EPPO诉讼中证据的可采性

Dominik Brodowski
{"title":"EPPO诉讼中证据的可采性","authors":"Dominik Brodowski","doi":"10.1177/20322844231154669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of cross-border admissibility of evidence is a recurring theme of European Criminal Justice, and continues to be perceived as a decisive obstacle hindering the effective prosecution and adjudication of crime. In spite of this, the EPPO Regulation does not include an extensive framework guaranteeing the cross-border admissibility of evidence. In this article, it is argued that this lacuna is far less worrisome than it seems: the boundaries set out by EU primary law, in particular Article 325(4) TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), as well as the opportunity of the ECJ to judge on these boundaries, allow for a sufficient convergence of national laws and practices on the (in-)admissibility of evidence.","PeriodicalId":448100,"journal":{"name":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Admissibility of Evidence in EPPO Proceedings\",\"authors\":\"Dominik Brodowski\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20322844231154669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The issue of cross-border admissibility of evidence is a recurring theme of European Criminal Justice, and continues to be perceived as a decisive obstacle hindering the effective prosecution and adjudication of crime. In spite of this, the EPPO Regulation does not include an extensive framework guaranteeing the cross-border admissibility of evidence. In this article, it is argued that this lacuna is far less worrisome than it seems: the boundaries set out by EU primary law, in particular Article 325(4) TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), as well as the opportunity of the ECJ to judge on these boundaries, allow for a sufficient convergence of national laws and practices on the (in-)admissibility of evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448100,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Journal of European Criminal Law\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Journal of European Criminal Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231154669\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Journal of European Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231154669","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

证据的跨国界可接受性问题是欧洲刑事司法的一个反复出现的主题,并继续被视为阻碍有效起诉和审判犯罪的一个决定性障碍。尽管如此,EPPO条例并没有包括一个保证跨境证据可采性的广泛框架。在本文中,本文认为,这一空白远没有看起来那么令人担忧:欧盟主要法律规定的边界,特别是第325(4)条TFEU和基本权利宪章(CFR),以及欧洲法院对这些边界进行判断的机会,允许在证据的可采性方面充分趋同各国法律和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Admissibility of Evidence in EPPO Proceedings
The issue of cross-border admissibility of evidence is a recurring theme of European Criminal Justice, and continues to be perceived as a decisive obstacle hindering the effective prosecution and adjudication of crime. In spite of this, the EPPO Regulation does not include an extensive framework guaranteeing the cross-border admissibility of evidence. In this article, it is argued that this lacuna is far less worrisome than it seems: the boundaries set out by EU primary law, in particular Article 325(4) TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR), as well as the opportunity of the ECJ to judge on these boundaries, allow for a sufficient convergence of national laws and practices on the (in-)admissibility of evidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regulation (EU) 2018/1805: Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders between efficiency and safeguards. “Proceedings in criminal matters” and non-conviction based confiscation Reforming EU Criminal Law on the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry: The new Commission proposal in the light of the Kinshasa litigation Independence of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the appointment procedures The judgment of the CJEU in Inspektor (Purposes of the processing of personal data – criminal investigations) of 8 December 2022 and the concept of further processing under the Law Enforcement Directive Editorial: A trialogue on regulating data-driven criminal procedure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1