Op werkdagen voor 23:00 besteld, morgen in huis Gratis verzending vanaf €20
, ,

The European Arrest Warrant and In Absentia Judgements

Paperback Engels 2020 9789462369856
Vandaag voor 17:00 uur besteld, morgen in huis

Samenvatting

The absence of the accused in criminal proceedings leading to a conviction causes many legal and practical questions when an European Arrest Warrant is issued to execute such an in absentia judgment. Whereas some Member States see no problem in allowing trials without the accused, other Member States have serious objections to it.

These different standards create many problems in practice and necessitate the executing judicial authority to request supplementary information from the issuing judicial authority, leading to delays and extra costs.

It may result in – sometimes unjustified – refusals to execute the EAW. This study identifies the problems concerning the application of Article 4a(1) Framework Decision 2002/584 on in absentia judgments and proposes both practical and legislative solutions. It intends to contribute to a reduction of the number of in absentia cases, speeding up the surrender proceedings and raising the safeguards for the individual.

Specificaties

ISBN13:9789462369856
Taal:Engels
Bindwijze:paperback
Aantal pagina's:340
Druk:1
Verschijningsdatum:31-1-2020
Hoofdrubriek:Juridisch
ISSN:
Jongbloed:Europees recht

Lezersrecensies

Wees de eerste die een lezersrecensie schrijft!

Over André Klip

André Klip is Professor of criminal law, criminal procedure and international criminal law at Maastricht University. He is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and a judge at the ’s-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal.

Andere boeken door André Klip

Inhoudsopgave

Preface xiii
Note to the Reader xv

Part I The Research Project Report
1 Introduction 3
1.1 Reasons for the Research Project 3
1.2 Objectives of the Research Project 10
1.3 Methodology 11
1.4 Brief Outline of the Report 14
2 Generalities of the EAW-System 17
2.1 Introduction 17
2.2 Transposition of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA 17
2.2.1 General Remarks 17
2.2.2 Full Transposition or Deviation? 18
2.3 Issuing of EAWs 19
2.3.1 Responsible Authority 19
2.3.2 The Act of Issuing 22
2.3.3 Using the Correct EAW-Form 25
2.3.4 Language of the EAW 27
2.3.4.1 Perspective of the Executing Judicial Authorities 28
2.3.4.2 Perspective of the Issuing Judicial Authorities 30
2.4 Execution of EAWs 30
2.4.1 Responsible Authority 30
2.4.2 Requesting Supplementary Information 32
2.4.2.1 Supplementary Information 32
2.4.2.2 Impact of Supplementary Information Requests 37
2.4.2.3 Acceptable Supplementary Information Requests 38
2.4.3 Time Limits 40
3 General Observations on Article 4a(1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 43
3.1 Introduction: The System of Article 4a(1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 43
3.2 Mandatory or Optional: Transposition 47
3.3 Mandatory or Optional: Refusal 48
3.4 Mandatory or Optional: Application proprio motu 51
3.5 Autonomous Union Law Concepts or National Law Concepts? 55
3.6 Minimal Harmonisation or Full Harmonisation? 59
4 Meaning of the Expression ‘Trial In Absentia’ 65
4.1 Introduction 65
4.2 Union Law Meaning 65
4.2.1 Union Legislation 65
4.2.2 FD 2009/299/JHA 68
4.2.3 Directive 2016/343/EU 70
4.2.4 Presence by Videoconference? 71
4.3 National Law Meaning 73
4.3.1 Introduction 73
4.3.2 Belgium 73
4.3.3 Hungary 75
4.3.4 Ireland 76
4.3.5 The Netherlands 77
4.3.6 Poland 78
4.3.7 Romania 80
4.4 Conclusion 81
5 Trial Resulting in the Decision 83
5.1 Introduction 83
5.2 Enforceable Decision versus Final Decision 84
5.3 Proceedings and Decisions within One Instance 86
5.3.1 Introduction 86
5.3.2 Consensual Proceedings 86
5.3.3 Penalties Imposed without a Trial or by a Non-Judicial Authority 88
5.3.4 Absence at the Trial, Presence at the Pronouncement 92
5.3.5 Presence at Some But Not All Hearings 95
5.4 Successive Proceedings and Decisions 100
5.4.1 Introduction 100
5.4.2 Appeal Proceedings 101
5.4.2.1 Case-Law 101
5.4.2.2 Application in Practice 105
5.4.3 Proceedings to Amend Previously Imposed Penalties 109
5.4.3.1 Case-Law 109
5.4.3.2 Application in Practice 114
5.5 Multiple Decisions 117
5.6 Conclusion 120
6 Summons; Mandated Legal Counsellor; Right to a Retrial: Decision Already Served 125
6.1 Introduction 125
6.2 Summons 126
6.2.1 Introduction 126
6.2.2 Various Forms of Summoning 130
6.2.2.1 Summons in Person 130
6.2.2.2 Summons by Other Means 132
6.2.3 The Place Where the Summons Must Be Served 137
6.2.3.1 Introduction 137
6.2.3.2 Summons Abroad 137
6.2.4 Evidence of Service 139
6.2.5 Remedies for Non-compliance 140
6.2.6 Overall Notions Applicable to All Varieties of Summonses 141
6.2.7 The Practice of the Project Member States 142
6.2.8 Consequences of State Practice for Filling in the Form 143
6.3 Mandated Legal Counsellor 144
6.3.1 Introduction 144
6.3.2 Awareness of the Scheduled Trial 144
6.3.3 Function of the Mandated Legal Counsellor 146
6.3.4 Mandate 146
6.4 Right to a Retrial: Decision Already Served 150
6.4.1 Introduction 150
6.4.2 Service of the Decision 150
6.4.3 Right to a Retrial or an Appeal 152
6.4.4 Non-exercise of the Right to a Retrial or an Appeal 153
6.5 Conclusions 153
7 Right to a Retrial: Decision Served after Surrender 157
7.1 Introduction 157
7.1.1 Fourth Exception 157
7.1.2 Assurances 158
7.1.3 Serving the Decision and Informing the Person Concerned 158
7.1.4 Characteristics of a Retrial or an Appeal 159
7.1.5 Providing a Copy of the Judgment before Surrender 162
7.1.6 Relationship with Article 5(3) FD 2002/584/JHA 163
7.2 Issues Concerning Interpretation and Application 164
7.2.1 Introduction 164
7.2.2 Right to a Retrial or an Appeal 164
7.2.3 Time Frame 170
7.2.4 Modification of Assurances 172
7.2.5 Contradictory Information 174
7.3 Interrelationship of the Four Exceptions 174
7.4 Conclusions 176
8 Margin of Discretion 179
8.1 Introduction 179
8.2 Other Circumstances Justifying Surrender 181
8.3 Limits to the Margin of Discretion 188
8.4 Consequences of a Refusal 191
8.5 Conclusions 192
9 Conclusions and Recommendations 195
9.1 Introduction 195
9.2 Summary of Conclusions 195
9.3 Recommendations 199
9.3.1 Judicial Authorities 199
9.3.1.1 Issuing Judicial Authorities 199
9.3.1.2 Executing Judicial Authorities 201
9.3.1.3 Both Issuing and Executing Judicial Authorities 203
9.3.2 Member States 205
9.3.2.1 All Member States 205
9.3.2.2 Project Member States 209
9.3.3 European Union 209
Table of European Cases 213
Part II Proposal to Amend the EAW-Form
1 Amendment of Section (d) of the EAW-Form (proposed changes in bold) 225
A Final Conviction 225
B Final Determination of the Sentence 227
2 Amendment of Section (c) (Proposed Changes in Bold) 229

Part III Case-Law Guide
1 Introduction 233
2 Scope of Application of theECHRto Proceedings Concerning the Execution of EAWs – General Remarks 235
2.1 Applicability to Proceedings Concerning the Execution of EAWs 235
2.2 General European Standard for In Absentia Trials 235
3 Scope of Application of theEUCharter of Fundamental Rights to Proceedings Concerning Execution of EAWs 237
4 Fair In Absentia Criminal Proceedings under the ECHR and under EU Law 239
4.1 Stages of Judicial Examination of the Case Relevant for the Assessment Whether the Proceedings Were Conducted In Absentia 239
4.1.1 Under the Case-Law of the ECtHR 239
4.1.2 Under the Case-Law of the Court of Justice Concerning Article
4a(1) of FD 2002/584/JHA 246
4.2 The General Requirements of ‘a Waiver of the Right to Take Part in the Trial’ under Article 6 of the ECHR and under Article 4a of FD 2002/584/JHA 256
4.3 Requirements Concerning Knowledge about the Trial and Summoning of a Defendant 260
4.3.1 Under the Case-Law of the ECtHR 260
4.3.2 Under the Case-Law of the Court of Justice Concerning Article
4a of FD 2002/584/JHA 264
4.4 Representation by a Lawyer as a Condition of a Fair Trial Conducted In Absentia 266
4.4.1 Under the Case-Law of the ECtHR 266
4.4.2 Under the Case-Law of the Court of Justice Concerning Article
4a of FD 2002/584/JHA 268
4.5 Serving a Judgment on a Defendant as a Condition of Fair In Absentia Proceedings 270
4.5.1 Under the Case-Law of the ECtHR 270
4.5.2 Under the Case-Law of the Court of Justice Concerning Article
4a of FD 2002/584/JHA 270
4.6 The Right to Retrial as a Guarantee of Fairness of Proceedings Conducted In Absentia 274
4.6.1 Under the Case-Law of the ECtHR 274
4.6.2 Under the Case-Law of the Court of Justice Concerning Article
4a of FD 2002/584/JHA 277
5 A Judgment Rendered In Absentia as an Optional Ground for Refusal to Execute EAWs – Admissibility of Surrender of a Person Despite That Conditions Indicated in Article 4a(1) of FD 2002/584/JHA Are Not Met 281
6 Conclusions: Strasbourg and Luxembourg – Difference in Standards 285 Table of European Cases 287

Part IV Manual for Filling in and Assessing Section (d) of the EAW
1 Introduction 295
2 Roadmap to Section (d) 297
2.1 Using the Current Version of the Model-EAW 297
2.2 Points 1 and 2: Did the Requested Person Appear in Person at the Trial Resulting in the Decision? 297
2.2.1 General 297
2.2.2 Non-appearance ‘in Person’ 298
2.2.3 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’ 298
2.2.3.1 Introduction 298
2.2.3.2 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’: Several Instances 299
2.2.3.3 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’: Subsequent Proceeding Amending the Original Penalty 300
2.2.3.4 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’: Plea Bargain 302
2.2.3.5 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’: Trial without a Hearing 302
2.2.3.6 ‘Trial Resulting in the Decision’: Trial Consisting of Multiple Hearings 302
2.3 Point 3.1: Was the Requested Person Summoned in Person, etc. in Due Time? 303
2.3.1 General 303
2.3.2 Waiver of the Right to Be Present at the Trial 304
2.3.3 ‘In Due Time’ 304
2.3.4 ‘Summoned in Person, etc.’ 305
2.3.5 ‘By Other Means Actually Received Official Information, etc.’ 305
2.3.6 ‘Informed That a Decision May Be Handed Down, etc.’ 307
2.4 Point 3.2: Was the Requested Person Defended by a Legal Counsellor Mandated by Him? 307
2.4.1 General 307
2.4.2 Waiver of the Right to Be Present at the Trial 307
2.4.3 Legal Counsellor, Appointed by the Defendant or by the State 308
2.4.4 ‘Being Aware of the Scheduled Trial’ 308
2.4.5 ‘Had Given a Mandate to a Legal Counsellor, etc.’ 308
2.5 Point 3.3: Did the Requested Person, after Being Served with the Decision (in Person) and Being Expressly Informed about His Right to a Retrial or an Appeal, Acquiesce in the Decision? 309
2.5.1 General 309
2.5.2 ‘After Being Served with the Decision’ 310
2.5.3 ‘After (…) Being Expressly Informed about His Right to a Retrial, or an Appeal’ 310
2.5.4 ‘In which the Person Has a Right to Participate (…) Being Reversed’ 310
2.5.5 Acquiescence in the Decision 310
2.6 Point 3.4: Was the Requested Person Not Served with the Decision in Person, but Will the Decision Be Served on Him in Person after Surrender and Will He Be Expressly Informed about His Right to a Retrial or an Appeal? 311
2.6.1 General 311
2.6.2 ‘Personally Served’ 312
2.6.3 ‘Expressly Informed about the Right to a Retrial or an Appeal’ 312
2.6.4 ‘In which the Person Has a Right to Participate (…) Being Reversed’ 312
2.7 Point 4: If None of the Boxes of Points 3.1-3.4 Can Be Ticked, Are There ‘Other Circumstances’ That Enable the Executing Judicial Authority ‘to Be Assured That the Surrender of the Person Concerned Does Mean a Breach of His Rights of Defence’? 313
2.7.1 General 313
2.7.2 What Constitutes ‘Other Circumstances’? 313
2.8 Providing Information in the EAW 314
2.9 Assessing Information Provided by the Issuing Judicial Authority 315
2.10 More Information Needed? 316
2.10.1 General 316
2.10.2 The Request 316
2.10.3 Time Limits 317
2.10.4 Communication Channels 317
2.10.5 Language 317
2.10.6 Unsatisfactory Response 318
2.10.7 Reasons for Refusal 318
2.11 Does a Refusal to Execute the EAW on the Basis of Article 4a(1) of FD 2002/584/JHA Have a ne bis in idem Effect? 318

Managementboek Top 100

Rubrieken

Populaire producten

    Personen

      Trefwoorden

        The European Arrest Warrant and In Absentia Judgements