The Role of the Proportionality Principle in Cross-Border Investigations Involving Fundamental Rights

Chapter

Abstract

In the context of European judicial cooperation it is relevant to check what is the role the proportionality principle plays, or should play, in the evidence gathering in cross-border criminal proceedings. This paper will first highlight some of the difficulties in defining the principle of proportionality with regard to coercive investigative measures and in finding a common concept of proportionality in Europe. Finally, we will discuss what is the role of the principle of proportionality in the regulation of the EU legal instruments on the evidence gathering, precisely in the proposal for a directive on a European Investigation Order (version June 2011).

Keywords

Member State Mutual Recognition Criminal Investigation Coercive Measure Criminal Matter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

EAW

European Arrest Warrant

ECBA

European Criminal Bar Association

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights

EIO

European Investigation Order

EU FRA

European Union’s Agency for Fundamental Rights

EU FRCh

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

FD EEW

Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant

SC

Spanish Constitution

References

  1. Allegrezza S (2007) Cooperazione giudiziaria, mutuo riconoscimento e circolazione della prova penale nello spazio giudiziario europeo. In: Rafaraci T (ed) L’area di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia: alla ricerca di un equilibrio fra priorità repressive ed esigenze di garanzia. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 691–719Google Scholar
  2. Allegrezza S (2009) L’armonizzazione della prova penale alla luce del trattato di Lisbona. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, pp 160–174Google Scholar
  3. Allegrezza S (2010) Critical remarks on the Green Paper on obtaining evidence from one Member State to another and securing its admissibility. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 569–579Google Scholar
  4. Ambos K (2010) 10 Thesen zum Grünbuch der EU-Kommission Erlangung verwertbarer Beweise in Strafsachen aus einem anderen Mitgliedstaat. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 557–566Google Scholar
  5. Arai-Takahashi Y (2002) The margin of appreciation doctrine and the principle of proportionality in the jurisprudence of the ECHR. Intersentia, Antwerp/OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashworth A (2002) Human rights, serious crime and criminal procedure. The Hamlyn Lectures. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bachmaier L (2006a) Obtención de pruebas en Europa: La función del TEDH en la implantación del principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el proceso penal. Revista de Derecho Procesal 53–77Google Scholar
  8. Bachmaier L (2006b) El exhorto europeo de obtención de pruebas en el proceso penal. Estudio y perspectivas de la propuesta de Decisión Marco. In: Armenta Deu T, Gascón Inchausti F (eds) El derecho procesal penal en la Unión Europea. Tendencias actuales y perspectivas de futuro. Colex, Madrid, pp 131–178Google Scholar
  9. Bachmaier L (2009) Criminal investigation and the right to privacy in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Lex et Scientia (Lesij) II(XVI):9–29Google Scholar
  10. Bachmaier L (2010) European Investigation Order for obtaining evidence in the criminal proceedings: study of the proposal for a European Directive. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 580–589Google Scholar
  11. Barnes Vázquez J (1994) Introducción al principio de proporcionalidad en el derecho comparado y comunitario. Revista de la Administración Pública 495–535Google Scholar
  12. Bernal Pulido C (2005) El principio de proporcionalidad y los derechos fundamentales. Colex, MadridGoogle Scholar
  13. De Hert P, Gutwirth S (2006) Privacy, data protection and law enforcement.Opacity of the individual and transparency of power. In: Claes E et al (eds) Privacy and the criminal law. Intersentia, Antwerpen-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Degener W (1985) Grundsatz der Verhältnismäßigkeit und strafprozessuale Zwangsmaßnahmen. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  15. Diffie W, Landau S (2007) Privacy on the line. The politics of wiretapping and encryption. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fordham M, De La Mare T (2001) Identifying the principles of proportionality. In: Jowell J, Cooper J (eds) Understanding human rights principles. Intersentia, Antwerpen-OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Gascon Inchausti F (2007) En torno a la creación de un derecho europeo. Revista española de derecho europeo 23:371–417Google Scholar
  18. Gless S (2003) Die Verkehrsfähigkeit von Beweisen im Strafverfahren. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 115:131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gless S (2004) Kommentar zum Vorschlag für einen Rahmenbeschluß über eine “Europäische Beweisanordnung”. Strafverteidiger 12:679–683Google Scholar
  20. Gless S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  21. González Beilfuss M (2003) El principio de proporcionalidad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional. Thompson-Aranzadi, Cizur MenorGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Cuéllar N (1990) Proporcionalidad y derechos fundamentales en el proceso penal. Colex, MadridGoogle Scholar
  23. Ijzerman A (2005) From the cats to portfolio: the European Evidence Warrant. In: Vervaele JAE (ed) European Evidence Warrant. Transnational judicial inquiries in the EU. Intersentia, Antwerpen-Oxford, pp 5–16Google Scholar
  24. Illuminati G (2009) L’armonizzazione della prova penale nell’Unione Europea. In: Illuminati G (ed) Prova penale e Unione Europea. Bononia University Press, Bologna, pp 9–15Google Scholar
  25. Jimeno Bulnes M (1988) Sobre el principio de proporcionalidad en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas. Revista Universitaria de Derecho Procesal 0: 137–149Google Scholar
  26. Jimeno Bulnes M (2008) European arrest warrant and surrender procedure: essential guarantees. In: Hoyos M (ed) Criminal proceedings in the European Union: essential safeguards. Lex Nova, Valladolid, pp 113–122Google Scholar
  27. Jimeno Bulnes M (2011a) Un proceso europeo para el siglo XXI. Civitas, Cizur MenorGoogle Scholar
  28. Jimeno Bulnes M (2011b) Régimen y experiencia práctica de la orden de detención europea. In: Jimeno Bulnes M et al (ed) Justicia versus seguridad en el espacio judicial europeo. Orden de detención y garantias procesales. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 109–200Google Scholar
  29. Kühne H-H (1998) Grundsrechtsschutz in einem grenzenlosen europäischen Strafrecht. In: Kreuzer K, Scheunig D, Sieber U (eds) Europäischer Grundrechtsschutz. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 55 ffGoogle Scholar
  30. Lelieur J (2010) L’application de la reconnaissance mutuelle a l’obtention transnationale de preuves pénales dans l’Union européenne: une chance pour un droit probatoire francais en crise?. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 590–601Google Scholar
  31. López González JI (1988) El principio general de proporcionalidad en el derecho administrativo. Inst. García Oviedo, SevillaGoogle Scholar
  32. McBride J (1999) Proportionality and the European Convention on Human Rights. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  33. Pedraz Penalva E, Ortega Benito V (1990) El principio de proporcionalidad y su configuración en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional y en literatura especializada alemana. Revista del Poder Judicial 17:69–100Google Scholar
  34. Peers S (2010) The proposed European Investigation Order. Assault on human rights and national sovereignty. http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-96-european-investigation-order.pdf. Accessed 22 Aug 2011
  35. Perello Domenech I (1997) El principio de proporcionalidad y la jurisprudencia constitucional. Revista Jueces para la Democracia 28:69–75Google Scholar
  36. Reid K (2008) A practitioner’s guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. Thomson/Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodríguez Bahamonde R (2009) El exhorto europeo de obtención de pruebas para recabar objetos, documentos y datos destinados a procedimientos en materia penal. Comentario sobre la DM 2008/978/JAI del Consejo, de 18 de diciembre 2008. Revista general de derecho europeo 19:1–22Google Scholar
  38. Schünemann B (2010) Observations on the Green Paper on obtaining evidence from one member state to another and securing its admissibility. http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/0004/civil_society/eurodefensor_en.pdf. Accessed 3 Sept 2011
  39. Sieber U (1998) Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Strafrecht. Einführung zum Corpus Iuris. In: Delmas-Marty M (ed) Corpus Iuris der strafrechtlichen Regelungen zum Schutz der finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union. Heymann, Köln, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  40. Sieber U (2009) Die Zukunft des Europäischen Strafrechts. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 121:1–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sobel JK, Petrulakis KJ, Dixon-Thayer DM (2008) The evolution of data protection as a privacy concern, and the contract law dynamics underlying it. In: Chander A, Gelman L, Radin MJ (eds) Securing privacy in the Internet age. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 55–72Google Scholar
  42. Sotto Maior M (2009) The principle of proportionality: alternative measures to the European Arrest Warrant. In: Keijzer N, van Sliedregt E (eds) The European Arrest Warrant in practice. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, p 213 ffGoogle Scholar
  43. Spencer JR (2005) An Academic Critique of the EU Acquis in Relation to Transborder Evidence-Gathering. In: Dealing with European Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: National Practice and European Union Policy, ERA-forum, Scripta Iuris Europaei, Trier, pp 28–40Google Scholar
  44. Spencer J (2010) The Green Paper on obtaining evidence from one member state to another and securing its admissibility: the reaction of one British Lawyer. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 602–605Google Scholar
  45. Takis Tridimas P (1999) Searching the appropriate standard of scrutiny. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  46. Verbruggen F (2006) The glass may be half-full or half-empty, but it is definitely fragile. In: Claes E, Duffy A, Gutwirth S (eds) Privacy and the criminal law. Intersentia, Antwerpen-Oxford, p 125 ffGoogle Scholar
  47. Vermeulen G et al (eds) (2010) EU cross-border gathering and use of evidence in criminal matters. Towards mutual recognition of investigative measures and free movement of evidence, IRCP Series vol 37. Maklu, AnwerpenGoogle Scholar
  48. Vidal Fueyo C (2005) El principio de proporcionalidad como parámetro de constitucionalidad de la actividad del juez. Anuario de Derecho Constitucional Latinoamericano 427–447Google Scholar
  49. Vogel J (2004) The European Evidence Warrant: a new legal framework for transnational evidence gathering in criminal matters, paper presented in the ECBA in May 2004. http://www.ecba.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=Article&id=516%3Athe-european-evidence-warrant-a-new-legal-framework-joachim-r-vogel&catid=81%3Aat-ecba-conferences-in-2004&Itemid=80
  50. Vogel J, Spencer JR (2010) Proportionality and the European Arrest Warrant. Crim Law Rev 6:474–482Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Procedural Law, Law SchoolUniversity Complutense of MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations