Pub Date : 2022-11-18DOI: 10.1177/20322844221139812
Andrijana Zivic, Timo Zandstra, Quintijn Pit, Antonia Vegt-Schouten
The proposal for Regulation 2017/1939 establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (The EPPO Regulation) was criticized for completely excluding the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from judicial review of decisions on forum of prosecution by the EPPO, an EU body. The system of judicial review under the EPPO Regulation has improved significantly relative to its initial proposal, by enabling national courts to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. Despite this, several issues remain. This article examines whether the limitations imposed by the EPPO Regulation on the use of the action for annulment procedure laid down in Article 263 TFEU comply with EU primary law. More specifically, whether it complies with effective judicial protection as protected under Article 47 CFR, and the legal basis for the EPPO’s system of judicial review, Article 86(3) TFEU. We argue that the preliminary reference procedure is not effective enough in remedying the limited access to the action for annulment procedure to reliably safeguard the defendants’ right to effective judicial protection. To the extent that the current system for judicial review under the EPPO Regulation is at odds with the Article 47 CFR, the EU legislator did not have the competence to enact it under Article 86(3) TFEU. This article proposes that in order to circumvent the unlawful restrictions imposed by the EPPO Regulation, defendants could and should make use of the action for annulment procedure to contest the EPPO’s choice of forum.
{"title":"Who’s Afraid of EU Primary Law? Judicial Review of the EPPO’s Decision on Forum Choice","authors":"Andrijana Zivic, Timo Zandstra, Quintijn Pit, Antonia Vegt-Schouten","doi":"10.1177/20322844221139812","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221139812","url":null,"abstract":"The proposal for Regulation 2017/1939 establishing the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (The EPPO Regulation) was criticized for completely excluding the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) from judicial review of decisions on forum of prosecution by the EPPO, an EU body. The system of judicial review under the EPPO Regulation has improved significantly relative to its initial proposal, by enabling national courts to refer preliminary questions to the CJEU. Despite this, several issues remain. This article examines whether the limitations imposed by the EPPO Regulation on the use of the action for annulment procedure laid down in Article 263 TFEU comply with EU primary law. More specifically, whether it complies with effective judicial protection as protected under Article 47 CFR, and the legal basis for the EPPO’s system of judicial review, Article 86(3) TFEU. We argue that the preliminary reference procedure is not effective enough in remedying the limited access to the action for annulment procedure to reliably safeguard the defendants’ right to effective judicial protection. To the extent that the current system for judicial review under the EPPO Regulation is at odds with the Article 47 CFR, the EU legislator did not have the competence to enact it under Article 86(3) TFEU. This article proposes that in order to circumvent the unlawful restrictions imposed by the EPPO Regulation, defendants could and should make use of the action for annulment procedure to contest the EPPO’s choice of forum.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128897413","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-18DOI: 10.1177/20322844221139570
Christian Thönnes
From 29 to 30 August 2022, a diverse group of international researchers convened under the Arctic northern lights in Tromsø. They set out to discuss some of the most pressing questions facing European criminal and public security law. This scientific event was co-organised by the Research Group on Crime Control and Security Law at The Arctic University of Norway under Nandor Knust and Jon Petter Rui, and the Otto Hahn Research Group on Alternative and Informal Systems of Crime Control and Criminal Justice at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law under Emmanouil Billis. As Emmanouil Billis and Nandor Knust noted in their opening speech, the conference had set itself the goal of critically assessing how modern technologies, and especially artificial intelligence (AI), can serve to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of crime control and criminal justice systems, while at the same time complying with established ruleof-law principles and human-rights standards. In my report, I summarize the conference’s main discursive themes.
{"title":"Report on the Academic Conference on Crime Control, Security and New Technologies","authors":"Christian Thönnes","doi":"10.1177/20322844221139570","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221139570","url":null,"abstract":"From 29 to 30 August 2022, a diverse group of international researchers convened under the Arctic northern lights in Tromsø. They set out to discuss some of the most pressing questions facing European criminal and public security law. This scientific event was co-organised by the Research Group on Crime Control and Security Law at The Arctic University of Norway under Nandor Knust and Jon Petter Rui, and the Otto Hahn Research Group on Alternative and Informal Systems of Crime Control and Criminal Justice at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Crime, Security and Law under Emmanouil Billis. As Emmanouil Billis and Nandor Knust noted in their opening speech, the conference had set itself the goal of critically assessing how modern technologies, and especially artificial intelligence (AI), can serve to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of crime control and criminal justice systems, while at the same time complying with established ruleof-law principles and human-rights standards. In my report, I summarize the conference’s main discursive themes.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125605113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.1177/20322844221139577
Anna Sakellaraki
This article aims to explore the key novelties of the proposal recently published by the Commission for a new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation and to offer critical reflection on certain issues. The proposed Directive intends to replace the previous Directive 2014/42/EU on freezing and confiscation and the Council Decision 2007/845/JHA on Asset Recovery Offices. The present article first clarifies the legal bases chosen for the adoption of this new EU legal instrument and shortly addresses some issues of compliance with the subsidiarity and proportionality principle. Then offers an overall analysis of the most important provisions (a) on the different asset recovery stages (asset tracing and identification, management, freezing and confiscation) (b) on the safeguards for the persons affected by such measures and (c) on the newly introduced obligation for the Member States to create a national asset recovery strategy. The article sheds also some light on the relationship between the proposed Directive and the violation of EU restrictive measures and finally concludes with some critical remarks, in order to contribute to the legal dialogue ahead of the final adoption of the new Directive.
{"title":"EU Asset Recovery and Confiscation Regime – Quo Vadis? A First Assessment of the Commission’s Proposal to Further Harmonise the EU Asset Recovery and Confiscation Laws. A Step in the Right Direction?","authors":"Anna Sakellaraki","doi":"10.1177/20322844221139577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221139577","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to explore the key novelties of the proposal recently published by the Commission for a new Directive on asset recovery and confiscation and to offer critical reflection on certain issues. The proposed Directive intends to replace the previous Directive 2014/42/EU on freezing and confiscation and the Council Decision 2007/845/JHA on Asset Recovery Offices. The present article first clarifies the legal bases chosen for the adoption of this new EU legal instrument and shortly addresses some issues of compliance with the subsidiarity and proportionality principle. Then offers an overall analysis of the most important provisions (a) on the different asset recovery stages (asset tracing and identification, management, freezing and confiscation) (b) on the safeguards for the persons affected by such measures and (c) on the newly introduced obligation for the Member States to create a national asset recovery strategy. The article sheds also some light on the relationship between the proposed Directive and the violation of EU restrictive measures and finally concludes with some critical remarks, in order to contribute to the legal dialogue ahead of the final adoption of the new Directive.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134499720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.1177/20322844221141120
For future legislation: further EU minimum standards for criminal proceedings strengthen Europe, the EPPO and the Rule of Law With the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007/09, the EU made the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) part of its primary law. Human rights under the ECHR apply, as it were, as minimum standards within the EU anyway (cf. Art. 6 para. 3 TEU and Art. 52 para. 3, 53 CFR). As such, both European institutions, such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (cf. Art. 5, 41 of Regulation [EU] 2017/1939) which has been operational since June 2021, and the Member States, when implementing EU law, are bound by the Charter. Equally, since the Lisbon Treaty the legal principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions has been definitively enshrined in Articles 67 and 82 TFEU. It is now a truism that the legal principle ofmutual recognition can only function on the basis ofmutual trust between the Member States and their citizens and that minimum standards in criminal proceedings are particularly critical for that (there is growing awareness on this since Tampere 1999). The commitment in the 2000s was successful, and laid the groundwork for the political and technical groundwork for initiatives by the European Commission (Consultation Paper 2002 and Green Paper COM 2003/75), for a bolder jurisprudence of the ECtHR, especially since Salduz (Judgment of 27.11.2008 No. 36391/02), and for a (new) political idea. In 2009 under the Swedish Presidency a Roadmap was adopted for certain core topics of criminal procedure (Official Journal of the EU of 04.12.2009 C 295/1) which was to be developed step by step in the coming years. All six Directives in the area of procedural rights, which became applicable law in 2010-2016 despite considerable resistance of individual Member States, have been implemented in the meantime and have strengthened the Rule of Law throughout the Union. Shortcomings in the national implementation process are monitored by the Commission and must be flagged and reprimanded with the help of criminal justice practitioners (e.g. in Germany deficits in translations or legal aid for defence at the police stations). Despite the shortcomings, themeasures adopted in implementation of the Roadmap 2009 have undoubtedly strengthenedmutual trust.In many respects of significant impact, though, there is still mistrust in the criminal justice system of other member states for good reasons (e.g. in the field of pre-trial detention and prison conditions). In 2017/18 the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) with the support of the Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE) developed and published the “Agenda 2020” initiative for a new roadmap to establish further minimum standards. The initiative aims at a reliably secured
{"title":"Editorial NJECL November 2022","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/20322844221141120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221141120","url":null,"abstract":"For future legislation: further EU minimum standards for criminal proceedings strengthen Europe, the EPPO and the Rule of Law With the Treaty of Lisbon of 2007/09, the EU made the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) part of its primary law. Human rights under the ECHR apply, as it were, as minimum standards within the EU anyway (cf. Art. 6 para. 3 TEU and Art. 52 para. 3, 53 CFR). As such, both European institutions, such as the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (cf. Art. 5, 41 of Regulation [EU] 2017/1939) which has been operational since June 2021, and the Member States, when implementing EU law, are bound by the Charter. Equally, since the Lisbon Treaty the legal principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions has been definitively enshrined in Articles 67 and 82 TFEU. It is now a truism that the legal principle ofmutual recognition can only function on the basis ofmutual trust between the Member States and their citizens and that minimum standards in criminal proceedings are particularly critical for that (there is growing awareness on this since Tampere 1999). The commitment in the 2000s was successful, and laid the groundwork for the political and technical groundwork for initiatives by the European Commission (Consultation Paper 2002 and Green Paper COM 2003/75), for a bolder jurisprudence of the ECtHR, especially since Salduz (Judgment of 27.11.2008 No. 36391/02), and for a (new) political idea. In 2009 under the Swedish Presidency a Roadmap was adopted for certain core topics of criminal procedure (Official Journal of the EU of 04.12.2009 C 295/1) which was to be developed step by step in the coming years. All six Directives in the area of procedural rights, which became applicable law in 2010-2016 despite considerable resistance of individual Member States, have been implemented in the meantime and have strengthened the Rule of Law throughout the Union. Shortcomings in the national implementation process are monitored by the Commission and must be flagged and reprimanded with the help of criminal justice practitioners (e.g. in Germany deficits in translations or legal aid for defence at the police stations). Despite the shortcomings, themeasures adopted in implementation of the Roadmap 2009 have undoubtedly strengthenedmutual trust.In many respects of significant impact, though, there is still mistrust in the criminal justice system of other member states for good reasons (e.g. in the field of pre-trial detention and prison conditions). In 2017/18 the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) with the support of the Council of Bars and Law Societies (CCBE) developed and published the “Agenda 2020” initiative for a new roadmap to establish further minimum standards. The initiative aims at a reliably secured","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129829999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.1177/20322844221140871
Cristina Saenz Perez
This article considers the balance between security and fundamental rights that characterises EU criminal law and examines how processes of rule of law backsliding have re-shaped it. Traditionally, EU criminal law has been characterised by its securitisation, which crystallised in the prioritisation of the principle of mutual trust over concerns for the rights of defendants. However, processes of rule of law breakdown at Member State level have challenged this balance and demonstrated the flawed foundations of mutual trust. This paper explores how the CJEU is addressing these contradictions through case law that, nonetheless, continues to prioritise security over the right to a fair trial, whilst Member State courts challenge these interpretations and develop decentralised interpretations of the right to a fair trial. The goal is to evaluate whether judicial dialogue provides an adequate framework to counter the securitisation of EU criminal law and protect the right to a fair trial in the midst of a process of rule of law breakdown.
{"title":"What about fundamental rights? Security and fundamental rights in the midst of a rule of law breakdown","authors":"Cristina Saenz Perez","doi":"10.1177/20322844221140871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221140871","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the balance between security and fundamental rights that characterises EU criminal law and examines how processes of rule of law backsliding have re-shaped it. Traditionally, EU criminal law has been characterised by its securitisation, which crystallised in the prioritisation of the principle of mutual trust over concerns for the rights of defendants. However, processes of rule of law breakdown at Member State level have challenged this balance and demonstrated the flawed foundations of mutual trust. This paper explores how the CJEU is addressing these contradictions through case law that, nonetheless, continues to prioritise security over the right to a fair trial, whilst Member State courts challenge these interpretations and develop decentralised interpretations of the right to a fair trial. The goal is to evaluate whether judicial dialogue provides an adequate framework to counter the securitisation of EU criminal law and protect the right to a fair trial in the midst of a process of rule of law breakdown.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"55 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113956540","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.1177/20322844221140711
Giulia Mentasti
The word crimmigration first appeared in the USA about twenty years ago, following some studies that for the first time had observed a general tightening in the instruments available for managing the migration phenomenon. More specifically, these studies observed a progressive and real hybridisation between the administrative tools (usually adopted in the management of migratory flows) and criminal law instruments, obviously much more incisive on the personal freedom of foreigners. While retaining this feature, recent studies show that today, crimmigration results, also, in few more related features: an overcriminalisation that affects the foreigners and those who, for solidarity purposes, provide them with assistance (as in the case of the incrimination of the conduct of NGOs); or, again, in the inappropriate use of administrative law instruments, loaded with purposes and modalities typical of criminal law. Starting from these premises, the aim of the article is to assess whether the rationale of crimmigration is present in the instruments set up by the Italian Legislator for border control and migration management. To this end, these instruments will be taken into consideration by analysing their contents and their possible compliance with the logic of crimmigration, contextualising them in the broader and more debated European framework of measures on the matter.
{"title":"The criminalisation of migration in Italy: Current tendencies in the light of EU law","authors":"Giulia Mentasti","doi":"10.1177/20322844221140711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221140711","url":null,"abstract":"The word crimmigration first appeared in the USA about twenty years ago, following some studies that for the first time had observed a general tightening in the instruments available for managing the migration phenomenon. More specifically, these studies observed a progressive and real hybridisation between the administrative tools (usually adopted in the management of migratory flows) and criminal law instruments, obviously much more incisive on the personal freedom of foreigners. While retaining this feature, recent studies show that today, crimmigration results, also, in few more related features: an overcriminalisation that affects the foreigners and those who, for solidarity purposes, provide them with assistance (as in the case of the incrimination of the conduct of NGOs); or, again, in the inappropriate use of administrative law instruments, loaded with purposes and modalities typical of criminal law. Starting from these premises, the aim of the article is to assess whether the rationale of crimmigration is present in the instruments set up by the Italian Legislator for border control and migration management. To this end, these instruments will be taken into consideration by analysing their contents and their possible compliance with the logic of crimmigration, contextualising them in the broader and more debated European framework of measures on the matter.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127916158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-07DOI: 10.1177/20322844221138049
P. Günsberg
AI-driven vehicles and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems may cause serious injury to people while operating independently. Besides vehicles progress may be seen in the use of autonomous weapon systems, AI in medicine and care robots. It seems that soon AI systems will increasingly be making decisions previously made by humans. A Swedish inquiry argued that existing criminal law rules on responsibility are not suitable for automated vehicles (when in the self-driving mode). The human in the driver’s seat would not be blamed if an accident occurs. Conversely, the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence places an emphasis on oversight by human beings to an extent. A battle for the hearts and minds of people might be underway here. It seems that further exploration of the matter is warranted, especially through the criminal law lens—are proposals where the human user is absolved of blame viable at this point in time?
{"title":"Automated vehicles – is a dilution of human responsibility the answer?","authors":"P. Günsberg","doi":"10.1177/20322844221138049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221138049","url":null,"abstract":"AI-driven vehicles and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems may cause serious injury to people while operating independently. Besides vehicles progress may be seen in the use of autonomous weapon systems, AI in medicine and care robots. It seems that soon AI systems will increasingly be making decisions previously made by humans. A Swedish inquiry argued that existing criminal law rules on responsibility are not suitable for automated vehicles (when in the self-driving mode). The human in the driver’s seat would not be blamed if an accident occurs. Conversely, the Proposal for a Regulation on Artificial Intelligence places an emphasis on oversight by human beings to an extent. A battle for the hearts and minds of people might be underway here. It seems that further exploration of the matter is warranted, especially through the criminal law lens—are proposals where the human user is absolved of blame viable at this point in time?","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123787129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-05DOI: 10.1177/20322844221138048
Angelo Stirone, Giovanna Mumolo
This article briefly introduces the European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) system, analysing the context in which it develops and how this procedure interacts with both the intricate post-Brexit universe and the current instability of the Polish judiciary. Paragraph 2 assesses the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice (‘CJEU’) in cases of EAW requested by States with generalised deficiencies and asserts that the legal approach developed in LM and L and P proves correct in the abstract. Though it argues that the safeguarding mechanisms set out in the EAW Framework Decision can be paralysed by instruments that are ontologically political in nature, it thus proposes a new legal approach that consists of a three-step test which would effectively guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The article concludes by arguing that if English Courts were to follow this new approach, departing from LM and L and P, they would effectively implement the protection of fundamental rights in EAW procedures.
{"title":"Is the two-step test set out in LM and L and P English Supreme Court’s best option in post-Brexit Britain for EAW requests made by States with structural deficiencies?","authors":"Angelo Stirone, Giovanna Mumolo","doi":"10.1177/20322844221138048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221138048","url":null,"abstract":"This article briefly introduces the European arrest warrant (‘EAW’) system, analysing the context in which it develops and how this procedure interacts with both the intricate post-Brexit universe and the current instability of the Polish judiciary. Paragraph 2 assesses the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice (‘CJEU’) in cases of EAW requested by States with generalised deficiencies and asserts that the legal approach developed in LM and L and P proves correct in the abstract. Though it argues that the safeguarding mechanisms set out in the EAW Framework Decision can be paralysed by instruments that are ontologically political in nature, it thus proposes a new legal approach that consists of a three-step test which would effectively guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The article concludes by arguing that if English Courts were to follow this new approach, departing from LM and L and P, they would effectively implement the protection of fundamental rights in EAW procedures.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133582408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-10-28DOI: 10.1177/20322844221134760
Ben Wild
The case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. According to the applicants, the coastguard vessel was travelling at very high speed in order to push the refugees back towards Turkish waters, and this caused the fishing boat to capsize. According to the national authorities, the boat was being towed towards the island of Farmakonisi in order to rescue the refugees, and it capsized because of panic and sudden movements among those on board. The Court found that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings and concluded that the national authorities had not carried out a thorough and effective investigation capable of shedding light on the circumstances in which the boat had sunk.The Court found that the Greek authorities had not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to provide the applicants and their relatives with the level of protection required by Article 2 of the Convention. The Court also found, concerning 12 of the applicants who had been on board the boat after it had sunk, that they had been subjected to degrading treatment on account of the body searches they had undergone on arriving in Farmakonisi.
{"title":"ECtHR Cases July - August 2022","authors":"Ben Wild","doi":"10.1177/20322844221134760","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221134760","url":null,"abstract":"The case concerned the sinking on 20 January 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi, resulting in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants. According to the applicants, the coastguard vessel was travelling at very high speed in order to push the refugees back towards Turkish waters, and this caused the fishing boat to capsize. According to the national authorities, the boat was being towed towards the island of Farmakonisi in order to rescue the refugees, and it capsized because of panic and sudden movements among those on board. The Court found that there had been shortcomings in the proceedings and concluded that the national authorities had not carried out a thorough and effective investigation capable of shedding light on the circumstances in which the boat had sunk.The Court found that the Greek authorities had not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to provide the applicants and their relatives with the level of protection required by Article 2 of the Convention. The Court also found, concerning 12 of the applicants who had been on board the boat after it had sunk, that they had been subjected to degrading treatment on account of the body searches they had undergone on arriving in Farmakonisi.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130004752","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-09-01DOI: 10.1177/20322844221124823
Ben Wild
The applicant, Nana Muradyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Armavir (Armenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant’s 18-year-old son during his compulsory military service on the territory of the unrecognised Nagorno Karabakh Republic. On 15 March 2010 he was found hanging from a metal pole behind the officers’ room of his military unit. The ensuing investigation has been stayed three times and is still ongoing. According to the findings thus far, the applicant’s son committed suicide because of harassment. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Muradyan disputes that her son committed suicide, alleging that he was murdered because he had witnessed a theft in his military unit. She also complains that the authorities’ investigation into her son’s death was ineffective.
{"title":"ECtHR Cases April - June 2022","authors":"Ben Wild","doi":"10.1177/20322844221124823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221124823","url":null,"abstract":"The applicant, Nana Muradyan, is an Armenian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Armavir (Armenia). The case concerns the death of the applicant’s 18-year-old son during his compulsory military service on the territory of the unrecognised Nagorno Karabakh Republic. On 15 March 2010 he was found hanging from a metal pole behind the officers’ room of his military unit. The ensuing investigation has been stayed three times and is still ongoing. According to the findings thus far, the applicant’s son committed suicide because of harassment. Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Ms Muradyan disputes that her son committed suicide, alleging that he was murdered because he had witnessed a theft in his military unit. She also complains that the authorities’ investigation into her son’s death was ineffective.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130877144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：