal law. The dialogue between the EU Court of Justice and the national courts. Eucrim, pp 100 ffGoogle Scholar
  74. Sciarabba V (2008) Tra Fonti e Corti. Diritti e principi fondamentali in Europa: profili costituzionali e comparati degli sviluppi sovranazionali, Cedam, PadovaGoogle Scholar
  75. Sieber U, Brüner FH, Satzger H, Von Heintschel-Heinegg B (eds) (2011) Europäisches Strafrecht. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  76. Skouris V (2009) Les Rapports entre la Cour de justice et les jurisdictions constitutionnelles nationals. Dir un eur, pp 775 ffGoogle Scholar
  77. Soo A (2017) How are the member states progressing on transposition of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer? An inquiry conducted among the member states with the special focus on how Article 12 is transposed. New J Eur Crim Law, pp 64 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Soo A (2017) Article 12 of the Directive 2013/48/EU: a starting point for discussion on a common understanding of the criteria for effective remedies of violation of the right to counsel. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just, pp 31 ffGoogle Scholar
  79. Torres Pérez A (2014) Melloni in three acts: from dialogue to monologue. Eur Constitut Law Rev, pp 308 ffGoogle Scholar
  80. Tsakyrakis S (2009) Proportionality: an assault on human rights? Int J Const Law, pp 468 ffGoogle Scholar
  81. Van der Velde J (2009) The protection of fundamental rights within the European Union - a historical approach. In: Wouters J, Verhey L, Kiiver P (eds) European constitutionalism beyond Lisbon. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 63 ffGoogle Scholar
  82. Vervaele JAE (2014) The European arrest warrant and applicable standards of fundamental rights. In: Vervaele JAE (ed) European criminal justice in the post-Lisbon area of freedom, security and justice (with a prologue by G. Fornasari and D. Sartori). Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 235 ffGoogle Scholar
  83. Vogler R (2014) Criminal evidence and respect for fair trial guarantees in the dialogue between the European Court of Human Right and national courts. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Transnational evidence and multicultural inquiries in Europe. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181 ffGoogle Scholar
  84. White S (2010) The EU’s accession to the convention on human rights: a new era of closer cooperation between the council of Europe and the EU? New J Eur Crim Law, pp 425 ffGoogle Scholar
  85. Zimmermann F (2015) Strafgewaltkonflikte in der Europäischen Union. Ein Regelungsvorschlag zur Wahrung materieller und prozessualer strafrechtlicher Garantien sowie staatlicher Strafinteressen. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of PaduaPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations