Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fair Trial Rights in the European Union: Reconciling Accused and Victims’ Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
EU Criminal Justice

Abstract

After many years of concentrating on legislation with a repressive component, the EU has finally embraced the defence. Since 2010, it has legislated various defence rights as part of a road map for more citizen’s rights. What are these rights and to which extent are they different than the rights already guaranteed by the ECtHR? How do these rights compete or balance with the rights given the victims? This paper brings all these developments together and sketches the steps towards building up the rights-component of European criminal law.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Recital 10 Directive 2012/13 on the Right to Information: “Common minimum rules should lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all Member States, which, in turn, should lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust.”

  2. 2.

    Recital 11 of Directive 2012/29 on Victim’s Rights also allows for a higher level of protection for victims.

  3. 3.

    See Recital 22: “This Directive lays down minimum rules. It does not prevent Member States from providing more extensive powers in their national law, including, for example, in relation to their rules on evidence.”

  4. 4.

    11 May 1989, Case 25/88, criminal proceedings against Esther Renée Bouchara, née Wurmser, and Norlaine SA.

  5. 5.

    8 July 1975, Case 4-75, Rewe-Zentralfinanz eGmbH v. Landwirtschaftskammer; 22 September 1988, Case 286/86, Ministère public v. Gérard Deserbais.

  6. 6.

    Mutual trust is occasionally also referred to as “mutual confidence”. See 21 December 2011, Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10, N. S. (C-411/10) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department and M. E. (C-493/10), A. S. M., M. T., K. P., E. H. par. 79. There is no indication whatsoever that it was intended to create new and different terminology.

  7. 7.

    6 September 2012, Case C-619/10, Trade Agency Ltd v. Seramico Investments Ltd, par. 40.

  8. 8.

    18 December 2014, Opinion 2/13, par. 192.

  9. 9.

    In the fourth preambular paragraph of Directive 2013/48 on the Right of Access to a Lawyer it is stated that: “The implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States trust in each other’s criminal justice systems.”

  10. 10.

    15 July 2010, Case C-256/09, Bianca Purrucker v. Guillermo Vallés Pérez, par. 72–74.

  11. 11.

    1 July 2010, Case C-442/08, Commission v. Germany, par. 70–71.

  12. 12.

    26 April 2012, Case C-92/12 PPU, Health Service Executive v. C. and C., par. 103.

  13. 13.

    Recital 13 Framework Decision 2008/909 on Custodial Sentences.

  14. 14.

    This case law has been codified in the Charter. Article 47 Charter stipulates the general right to a fair and public hearing. Article 48, paragraph 2, Charter, reads: “Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed”.

  15. 15.

    10 May 2007, Case C-328/05 P, Appeal of SGL Carbon AG, par. 59.

  16. 16.

    7 June 1983, Joined Cases 100 to 103/80, SA Musique Diffusion française and others v. Commission, par. 10–11.

  17. 17.

    21 September 1989, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v. Commission, par. 15; 17 October 1989, Case 85/87, Dow Benelux NV v. Commission, par. 26.

  18. 18.

    14 February 2008, Case C-450/06, Varec SA v. Belgian State.

  19. 19.

    16 June 2005, criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino, Case C-105/03 par. 57 and 58.

  20. 20.

    Opinion of Advocate General Kokott of 11 November 2004, Case C-105/03, criminal proceedings against Maria Pupino, point 67.

  21. 21.

    21 September 1989, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v. Commission, par. 16; 17 October 1989, Case 85/87, Dow Benelux NV v. Commission, par. 27; 18 May 1982, Case 155/79, AM & S Europe Limited v. Commission. See further Klip (2016), pp. 260–284.

  22. 22.

    The general human rights character of the legal instrument is also reflected in clauses such as legal aid (Art. 11), effective remedies (Art. 12), vulnerable suspects and accused (Art. 13) and non-regression (Art. 14).

  23. 23.

    Article 1 Directive 2013/48 specifically refers to Framework Decision 2002/584. This raises the question whether the Directive is applicable in proceedings other than the arrest warrant, such as the mutual recognition of judgments, transfer of supervision of detention on remand or the European protection order. All of these have in common the fact that they do not deal with the determination of the nature of the charge, which is the decisive criterion for considering a proceeding a criminal proceeding. However, as the character of the proceedings is similar to the arrest warrant proceedings, and they deal with the consequences of a suspicion, charge or sentence, the right of access to a lawyer should exist on an equal level. Article 2 Directive 2013/48 also indicates that the scope encompasses full proceedings.

  24. 24.

    ECtHR, 7 October 2008, Monedero v. Spain, Appl. 41138/05.

  25. 25.

    The Directive is in the end the codification of a new step in the case law of the ECtHR that started with its judgment of 27 November 2008, Salduz v. Turkey, Application 36391/02.

  26. 26.

    Recital 13 also excludes disciplinary proceedings in prison facilities and with regard to military offences. See further Recitals 16–18.

  27. 27.

    Recital 15: “The term ‘lawyer’ in this Directive refers to any person who, in accordance with national law, is qualified and entitled, including by means of accreditation by an authorised body, to provide legal advice and assistance to suspects or accused persons.”

  28. 28.

    See further Article 8 on rules applicable to derogations, underlining their exceptional and temporary character and taking into consideration proportionality and fair trial demands.

  29. 29.

    This also relates to Directive 2012/13 on the Right to Information.

  30. 30.

    25 February 1988, Case 427/85, Commission v. Germany.

  31. 31.

    25 February 1988, Case 427/85, Commission v. Germany, par. 29–32.

  32. 32.

    26 June 2007, Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v. Conseil des Ministres.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro, 14 December 2006, Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v. Conseil des Ministres, par. 39.

  34. 34.

    22 October 2002, Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères SA v. Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes and the Commission, par. 46.

  35. 35.

    26 June 2007, Case C-305/05, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone, Ordre français des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles, Ordre des barreaux flamands, Ordre néerlandais des avocats du barreau de Bruxelles v. Conseil des Ministres, par. 34.

  36. 36.

    14 September 2010, Case C-550/07 P, Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, established in Hersham (United Kingdom), Akcros Chemicals Ltd, established in Hersham v. Commission, par. 43–47.

  37. 37.

    A specific Directive stipulates the rules applicable on data protection in cooperation in criminal matters. See Directive 2016/680 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977.

  38. 38.

    26 June 1980, Case 136/79, National Panasonic (UK) Limited v. Commission, par. 19–20.

  39. 39.

    21 September 1989, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v. Commission, par. 17–18; 17 October 1989, Case 85/87, Dow Benelux NV v. Commission, par. 28–29. However, Advocate General Mischo had advocated a fundamental right to the inviolability of business premises. See Joined Opinion of 21 February 1989, Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88, Hoechst AG v. Commission, and Case 85/87, Dow Benelux NV v. Commission, point 103.

  40. 40.

    ECtHR, 16 December 1992, Niemietz v. Germany, Series A-251B.

  41. 41.

    11 July 1985, Case 137/84, criminal proceedings against Robert Heinrich Maria Mutsch. Belgian law provided that, in the German speaking part of the country, Belgian nationals could choose between German and French, yet it refused this to Mutsch, a worker from Luxembourg. In 24 November 1998, Case C-274/96, criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz, the Court held that if Italian law entitles German-speaking Italians to have criminal proceedings conducted in German, this right should also be given to German-speaking non-Italians.

  42. 42.

    15 October 2015, Case C-216/14, criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci, par. 30 and 31.

  43. 43.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bot of 7 May 2015, Case C-216/14, criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci, point 60.

  44. 44.

    15 October 2015, Case C-216/14, criminal proceedings against Gavril Covaci, par. 38.

  45. 45.

    1 July 2008, Case C-341/06P and C-342/06P, Chronopost SA (C-341/06 P), La Poste, (C-342/06 P), Union française de l’express (UFEX), established in Roissy-en-France (France), DHL Express (France) SAS, formerly DHL International SA, established in Roissy-en-France, Federal express international (France) SNC, established in Gennevilliers (France), CRIE SA, in liquidation, established in Asnières (France) v. Commission, par. 54 (references omitted).

  46. 46.

    See Recital 40 Directive 2012/13 on the Right to Information.

  47. 47.

    OJ 2012, L 142/8, similarly for persons arrested on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, OJ 2012, L 142/8.

  48. 48.

    This right already exists on the basis of Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

  49. 49.

    This is further reinforced by Framework Decision 2009/299 on In Absentia.

  50. 50.

    22 October 2002, Case C-94/00, Roquette Frères SA v. Directeur général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes and the Commission, par. 46.

  51. 51.

    18 January 2007, Case C-229/05, Osman Ocalan (PKK) and Serif Valy (KNK) appellants, Council, defendant, par. 116–122.

  52. 52.

    2 October 2003, C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG v. Commission1, par. 155; 25 January 2007, Joined Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04, Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd and Nippon Steel Corp. v. Commission, pp. 116–122.

  53. 53.

    That means Directive 2010/64 on Interpretation and Translation, Directive 2012/13 on the Right to Information and Directive 2013/48 on the Right of Access to a Lawyer.

  54. 54.

    Directive 2012/29 does not state how, when and by whom such a finding should be taken. Is this the national criminal court, it may amount to a violation of the presumption of innocence if the finding that the person is a victim coincides with the finding that the victim is a victim of the accused?

  55. 55.

    Many authors advise not to use the term alleged victim, because the effects are negative for the victim. See for instance Brienen and Hoegen (2000), p. 1169.

  56. 56.

    Braun (2013), pp. 1889–1908.

  57. 57.

    Groenhuijsen (2014), p. 42.

  58. 58.

    The Directives on rights of the defence clearly state that the general purpose of the instruments is to be conducive to a fair trial. See Recital 1 Directive 2013/48 on the Right of Access to a Lawyer, Recital 5 Directive 2010/64 on Interpretation and Translation and Recital 5 Directive 2012/13 on the Right to Information.

  59. 59.

    See Tonellato (2012), pp. 315–359.

  60. 60.

    See ICC, 11 July 2008, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber I’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, A.Ch., ICC-01/04-01/06, OA9OA10, Klip and Freeland (2013), par. 66: “neither rule 85 of the Rules nor the Rome Statute framework has the effect of restricting the participation of victims to the crimes contained in the charges confirmed by the Pre-Trial Chamber.”

References

  • Braun K (2013) Giving victims a voice: on the problems of introducing victim impact statements in German criminal procedure. German Law J 14(9):1889–1908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brienen MEI, Hoegen EH (2000) Victims of crime in 22 European criminal justice systems. Wolf Legal Productions, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenhuijsen MS (2014) The development of international policy in relation to victims of crime. Int Rev Victimol 20(1):31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klip A (2016) European criminal law - an integrated approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Klip A, Freeland S (2013) Annotated leading cases of international criminal tribunals, vol 40. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonellato M (2012) The victim’s participation at a crossroads: how the international criminal court could devise a meaningful victim’s participation while respecting the rights of the defendant. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Just 20(3):315–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maastricht, Faculty of Law, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    André Klip

Authors
  1. André Klip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to André Klip .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Catania, Catania, Italy

    Tommaso Rafaraci  & Rosanna Belfiore  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Klip, A. (2019). Fair Trial Rights in the European Union: Reconciling Accused and Victims’ Rights. In: Rafaraci, T., Belfiore, R. (eds) EU Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97318-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97319-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation