Mutual Recognition in European Judicial Cooperation: A Step Too Far Too Soon? Case Study—the European Arrest Warrant

Abstract: The European arrest warrant (EAW) is the first and most striking example of the extensive judicial cooperation in criminal matters that is beginning to take place in the European Union. Replacing traditional extradition between EU member states, including the ten accession countries after May 2004, it will operate on the basis of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, thus taking extradition decisions out of the hands of politicians. It rests on the presumption that criminal justice systems are equivalent throughout the EU and that the rights of the defence, in particular, are safeguarded adequately and in a comparable way EU‐wide. However, before the EAW has even been implemented, a number of practical problems are beginning to emerge, in particular in relation to the protection of individual rights and legal certainty in the European judicial space. The way in which these problems are tackled will be a litmus test of the respect for fundamental rights across the EU in the field of justice and home affairs. This article highlights the problems inherent in the rapid development of the principle of mutual recognition and suggests ways in which these problems can be addressed allowing for full protection of fundamental rights within a fully functioning European area of freedom, security, and justice. The EAW will be used to illustrate the prominent features of the emerging landscape of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, providing as it does the most radical example of developments in this field so far and their implications for fundamental rights.     

从相互协助到相互承认——欧盟刑事取证立法变迁探析

欧盟刑事取证立法建立在两个不同原则上,一是传统的相互协助基础上的立法,一是1999年坦佩雷会议后,相互承认基础上的立法;这两种立法在欧盟范围内并存。从未来发展看,相互承认基础上的立法将逐步取代相互协助基础上的立法。欧盟理事会2008年12月通过的《欧盟证据令》是欧盟在相互承认基础上取代原有刑事取证立法的第一步,对原有立法进行了制度性革新。欧盟刑事取证立法在取得显著进步的同时,在相互承认原则和公民基本权利保障等方面也面临着诸多挑战。     

Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition,Change and the Need for Effective Defence

This article examines the responses of national courts to the ECtHR's decision in Salduz v Turkey that suspects be provided with access to a lawyer before they are first interrogated by the police. It argues that harmonious application of human rights standards in criminal proceedings should build upon common values underpinning the procedural traditions of member states. ECtHR success in gaining acceptance for the principle of access to a lawyer during police interrogation, anchoring it in the privilege against incrimination, is contrasted with resistance towards giving the defence any active role during criminal investigations. It is argued that this resistance can be overcome by an appeal to safeguards that have long dominated the trial process. As the investigation phase increasingly determines the outcome of criminal proceedings, standards of fairness traditionally reserved for the trial process should be applied also to this phase in order to provide suspects with an effective defence.     

论犯罪控制视野中的刑事诉讼监督

犯罪控制并非程序正义的对立面,其目的之一即是对公民人权的保障。但是,犯罪控制的＂度＂把握不好就会有害于程序正义的实现。因此,有必要对犯罪控制进行＂度＂的控制,刑事诉讼监督即为方式之一,其关注点是人权与正义。新时期实施刑事诉讼监督,应坚持宽严相济刑事政策,吸取情境预防的经验,理顺法律监督内外部关系。     

The European Arrest Warrant and the Sovereign State: A Marriage of Convenience?

The article aims to analyse the extent to which mutual recognition and mutual trust in the criminal law area are developing in the EU in the context of the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). First, an overview of the decisions of the Constitutional Courts in Germany, Poland, Cyprus and Czech Republic will be given. These decisions are evidence of a tension, on the one hand, between mutual recognition and state sovereignty and, on the other hand, between the powers of the European institutions in criminal matters and the fundamental rights of the individual. Second, national case‐law in the UK, Belgium, Spain and Italy will be examined. Third, an analysis of the recent decision of the European Court of Justice of 3 May 2007 will be carried out. Finally, a global assessment of the EAW will be made. Is this instrument effectively promoting normative mutual trust among the judicial authorities in the EU? Should it be amended or is it the wrong response at the wrong time? Some suggestions will be put forward, in light of what is considered to be the nature of the EAW and the birth of this instrument as part of the mutual recognition agenda.     

Criminal and Procedural Fairness: Some Challenges to the Presumption of Innocence

The presumption of innocence (POI) requires all judges, juries, and other officials in a trial, to presume and treat any accused of criminal wrongdoing as innocent, until he or she is proven guilty. Although a POI lacks an authoritative definition, this overarching principle of procedural fairness is so robust and vital for the exercise of legal power in matters of criminal law that one rarely finds anyone questioning its standing. In this article I examine the rationale behind the POI from a different perspective. The basic assumption is that this procedural standard captures the tenor of a broader principle which seeks to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings as well as in criminal law doctrine. I argue that honouring a principle of fairness is not exclusively a matter of criminal procedural law but also something that is deeply rooted in other areas of criminal law doctrine. Hence: not maintaining a principle of fairness in criminal law doctrine could lead to the POI being compromised or even undermined. In the article, I draw attention to three areas in which I believe that criminal law policies threaten a principle of fairness: criminalising remote harm, doctrine of ignorance of law and inversed presumptions of guilt. My conclusion is that some solutions to so called doctrinal problems in criminal law, are questionable and their practical consequences (on a general level) are, at least partially, equal to treating an individual (in a trial) as guilty for something for which he or she ought not to be accountable. Hence: gaining the support of a POI could thus work as principle for keeping the use of criminal law moderate and in accordance with a principle of fairness.     

中国刑事诉讼制度科学构建论纲

因应我国改革开放的三十年进程,我国的刑事诉讼法学研究取得了长足的发展与进步,有必要对其进行全面审视与系统梳理,探寻出推动我国刑事诉讼制度科学化构建的重要理论。端正刑事诉讼目的,确立人权保障意识;弘扬程序法治理念,健全程序制裁机制;遵循诉讼运行规律,理顺控诉审判关系;发展诉讼主体理念,完善刑事诉讼构造;引入谦抑比例原则,规制权力行使;贯彻宽严相济政策,探索新型诉讼程序是实现我国刑事诉讼制度构建科学化的基本路径。     

无罪推定原则的确立与口供制度的完善

无罪推定是被追诉者的一项基本权利,也是被追诉者各项诉讼权利的基础。在刑事诉讼中将无罪推定确立为指导刑事诉讼活动的基本准则,就是无罪推定原则。我国应当在刑事诉讼中彻底确立无罪推定原则。无罪推定及其引申的主要内容应当分为三个层次:证明责任、被追诉者的权利和对被追诉者的权利的保障。由于无罪推定假定被追诉者无罪,对控诉的举证责任应由控方承担,被追诉者不承担无罪的举证责任,所以,被追诉者就没有理由配合控方提供自己犯罪的证据,包括口供。我国刑事诉讼法关于"犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答"的规定,违背了无罪推定关于被追诉者不应当承担举证或证明责任的基本精神,使得被追诉者负有帮助侦控方履行举证和证明的义务。这一规定实质上表明我国刑诉法要求被追诉者承担举证或证明责任。因此,从无罪推定的这一层面上说"应当如实回答"是不合理的,应当予以取消。     

证明困难视阈下的事实认定与刑事推定

从法律效果上看,刑事推定实际具有实体与程序的双重功能。以“主观罪责型”推定与“证明责任型”推定为例,前者改变了构成要件中主观罪责的证明方式,后者则在此基础上,将有限的举证责任转由被告人承担,使其成为刑事推定的不利方。为在不违背罪刑法定原则与无罪推定原则的前提下,充分实现刑事推定所预想的制度目标,不但需要对其基础事实之内容予以严格限定,突出其法定性与可证明性,而且需要明确推定事实与裁判事实之间的合理界分,强调事实认定者的心证对推定结果的可能影响,并在适用前提上,仅将刑事推定作为证明困难处境下的末位选择加以使用,在作用范围方面可将其适当扩大至定罪外的部分量刑情节。在立法选择上,考虑到刑事诉讼人权保障的基本立场,刑事立法应当对刑事推定保持最低限度的容忍态度,尽量减少其创设及适用。     

合并与分离:刑事附带民事诉讼制度的反思与重构

刑事附带民事诉讼制度的立法目的在于减轻诉累 ,提高诉讼效率 ,保证正确处理刑事案件 ,维护司法判决的统一性和严肃性 ,维护国家、集体财产利益以及被害人的合法权益。但随着法制建设的不断进步 ,民事实体和程序法律的不断完善 ,刑事附带民事诉讼制度的实践价值受到质疑。同时由于我国在立法规范和制度设计上的缺陷 ,导致附带民事诉讼缺乏独立性、救济范围过于狭窄 ,从而造成了对被害人的利益保护不足。因此 ,总结我国的立法和司法实践 ,借鉴各国立法经验 ,强化刑事案件民事赔偿救济程序的独立性 ,逐步实现刑事诉讼与民事诉讼的分立 ,将成为重构我国刑事附带民事诉讼的立法趋势     

关于刑事诉讼当事人处分权的思考

刑事诉讼当事人处分权的正当性来源于两个方面:一是权利具有可分性;二是当事人作为程序主体理应具有自主性.刑事诉讼当事人处分权的内容体现在程序启动、程序选择和变更以及程序参与的过程中.对刑事诉讼当事人的处分权应予以适度限制,具体体现为效力范围的限制、社会公益的限制和国家权力的限制.     

侦查讯问的程序性原则

侦查讯问是刑事诉讼中的一项侦查措施 ,具有潜在地损害犯罪嫌疑人权利的可能性。有必要对侦查讯问设定一些程序性原则 ,以制约国家公权力的不当行使 ,保护犯罪嫌疑人的权利。侦查讯问的程序性原则包括 :禁止先行讯问原则、禁止刑讯逼供原则、公密结合原则、法定讯问原则和不轻信口供原则。     

侦查程序中律师帮助权若干问题研究

侦查程序中 ,犯罪嫌疑人的人权最容易被忽视。就我国的司法实践而言 ,起诉和审判在很大程度上依赖侦查的结果 ,侦查程序是真正决定犯罪嫌疑人、被告人命运的关键程序。我国刑事诉讼法在增加庭审抗辩色彩的同时 ,却没有相应地增加侦查程序中的对抗因素 ,犯罪嫌疑人在侦查程序中的律师帮助权与其他国家相比尚存在亟待改进之处。     

Human Dignity in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and its Interpretation Before the European Court of Justice

This article argues that the EU Charter’s dignity provisions must be given a specific, expansive European meaning that underpins the importance the EU places on fundamental rights protection as a principle EU value. To this end, the article examines the EU Charter provisions on dignity and critically analyses the case law before the EU Charter had full legal effect and after it did. It finishes with looking at three areas in which the potential for an expansive interpretation of dignity could help bring the EU closer to its people and fully respect and protect dignity: asylum, criminal justice and sexual orientation.     

论诉讼证明的相对性

诉讼证明既是一种认识活动 ,又是一种诉讼行为 ,因此 ,除了应该遵循认识论的普遍规律外 ,还应接受程序法律和证据规则的调整和制约。认识本身的相对性和诉讼证明的特殊性决定了人们对案件事实的认识不可能达到与客观存在的案件事实完全一致、绝对真实的程度。基于诉讼证明的相对性原理 ,应当重塑我国刑事诉讼中定罪判决的证明标准 :其主观标准可以概括为“法官内心确信无疑” ,其客观标准则为“最大限度地符合或接近案件客观事实”。     

刑事诉讼视角下辩护权界说

在现代刑事诉讼中,被指控人的辩护权是一项贯穿始终的诉讼权利,主要表现为根据事实和法律提出和论证对被指控人有利的材料和理由,在实体上反驳指控,提出证明被指控人无罪、罪轻、应当减轻或免除其刑事责任的材料和意见,以及在程序上主张被指控人所拥有的合法的诉讼权利,防止其受到不公正的待遇和不应有的侵犯。但是由于司法理念和制度的弊端使得我国现实层面的辩护权呈现出与应然状态的脱节与偏离,因此,立足现状,改革与完善我国的刑事辩护权就显得尤为重要。     

Expediency,Legitimacy, and the Rule of Law: A Systems Perspective on Civil/Criminal Procedural Hybrids

In recent years an increasing quantity of UK legislation has introduced blended or ‘hybridised’ procedures that blur the previously clear demarcation between civil and criminal legal processes, typically on the grounds of normatively-motivated political expediency. This paper provides a critical perspective on instances of procedural hybridisation in order to illustrate that, first, the reliance upon civil law measures to remedy criminal law infractions can raise human rights issues and, second, that such instrumental criminal justice strategies deliberately circumvent the enhanced procedural protections of the criminal law. By conceptualising the rule of law as a structural coupling between the political and legal systems, and due process rights as necessary and self-imposed limitations upon systemic operations, this paper employs a systems-theoretical approach to critique this balancing act between expediency and principle, and queries the circumstances under which legislation contravening the rule of law can be said to lack legitimacy.     

El principio de reconocimiento mutuo en el derecho de la unión europea según la cláusula de “plena fe y crédito” de la constitución de estados unidos

The paper shows a comparative analysis of the law of the united states of america (US) and the european union (EU) focusing on the principle of mutual recognition, which has served as a basis in order to achieve the enforcement of judicial decisions by the authorities of the different Member States. It illustrates the origins and evolution of this principle within the US legal system, as well as its recent implementation within the European integration system with the aim of creating a common space of freedom, security and justice. The paper lists and analizes a substancial number of legal acts adopted so far in the area of civil and criminal law. Furthermore, it highlights the influence the case-law of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the EU has had on the development of this principle. Moreover, it elaborates on the function of this principle as a nation-building element, raising the question whether this concept could be possibly transposed to a regional integration system with clear federal traits such as the EU.     

犯罪嫌疑人的确认

犯罪嫌疑人是刑事诉讼中的诉讼参与人 ,对其进行正确认定既能保障无辜的人不受追诉 ,同时又有利于确实保障被认定为犯罪嫌疑人的诉讼权利的及时行使。分析犯罪嫌疑人与被告人、初查时的犯罪嫌疑对象之间的界限 ,旨在解决确认一个人为犯罪嫌疑人需要具备哪些证据 ,这些证据应该达到一个什么样的标准 ,以及确认犯罪嫌疑人这一法律身份的起始时间和程序等问题 ,从而为正确认定犯罪嫌疑人提供一个具有可操作性的标准和规则     

刑事被害人的知情权探析

被害人的知情权是被害人行使其他诉讼权利的逻辑前提,是诉讼民主的重要体现,亦有助于实现社会正义。国际公约及其他国际性文件和法治发达国家都对公民的知情权及被害人的知情权都作了明确规定,有的国家甚至将其上升到宪法的高度。我国刑事被害人享有一定程度的知情权,但权利告知规则仍不完善,被害人对案件的进展、诉讼结果以及刑罚的执行情况缺乏知悉途径,知情权的实现缺乏保障机制。立法上应对其作相应完善。