Remote Criminal Proceedings in EU Law from the Perspective of Strengthening the Rights of the Accused
By: Inga Žukovaitė
References
- Allegrezza, Silvia, and Valentina Covolo, eds. Effective Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings. A European and Comparative Study on Judicial Remedies. Milan: Wolters Kluwer, 2018 // https://hdl.handle.net/10993/38401.
- Anagnostopoulos, Ilias. ‘The Right of Access to a Lawyer in Europe: A Long Road Ahead?’. European Criminal Law Review 4, 1 (2014): 3–18 // https://doi.org/10.5235/219174414811783333.
- Batta, Julia Dora. ‘Officiality and the Right of Defence in the Case Law of the ECHR’. Revista Facultatii de Drept Oradea 1 (2021): 86–90.
- Bučiūnas, Gediminas. ‘Europos tyrimo orderio išdavimo problematika’. Teisės apžvalga 18, 2 (2018): 210–222 // http://dx.doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.18.14.
- Chainais, Cécile. ‘Open Justice and the Principle of Public Access to Hearings in the Age of Information Technology: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparative Law’. Open Justice 13 (2019): 59–90.
- Corso, Piermaria, and Francisco Peroni, eds. Studi in onore di Mario Pisani. Casa Editrice La Tribuna, 2010.
- Dimoski, Divna Ilikj, and Boban Misoski. ‘Reflection on the EU Directive on the Strengthening of Certain Aspects of the Presumption of Innocence and of the Right to Be Present at the Trial in Criminal Proceedings’. Iustinianus Primus Law Review 11, Special Issue (2020): 1–10.
- Grio, Alessandra. ‘The defendant’s rights in the hearing by videoconference’: 119– 126. In: Stefano Ruggeri, ed., Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe. Springer, Cham, 2014 // https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_10.
- Ho-Dac, Marion. ‘Digitalisation of Justice Systems in the European Union: Towards a European Judicial Area 2.0’. (The EAPIL blog, 24 February 2024) // https://eapil.org/2024/02/06/digitalisation-of-justice-systems-in-the-european-union-towards-a-european-judicial-area-2-0/.
- Jackson, John D., and Sarah J. Summers. The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Cambridge University Press, 2012 // https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139093606.
- Jansen, Gwen. ‘The need for a new roadmap of procedural safeguards: a lawyer’s perspective’. ERA Forum 22 (2021): 279–294 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00667-5
- Klip, Andre. ‘Violation of Defence Rights’ Directives’. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 26, 4 (November 2018): 271–281.
- Magnus, Robert, ‘New Media in the Courtroom: Benefits and Challenges’. Open Justice 13 (2019): 91–96.
- Malferrari, Luigi. ‘Digital Justice at the European Court of Justice after Covid-19: Solving the “Smaller Questions” to Tackle the “Big Questions”’: 31–54. In Daniel Sarmiento, Helene Ruiz Fabri, Burkhard Hess, eds., Yearbook on Procedural Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union Third Edition – 2021 (3rd edn, 2022), MPILux Research Paper Series No. 2022(5) // http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4212945.
- Malferrari, Luigi, and Alessandro Spina. ‘A Virtual Court in Luxembourg? The Issues of Digital Technologies and Webstreaming for Hearings before the CJEU’. EU Law Live 35 (2020): 7–15.
- McBride, Jeremy. Human rights and criminal procedure. The case of the European Court of Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, 2009.
- Min, Bruno. ‘Balancing the Need for Due Process, Fair Trials and Systemic Efficacy: The Benefits and Challenges of Technological Improvements and Greater Efficiencies for the Criminal Justice System’. Irish Probation Journal 19 (2022): 7–23.
- Mitsilegas, Valsamis. ‘The European Union and the rights of individuals in criminal proceedings’: 115–136. In: Darryl K. Brown, Jenia Iontcheva Turner and Bettina Weisser, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019 // https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.8.
- Olszewski, Radosław, and Amadeusz Małolepszy. ‘Exercise of the Right to Defence in Criminal Proceedings during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Particular Reference to the Relation Between the Accused and the Defence Counsel’. Bialystok Legal Studies Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 27, 2 (2022): 223–236 // https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2022.27.02.13.
- Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, eds. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary. Hart Publishing, 2014.
- Pingen, Anna, and Thomas Wahl. ‘New Legal Framework on Digitalisation of Judicial Cooperation’. Eurcim 4 (2023) // https://eucrim.eu/news/new-legal-framework-on-digitalisation-of-judicial-cooperation/.
- Riehle, Cornelia, and Allison Clozel. ‘10 Years After the Roadmap: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the EU Today’. ERA Forum 20 (2020): 321–325 // https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00579-5.
- Roberts, Huw, Josh Cowls, Federico Casolari, Jessica Morley, Mariarosaria Taddeo and Luciano Floridi. ‘Safeguarding European values with digital sovereignty: an analysis of statements and policies’. Internet Policy Review 10, 3 (2021) // https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575.
- Sales, Philip. ‘Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence and the Law’. Judicial Review 25, 1 (2020): 46–66 // https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1732737.
- Sanders, Anne. ‘Video-Hearings in Europe before, during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic’. International Journal for Court Administration 12, 2 (2021): Article 3 // https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379.
- Simonato, Michele. ‘Defence rights and the use of information technology in criminal procedure’. Revue internationale de droit pénal 85, 1–2 (2014): 261–310 // https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.851.0261.
- Tinsley, Alex. ‘Protecting Criminal Defense Rights through EU Law: Opportunities and Challenges’. New Journal of European Criminal Law 4 (2013): 461–480 // https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441300400405.
- Valentini, Cristiana. ‘Contraddittorio, immediatezza, oralità nella giurisprudenza della Corte E.D.U.’. Archivio penale 2 (2016): 1–33 // https://archiviopenale.it/File/DownloadArticolo?codice=61806407-a77c-4c8b-babd-145829de7f87&idarticolo=15071.
- Wilinski, Pawel, and Karolina Kiejnich-Kruk. ‘Right to Effective Legal Remedy in Criminal Proceedings in the EU. Implementation and Need for Standards’. Review of European and Comparative Law (RECoL) 54 (2023): 147–168 // https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.16244.
- Žukovaitė, Inga. ‘Op-Ed: ‘A preliminary ruling on the possibility for an accused person to participate in hearings via video conference: FP and Others (C-760/22)’, EULaw live September 23, 2024 // https://eulawlive.com/op-ed-a-preliminary-ruling-on-the-possibility-for-an-accused-person-to-participate-in-hearings-via-videoconference-fp-and-others-c-760-22/.
- ‘2019–2023 Strategy on e-Justice (2019/C 96/04)’. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XG0313(01)&rid=7.
- Candidate for President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, ‘A Union that strives for more: My agenda for Europe. Political guidelines for the next European Commission 2019–2024’ // https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf.
- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and social committee and the Committee of the regions Digitalisation of justice in the European Union A toolbox of opportunities, COM/2020/710 final. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0710.
- Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions– Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe’s citizens – Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, COM(2010) 171 final. Eur-lex (20 April 2010) – Not published in the Official Journal // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/action-plan-on-the-stockholm-programme.html.
- Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. OJ C 326, 26.10.2012 // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E082.
- Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. Eur-lex // http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/947/oj.
- Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention. Eur-lex // http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2009/829/oj.
- Council of the European Union. ‘European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028’ (17 November 2023) // https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15509-2023-INIT/en/pdf.
- Convention established by the Council in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union, on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union - Council Declaration on Article 10(9) - Declaration by the United Kingdom on Article 20. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A42000A0712%2801%29.
- Deloitte and Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (European Commission). Cross-Border Digital Criminal Justice: Final Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 // https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/118529.
- Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0343.
- Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0048.
- Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters (Current consolidated version: 13/03/2022). Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0041.
- Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0064.
- Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings. Eur-lex // https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/13/oj.
- Directive 2016/1919/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L1919.
- Directive 2016/800/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/800/oj.
- Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (European Commission). The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 // https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/33482.
- ECBA. ‘ECBA Initiative 2017/2018 “Agenda 2020: A new Roadmap on minimum standards of certain procedural safeguards”’ // https://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/20180424_ECBA_Agenda2020_NewRoadMap.pdf.
- Eurojust. Bendras Eurojusto ir Europos teisminio tinklo pranešimas dėl Europos tyrimo orderio praktinio taikymo (June 2019) // https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Publications/Reports/2019-06-Joint_Note_EJ-EJN_practical_application_EIO_LT.pdf.
- European Commission. ‘Roadmap – Ares(2020)4029305’ // https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-EU_en.
- European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). ‘Guidelines on video-conferencing in judicial proceedings’, document adopted by the CEPEJ at its 36th plenary meeting (16 and 17 June 2021) // https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-4-guidelines-videoconference-en/1680a2c2f4.
- European Council and Council of the European Union. ‘A digital future for Europe’ (last review: 22 May 2024) // https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/a-digital-future-for-europe/#e-justice.
- ‘European Council meeting, EUCO 13/18’. (18 October 2018) // https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36775/18-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf.
- European Council. ‘A Roadmap for recovery. Towards a more resilient, sustainable and fair Europe’ (2020) // https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/43384/road-map-for-recovery-final-21-04-2020.pdf.
- Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights [2007] JO C303/29. Document 32007X1214(01). Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007X1214%2801%29.
- ‘FP and Others (Procès par visioconférence), CJEU (Case C-760/22). Case information’, InfoCuria // https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=C%3B760%3B22%3BRP%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BC2022%2F0760%2FP&nat=or&mat=or&pcs=Oor&jur=C%2CT%2CF&num=C-760%252F22&for=&jge=&-dates=&language=en&pro=&cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252C-false%252Cfalse&oqp=&td=%3BALL&avg=&lgrec=en&lg=&cid=4278615#section_titre.
- Multi-annual European e-Justice action plan 2009–2013, 2009/C 75/01. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2009:075:-FULL&from=SV.
- ‘Opinion of Advocate General Medina, delivered on 18 April 2024, Case C760/22’. InfoCuria // https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=284899&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=-first&part=1&cid=269395.
- Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (COM(2021) 759 final — 2021/0394 (COD)), and Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC, Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation (COM(2021) 760 final — 2021/0395 (COD)). Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022AE0174.
- ‘Position of the European Parliament EP-PE_TC1-COD(2021)0394’. (23 November 2023) // https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2021-0394_LT.pdf.
- Regulation (EU) 2023/2844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2023 on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation. Eur-lex // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2844.
- Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. OJ C 295, 4.12.2009 // https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009G1204%2801%29.
- Asciutto v. Italy. ECtHR, 27 November 2007, no. 35795/02.
- Belziuk v. Poland. ECtHR, 25 March 1998, no. 23103/93.
- Beuze v. Belgium. ECtHR, 9 November 2018, no. 71409/10.
- Castravet v. Moldova. ECtHR, no. 13 June 2007, no. 23393/05.
- Colozza v. Italy. ECtHR, 12 February 1985, no. 9024/80.
- Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2). ECtHR, 10 November 2020, no. 57575/14.
- Dijkhuizen v. the Netherlands. ECtHR, 8 June 2021, no. 61591/16.
- F.C.B. v. Italy. ECtHR, 28 August 1991, no. 12151/86.
- Grigoryevskikh v. Russia. ECtHR, 9 April 2009, no. 22/03.
- Hermi v. Italy. ECtHR, 18 October 2006, no. 18114/02.
- Hokkeling v. the Netherlands. ECtHR, 14 February 2017, no. 30749/12.
- Ibrahim and others v. Great Britain. ECtHR, 13 August 2016, nos. 50541/08, 505 71/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09.
- Matytsina v. Russia. ECtHR, 27 March 2014, no. 58428/10.
- Marcello Viola v. Italy. ECtHR, 5 October 2006, no. 45106/04.
- Medvedev v. Russia. ECtHR, 3 October 2017, no. 10932/06.
- Modarca v. Moldova. ECtHR, 10 May 2007, no. 14437/05.
- Murtazaliyeva v. Russia. ECtHR, 18 December 2018, no. 36658/05.
- P.K. v. Finland (dec.). ECtHR, 9 July 2002, no. 37442/97.
- Płonka v. Poland. ECtHR, 31 March 2009, no. 20310/02.
- Rosalba Alassini (C-317/08) and Filomena Califano v. Wind SpA (C-318/08) and Lucia Anna Giorgia Iacono v. Telecom Italia SpA (C-319/08) and Multiservice Srl v. Telecom Italia SpA (C-320/08) (Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08). CJEU, 18 March 2010, Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08.
- Sakhnovskiy v. Russia. ECtHR, 2 November 2010, no. 21272/03.
- Salduz v. Turkey. ECtHR, 27 November 2008, no. 36391/02.
- Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC]. ECtHR, 15 December 2015, no. 9154/10.
- Sejdovic v. Italy. ECtHR,1 March 2006, no. 56581/00.
- Shulepov v. Russia. ECtHR, 26 June 2008, no. 15435/03.
- Slashchev v. Russia. ECtHR, 30 April 2012 no. 24996/05.
- Stanford v. the United Kingdom. ECtHR, 23 February 1994, no. 16757/90.
- Vladimir Vitalyevich Golubev v. Russia. ECtHR, 9 November 2006, no. 26260/02.
- Zagaria v. Italy. ECtHR, 27 November 2007, no. 58195/00.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-00016 | Journal eISSN: 2029-0454
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 100
Submitted on: Jun 5, 2024
Accepted on: Oct 16, 2024
Published on: Jan 22, 2025
Published by: Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year
Related subjects:
© 2025 Inga Žukovaitė, published by Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.