Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Remote Criminal Proceedings in EU Law from the Perspective of Strengthening the Rights of the Accused Cover

Remote Criminal Proceedings in EU Law from the Perspective of Strengthening the Rights of the Accused

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics
Volume 17 (2024): Issue 2 (December 2024)
By:
Open Access
|Jan 2025

References

  1. Allegrezza, Silvia, and Valentina Covolo, eds. <em>Effective Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings. A European and Comparative Study on Judicial Remedies</em>. Milan: Wolters Kluwer, 2018 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://hdl.handle.net/10993/38401">https://hdl.handle.net/10993/38401</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. Anagnostopoulos, Ilias. ‘The Right of Access to a Lawyer in Europe: A Long Road Ahead?’. <em>European Criminal Law Review</em> 4, 1 (2014): 3–18 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.5235/219174414811783333" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.5235/219174414811783333</a>">https://doi.org/10.5235/219174414811783333</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. Batta, Julia Dora. ‘Officiality and the Right of Defence in the Case Law of the ECHR’. <em>Revista Facultatii de Drept Oradea</em> 1 (2021): 86–90.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. Bučiūnas, Gediminas. ‘Europos tyrimo orderio išdavimo problematika’. <em>Teisės apžvalga</em> 18, 2 (2018): 210–222 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/<a href="https://doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.18.14" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">10.7220/2029-4239.18.14</a>">http://dx.doi.org/<a href="https://doi.org/10.7220/2029-4239.18.14" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">10.7220/2029-4239.18.14</a></ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. Chainais, Cécile. ‘Open Justice and the Principle of Public Access to Hearings in the Age of Information Technology: Theoretical Perspectives and Comparative Law’. <em>Open Justice</em> 13 (2019): 59–90.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. Corso, Piermaria, and Francisco Peroni, eds. <em>Studi in onore di Mario Pisani</em>. Casa Editrice La Tribuna, 2010.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. 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’. <em>Iustinianus Primus Law Review</em> 11, Special Issue (2020): 1–10.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. Grio, Alessandra. ‘The defendant’s rights in the hearing by videoconference’: 119– 126. In: Stefano Ruggeri, ed., <em>Transnational Evidence and Multicultural Inquiries in Europe</em>. Springer, Cham, 2014 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_10" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_10</a>">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02570-4_10</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. Ho-Dac, Marion. ‘Digitalisation of Justice Systems in the European Union: Towards a European Judicial Area 2.0’. (The EAPIL blog, 24 February 2024) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eapil.org/2024/02/06/digitalisation-of-justice-systems-in-the-european-union-towards-a-european-judicial-area-2-0/">https://eapil.org/2024/02/06/digitalisation-of-justice-systems-in-the-european-union-towards-a-european-judicial-area-2-0/</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. Jackson, John D., and Sarah J. Summers. <em>The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence</em>. Cambridge University Press, 2012 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139093606" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139093606</a>">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139093606</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. Jansen, Gwen. ‘The need for a new roadmap of procedural safeguards: a lawyer’s perspective’. <em>ERA Forum</em> 22 (2021): 279–294 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00667-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00667-5</a>">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-021-00667-5</ext-link>
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. Klip, Andre. ‘Violation of Defence Rights’ Directives’. <em>European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice</em> 26, 4 (November 2018): 271–281.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. Magnus, Robert, ‘New Media in the Courtroom: Benefits and Challenges’. <em>Open Justice</em> 13 (2019): 91–96.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. 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., <em>Yearbook on Procedural Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union Third Edition – 2021</em> (3rd edn, 2022), MPILux Research Paper Series No. 2022(5) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/<a href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4212945" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">10.2139/ssrn.4212945</a>">http://dx.doi.org/<a href="https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4212945" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">10.2139/ssrn.4212945</a></ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. Malferrari, Luigi, and Alessandro Spina. ‘A Virtual Court in Luxembourg? The Issues of Digital Technologies and Webstreaming for Hearings before the CJEU’. <em>EU Law Live</em> 35 (2020): 7–15.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. McBride, Jeremy. <em>Human rights and criminal procedure. The case of the European Court of Human Rights</em>. Council of Europe Publishing, 2009.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. 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’. <em>Irish Probation Journal</em> 19 (2022): 7–23.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. 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., <em>The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.8</a>">https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.8</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. 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’. <em>Bialystok Legal Studies Białostockie Studia Prawnicze</em> 27, 2 (2022): 223–236 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2022.27.02.13" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2022.27.02.13</a>">https://doi.org/10.15290/bsp.2022.27.02.13</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. Peers, Steve, Tamara Hervey, Jeff Kenner, and Angela Ward, eds. <em>The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Commentary</em>. Hart Publishing, 2014.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. Pingen, Anna, and Thomas Wahl. ‘New Legal Framework on Digitalisation of Judicial Cooperation’. <em>Eurcim</em> 4 (2023) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eucrim.eu/news/new-legal-framework-on-digitalisation-of-judicial-cooperation/">https://eucrim.eu/news/new-legal-framework-on-digitalisation-of-judicial-cooperation/</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. Riehle, Cornelia, and Allison Clozel. ‘10 Years After the Roadmap: Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings in the EU Today’. <em>ERA Forum</em> 20 (2020): 321–325 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00579-5" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00579-5</a>">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00579-5</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. 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’. <em>Internet Policy Review</em> 10, 3 (2021) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575</a>">https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.3.1575</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. Sales, Philip. ‘Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence and the Law’. <em>Judicial Review</em> 25, 1 (2020): 46–66 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1732737" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1732737</a>">https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1732737</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. Sanders, Anne. ‘Video-Hearings in Europe before, during and after the COVID-19 Pandemic’. <em>International Journal for Court Administration</em> 12, 2 (2021): Article 3 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379</a>">https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.379</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. Simonato, Michele. ‘Defence rights and the use of information technology in criminal procedure’. <em>Revue internationale de droit pénal</em> 85, 1–2 (2014): 261–310 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.851.0261" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.851.0261</a>">https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.851.0261</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. Tinsley, Alex. ‘Protecting Criminal Defense Rights through EU Law: Opportunities and Challenges’. <em>New Journal of European Criminal Law</em> 4 (2013): 461–480 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441300400405" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441300400405</a>">https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441300400405</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. Valentini, Cristiana. ‘Contraddittorio, immediatezza, oralità nella giurisprudenza della Corte E.D.U.’. <em>Archivio penale</em> 2 (2016): 1–33 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://archiviopenale.it/File/DownloadArticolo?codice=61806407-a77c-4c8b-babd-145829de7f87&amp;idarticolo=15071">https://archiviopenale.it/File/DownloadArticolo?codice=61806407-a77c-4c8b-babd-145829de7f87&amp;idarticolo=15071</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. Wilinski, Pawel, and Karolina Kiejnich-Kruk. ‘Right to Effective Legal Remedy in Criminal Proceedings in the EU. Implementation and Need for Standards’. <em>Review of European and Comparative Law (RECoL)</em> 54 (2023): 147–168 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="<a href="https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.16244" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="text-signal-blue hover:underline">https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.16244</a>">https://doi.org/10.31743/recl.16244</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. 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)’, <em>EULaw live</em> September 23, 2024 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="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/">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/</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. <em>‘</em>2019–2023 Strategy on e-Justice (2019/C 96/04)’. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XG0313(01)&amp;rid=7">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XG0313(01)&amp;rid=7</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  32. 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’ // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/political-guidelines-next-commission_en.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  33. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0710">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0710</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  34. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex (20 April 2010) – Not published in the Official Journal // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/action-plan-on-the-stockholm-programme.html">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/action-plan-on-the-stockholm-programme.html</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  35. <em>Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union</em>. OJ C 326, 26.10.2012 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E082">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12008E082</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  36. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/947/oj">http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2008/947/oj</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  37. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2009/829/oj">http://data.europa.eu/eli/dec_framw/2009/829/oj</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  38. Council of the European Union. ‘European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028’ (17 November 2023) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15509-2023-INIT/en/pdf">https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-15509-2023-INIT/en/pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  39. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A42000A0712%2801%29">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A42000A0712%2801%29</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  40. Deloitte and Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (European Commission). <em>Cross-Border Digital Criminal Justice: Final Report</em>. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/118529">https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/118529</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  41. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0343">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016L0343</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  42. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0048">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32013L0048</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  43. <em>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)</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0041">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0041</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  44. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0064">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32010L0064</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  45. <em>Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/13/oj">https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/13/oj</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  46. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L1919">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L1919</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  47. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/800/oj">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/800/oj</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  48. Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (European Commission). <em>The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard.</em> Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2023 // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/33482">https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2838/33482</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  49. ECBA. ‘ECBA Initiative 2017/2018 “Agenda 2020: A new Roadmap on minimum standards of certain procedural safeguards”’ // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/20180424_ECBA_Agenda2020_NewRoadMap.pdf">https://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/20180424_ECBA_Agenda2020_NewRoadMap.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  50. Eurojust. <em>Bendras Eurojusto ir Europos teisminio tinklo pranešimas dėl Europos tyrimo orderio praktinio taikymo</em> (June 2019) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Publications/Reports/2019-06-Joint_Note_EJ-EJN_practical_application_EIO_LT.pdf">https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Publications/Reports/2019-06-Joint_Note_EJ-EJN_practical_application_EIO_LT.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  51. European Commission. ‘Roadmap – Ares(2020)4029305’ // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-EU_en">https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12547-Digitalisation-of-justice-in-the-EU_en</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  52. 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) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-4-guidelines-videoconference-en/1680a2c2f4">https://rm.coe.int/cepej-2021-4-guidelines-videoconference-en/1680a2c2f4</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  53. European Council and Council of the European Union. ‘A digital future for Europe’ (last review: 22 May 2024) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/a-digital-future-for-europe/#e-justice">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/a-digital-future-for-europe/#e-justice</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  54. ‘European Council meeting, EUCO 13/18’. (18 October 2018) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36775/18-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/36775/18-euco-final-conclusions-en.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  55. European Council. ‘A Roadmap for recovery. Towards a more resilient, sustainable and fair Europe’ (2020) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/43384/road-map-for-recovery-final-21-04-2020.pdf">https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/43384/road-map-for-recovery-final-21-04-2020.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  56. <em>Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights [2007] JO C303/29. Document 32007X1214(01)</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007X1214%2801%29">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32007X1214%2801%29</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  57. ‘<em>FP and Others (Procès par visioconférence)</em>, CJEU (Case C-760/22). Case information’, InfoCuria // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=C%3B760%3B22%3BRP%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BC2022%2F0760%2FP&amp;nat=or&amp;mat=or&amp;pcs=Oor&amp;jur=C%2CT%2CF&amp;num=C-760%252F22&amp;for=&amp;jge=&amp;-dates=&amp;language=en&amp;pro=&amp;cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252C-false%252Cfalse&amp;oqp=&amp;td=%3BALL&amp;avg=&amp;lgrec=en&amp;lg=&amp;cid=4278615#section_titre">https://curia.europa.eu/juris/fiche.jsf?id=C%3B760%3B22%3BRP%3B1%3BP%3B1%3BC2022%2F0760%2FP&amp;nat=or&amp;mat=or&amp;pcs=Oor&amp;jur=C%2CT%2CF&amp;num=C-760%252F22&amp;for=&amp;jge=&amp;-dates=&amp;language=en&amp;pro=&amp;cit=none%252CC%252CCJ%252CR%252C2008E%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252C%252Ctrue%252C-false%252Cfalse&amp;oqp=&amp;td=%3BALL&amp;avg=&amp;lgrec=en&amp;lg=&amp;cid=4278615#section_titre</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  58. <em>Multi-annual European e-Justice action plan 2009–2013, 2009/C 75/01.</em> Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2009:075:-FULL&amp;from=SV">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2009:075:-FULL&amp;from=SV</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  59. ‘Opinion of Advocate General Medina, delivered on 18 April 2024, Case C760/22’. InfoCuria // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=284899&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=lst&amp;dir=&amp;occ=-first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=269395">https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&amp;docid=284899&amp;pageIndex=0&amp;doclang=EN&amp;mode=lst&amp;dir=&amp;occ=-first&amp;part=1&amp;cid=269395</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  60. <em>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))</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022AE0174">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52022AE0174</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  61. ‘Position of the European Parliament EP-PE_TC1-COD(2021)0394’. (23 November 2023) // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2021-0394_LT.pdf">https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TC1-COD-2021-0394_LT.pdf</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  62. <em>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</em>. Eur-lex // <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2844">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/2844</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  63. <em>Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings.</em> OJ C 295, 4.12.2009 <em>//</em> <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009G1204%2801%29">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32009G1204%2801%29</ext-link>.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  64. <em>Asciutto v. Italy</em>. ECtHR, 27 November 2007, no. 35795/02.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  65. <em>Belziuk v. Poland</em>. ECtHR, 25 March 1998, no. 23103/93.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  66. <em>Beuze v. Belgium</em>. ECtHR, 9 November 2018, no. 71409/10.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  67. <em>Castravet v. Moldova</em>. ECtHR, no. 13 June 2007, no. 23393/05.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  68. <em>Colozza v. Italy</em>. ECtHR, 12 February 1985, no. 9024/80.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  69. <em>Dan v. the Republic of Moldova (no. 2)</em>. ECtHR, 10 November 2020, no. 57575/14.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  70. <em>Dijkhuizen v. the Netherlands.</em> ECtHR, 8 June 2021, no. 61591/16.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  71. <em>F.C.B. v. Italy</em>. ECtHR, 28 August 1991, no. 12151/86.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  72. <em>Grigoryevskikh v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 9 April 2009, no. 22/03.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  73. <em>Hermi v. Italy</em>. ECtHR, 18 October 2006, no. 18114/02.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  74. <em>Hokkeling v. the Netherlands</em>. ECtHR, 14 February 2017, no. 30749/12.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  75. <em>Ibrahim and others v. Great Britain</em>. ECtHR, 13 August 2016, nos. 50541/08, 505 71/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  76. <em>Matytsina v. Russia</em>. ECtHR, 27 March 2014, no. 58428/10.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  77. <em>Marcello Viola v. Italy.</em> ECtHR, 5 October 2006, no. 45106/04.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  78. <em>Medvedev v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 3 October 2017, no. 10932/06.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  79. <em>Modarca v. Moldova</em>. ECtHR, 10 May 2007, no. 14437/05.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  80. <em>Murtazaliyeva v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 18 December 2018, no. 36658/05.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  81. <em>P.K. v. Finland (dec.)</em>. ECtHR, 9 July 2002, no. 37442/97.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  82. <em>Płonka v. Poland</em>. ECtHR, 31 March 2009, no. 20310/02.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  83. <em>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)</em>. CJEU, 18 March 2010, Joined Cases C-317/08 to C-320/08.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  84. <em>Sakhnovskiy v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 2 November 2010, no. 21272/03.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  85. <em>Salduz v. Turkey</em>. ECtHR, 27 November 2008, no. 36391/02.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  86. <em>Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC]</em>. ECtHR, 15 December 2015, no. 9154/10.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  87. <em>Sejdovic v. Italy</em>. ECtHR,1 March 2006, no. 56581/00.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  88. <em>Shulepov v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 26 June 2008, no. 15435/03.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  89. <em>Slashchev v. Russia.</em> ECtHR, 30 April 2012 no. 24996/05.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  90. <em>Stanford v. the United Kingdom.</em> ECtHR, 23 February 1994, no. 16757/90.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  91. <em>Vladimir Vitalyevich Golubev v. Russia</em>. ECtHR, 9 November 2006, no. 26260/02.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  92. <em>Zagaria v. Italy.</em> ECtHR, 27 November 2007, no. 58195/00.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjlp-2024-00016 | Journal eISSN: 2029-0454
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 77 - 100
Submitted on: Jun 5, 2024
Accepted on: Oct 16, 2024
Published on: Jan 22, 2025
Published by: Vytautas Magnus University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 times per year
Keywords:
Digitalisation of justice,
Remote criminal hearing,
EU law,
Defence right
Related subjects:
Law,
Law, other,
Social sciences,
Political science,
Political science, other

© 2025 Inga Žukovaitė, published by Vytautas Magnus University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 17 (2024): Issue 2 (December 2024)Next article