Samenvatting
Summary of the case law in the reader
Summary of the facts, judgment and key points of the case law inside the reader
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 6 van de 62 pagina's
Voorbeeld 6 van de 62 pagina's
In winkelwagen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
SUMMARY CASE LAW: EUROPEANCRIMINAL LAW
INHOUDSOPGAVE
inhoudsopgave................................................................................................................... 1
Part 1. Introduction: history and sources............................................................................5
A: European Convention on Human Rights......................................................................5
B: Multilateral Cooperation in the Council of Europe........................................................5
C: Criminal law and the European Union..........................................................................5
1: the impact of European Community Law..................................................................5
CJEU 14 december 1995 (Giorgio Domingo Banchero)..............................................5
CJEU 2 february 1982 (Ian William Cowan v. Trésor public).......................................6
2: the impact of the European Union............................................................................7
Titrle V. Area of freedom, security and justice, treaty on the functioning of the
European Union......................................................................................................... 7
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union...............................................7
D. Interrelation ECHR – CoE - EU......................................................................................7
ECHR 30 june 2005 (Bosphorus)...................................................................................7
Part 2. Substantive criminal law.......................................................................................... 9
CJEU 8 october 1987 (Kolpinghuis)...............................................................................9
CJEU 7 january 2004 (Criminal proceedings against X).................................................9
A: Sword function: obligation to incriminate and to punish............................................10
1: ECHR...................................................................................................................... 10
art 2 ECHR: the right to life.....................................................................................10
art 3 ECHR: prohibition of Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment............................................................................................................. 10
ECHR 17 december 2002 (A v. UK).......................................................................10
Art 4 ECHR: the prohibition of Slavery and forced Labour.......................................11
ECHR 26 october 2005 (Siliadin v. France)...........................................................11
art 8 ECHR: The right to respect of private and family life, home and
correspondence....................................................................................................... 12
ECHR 4 december 2003 (M.C. v. Bulgaria)...........................................................12
2: Conventions CoE..................................................................................................... 13
3: Union law................................................................................................................ 13
B: Shield function: Invoking European law as a defence................................................13
Part 3. Investigative Measures (and human rights limits).................................................14
A: Institutional framework.............................................................................................. 14
1
, Klip, A., European criminal law, Cambridge, intersentia, 2021, p. 581-629................14
B: Obligation to investigate........................................................................................... 14
ECHR 4 may 2001 (McKerr v UK)................................................................................14
ECHR 2 december 2008 (K.U. v. Finland)....................................................................15
C. Investigative measures.............................................................................................. 16
1: questioning of the subject......................................................................................16
ECHR 17 december 1996 (Saunders v. UK).............................................................16
ECHR 12 may 2017 (Simeonovi v. Bulgaria)............................................................17
2: examination of witnesses.......................................................................................18
ECHR 16 february 2000 (Rowe & Davis v UK)..........................................................18
ECHR 16 february 2000 (Jasper v UK & Fitt v. UK)...................................................19
ECHR 30 october 1997 (Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands)..................20
ECHR 15 december 2015 ( Schatschaschwili v. Germany)......................................21
3: House search.......................................................................................................... 23
ECHR 17 december 2020 (Saber v. Norway)...........................................................23
4: Wiretap................................................................................................................... 24
ECHR 24 april 1990 (Kruslin v. France)....................................................................24
ECHR 12 january 2016 (Szabo and Vissy v. Hungary)..............................................25
5: Seizure and assets freezing....................................................................................26
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 april 2014 on the
freezin and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of Crime in the EU.......26
Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 november 1018 on
the mutual recognition of freezin orders and confiscation orders............................27
6: DNA-testing............................................................................................................ 27
ECHR 4 december 2008 (S. and Marper v. UK)........................................................27
Council decision of 23 june 2008 on the Stpeping up of cross-border cooperation,
particularly in Combating terrorism and cross-border crime...................................28
7: Observation............................................................................................................ 28
ECHR 27 september 1995 (McCann and Others v. UK)............................................28
8: Infiltration............................................................................................................... 30
ECHR 5 februart 2008 (Ramanauskas v. Lithuania).................................................30
9: E-evidence.............................................................................................................. 31
CJEU 20 september 2022, Joined cases C-339/20 and C-397/20 ( V.D. – data-
retetion).................................................................................................................. 31
10: Judicial control over cross-border intrusive investigation measure EPPO..............33
CJEU (Grand chamber) 21 december 2023 G.K. (parquet européen).......................33
Part 4. Arrest, detention on remand and extradition.........................................................35
European convention on extradition & additional protocols (1975 & 2010)...................35
ECHR 4 september 2014 (Trabelsi v. Belgium)..............................................................35
2
, Council framework decision of 13 june 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the
surrender procedures between member states as amended by framework decision
2009/2999/JHA............................................................................................................... 35
CJEU 21 october 2010 (I.B.)........................................................................................... 35
CJEU 26 february 2013 (Melloni)....................................................................................36
CJEU 5 april 2016 (Aranyosi and Caldararu)...................................................................37
CJEU 6 september 2016 (Petruhhin)..............................................................................38
Part 5. Trial....................................................................................................................... 39
A: Fair trial..................................................................................................................... 39
ECHR 28 june 2011 (Miminoshvili v. Russia)...............................................................39
ECHR 14 may 2020 (Mraovic v. Croatia).....................................................................39
B. Language................................................................................................................... 40
Part 6. Evidence................................................................................................................ 41
A: burden of proof.......................................................................................................... 41
B. limits in using evidence............................................................................................. 41
ECHR 10 March 2009 (Bykov v. Russia)......................................................................41
ECHR 1 june 2010 (Gäfgen v. Germany).....................................................................42
ECHR 12 may 2017 (Simeonovi v. Bulgaria)...............................................................42
CJEU 6 october 2020 (Quadrature du net)..................................................................44
Part 7. Criminal sanctions................................................................................................. 46
A: legality principle........................................................................................................ 46
ECHR 22 january 2013 (Caùilleri v. Malta)..................................................................46
B: abolition of the Death penalty...................................................................................47
C: confiscation of proceeds............................................................................................ 47
d: Quality standards for ciminal sanctions.....................................................................47
CJEU january 1999 (Donatella Calfa)...........................................................................47
Directive of the parliament and the Council on the Right of Citizens of the Union and
their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member
states......................................................................................................................... 48
E: possibility of release.................................................................................................. 48
ECHR 9 july 2013 (Vinter and Others v. UK)................................................................48
F: position of victims with regard to sanctions...............................................................50
Part 8. transfer of proceedings (commission proposal 2024)............................................51
Part 9. Judgment............................................................................................................... 52
A: quality....................................................................................................................... 52
b: international validity.................................................................................................. 52
Part 10. Remedies against in absentia convictions and appeals.......................................53
Part 11. Execution of sanctions......................................................................................... 54
A: treatment prisoners................................................................................................... 54
3
, B: preventive detention after conviction........................................................................54
ECHR 4 december 2018 (Ilnseher v. Germany)..........................................................54
c: execution of fines....................................................................................................... 54
d: cross-border execution.............................................................................................. 54
European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced persons, additional protocol and
protocol amending the additional protocol.................................................................54
Part 12. Changes in legislation: which law applies............................................................56
ECHR 22 november 1995 (S.W. v. UK)...........................................................................56
Part 13. Obstacles to the normal course of criminal proceedings.....................................58
A: immunities................................................................................................................. 58
B: ne bis in idem............................................................................................................ 58
Convention from 19 june 1990 applying the Schengen Agreement of 14 june 1985. .58
article 50 Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union.................................58
article 4 protocol no. 7 to ECHR..................................................................................58
ECTHR 15 november 2016 (A and B v. Norway).........................................................58
CJEU (grand chamber), 20 march 2018 (Menci)..........................................................59
C: prescription............................................................................................................... 61
CJEU 5 december 2017 (M.A.S. and M.B. “Taricco II”).................................................61
4
,PART 1. INTRODUCTION: HISTORY AND SOURCES
A: EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
B: MULTILATERAL COOPERATION IN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
C: CRIMINAL LAW AND THE EUROPEAN UNION
1: THE IMPACT OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LAW
CJEU 14 DECEMBER 1995 (GIORGIO DOMINGO BANCHERO)
The case of Giorgio Domingo Banchero (CJEU, 14 December 1995, Case C-387/93) deals
with the interpretation of European Union law in the context of market regulation,
particularly regarding the application of Directive 75/439/EEC on the disposal of waste
oils. Below is a brief summary of the case facts, judgment, and key points:
Facts
1. Parties Involved: The case involved Giorgio Domingo Banchero, an individual
operating a waste-oil collection business, and the Italian government.
2. Issue: Banchero was prosecuted under Italian law for illegally operating in the
waste-oil disposal market without authorization. Italian law gave exclusive rights
to certain operators for waste-oil collection and disposal, aiming to fulfill
obligations under Directive 75/439/EEC.
3. Directive's Scope: Directive 75/439/EEC seeks to regulate the disposal and
recycling of waste oils in the EU, with Member States implementing measures to
prioritize regeneration and proper disposal. Member States can grant exclusive
rights to certain undertakings for environmental protection and public health
reasons.
4. Conflict: Banchero argued that the national monopoly created by Italian law
conflicted with EU law principles, such as competition and free movement of
goods.
Judgment
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled as follows:
1. Compatibility with Directive 75/439/EEC:
o Member States are allowed to create systems granting exclusive rights to
specific operators for waste-oil collection and disposal, as long as these
measures are justified by environmental and public health objectives.
o Such a monopoly does not necessarily breach the directive.
2. Proportionality and Scope:
5
, o Any restriction on competition or economic activity must comply with the
principle of proportionality. Measures must be appropriate, necessary, and
not go beyond what is required to achieve the environmental objectives.
3. Free Movement of Goods:
o Exclusive rights systems are not inherently incompatible with the Treaty
provisions on the free movement of goods if they pursue legitimate public
interest goals.
Key Points
1. Environmental Objectives Justify Restrictions:
o EU law allows Member States to impose market restrictions if they serve
objectives like environmental protection and public health, provided they
are proportionate.
2. National Discretion:
o Member States have some discretion in implementing directives like
75/439/EEC, including granting exclusive rights for waste management
operations.
3. Competition Law:
o While competition is a core EU principle, it can be limited in specific sectors
(like waste management) to meet higher-priority public interest goals.
4. Balancing Interests:
o The judgment underscores the need to balance environmental protection
and economic freedoms, emphasizing that restrictive measures must not
exceed what is necessary.
This case illustrates the nuanced application of EU law, balancing market freedoms with
public policy objectives like environmental protection. It affirmed the legitimacy of
national monopolies under EU law when aligned with specific directives and proportional
to their aims.
CJEU 2 FEBRUARY 1982 (IAN WILLIAM COWAN V. TRÉSOR PUBLIC)
Facts:
Ian William Cowan, a British national, was attacked and robbed while visiting Paris as a
tourist. During the attack, he suffered injuries and sought compensation from a French
public fund established to assist crime victims (the Fonds de Garantie). However, under
French law at the time, only French nationals or residents were eligible for compensation
from this fund. Cowan was denied compensation on the grounds that he was not a French
resident or national. He challenged the decision, arguing it violated EU law.
6
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
√ Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, Bancontact of creditcard voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper xxjjbb. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €8,86. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 58716 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 15 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen