References
- 1Act of 27 March 2020 authorizing the King to take measures in the fight against the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19, BS 30 March 2020.
- 2Act of 31 July 2020 containing several provisions concerning justice, BS 7 August 2020.
- 3Act of 20 December 2020 containing several temporary and structural provisions concerning justice in the context of the combat against the spreading of the coronavirus COVID-19, BS 24 December 2020.
- 4Act of 25 April 2024 on the organisation of hearings by videoconference in the context of judicial proceedings, BS 3 June 2024.
- 5Asciutto v Italy,
app no 35795/02 (ECHR, 27 November 2007). - 6Bill of 27 May 2020 containing several provisions concerning justice, amongst others in the context of the combat against the spreading of the coronavirus, Parl.St. Kamer, 2019–2020, No. 1295/001.
- 7Bill of 25 November 2020 containing several temporary and structural provisions concerning justice in the context of the combat against the spreading of the coronavirus COVID-19, Parl.St. Kamer, 2020–2021, No. 1668/001.
- 8Bill of 1 December 2023 on the organisation of hearings by videoconference in the context of judicial proceedings, Parl.St. Kamer, 2023–24, No. 3722/001.
- 9Bill of 18 April 2024 on the organisation of hearings by videoconference in the context of judicial proceedings, Parl.St. Kamer, 2023–24, No. 3722/008.
- 10Bivolaru v Romania (No. 2),
app no 66580/12 (ECHR, 2 October 2018). - 11Case C-769/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission, 2 October 2003.
- 12Case C-760/22, FP and others, 4 July 2024 (First Chamber).
- 13Circulaire of College of Courts and Tribunals, “Dwingende richtlijnen Communicatie Coronavirus” (18 March 2020), <
https://www.rechtbankentribunaux.be/sites/default/files/nieuwsartikels/commu-coronavirus-x-dirco-nlfr-20200416-actua-richtlijnen-chr-directives-cct.pdf > - 14Clooney, Amal and Philippa Webb, The Right to a Fair Trial in International Law (Oxford University Press 2020). DOI: 10.1093/law/9780198808398.001.0001
- 15Colzza v Italy,
app no 9024/80 (ECHR, 12 February 1985). - 16Constitutional Court 20 May 2021, No. 76/2021.
- 17Constitutional Court 25 February 2021, No. 32/2021.
- 18Council of Europe, ‘Derogations Covid-19: Notifications under Article 15 of the Convention in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic’: <
https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/derogations-covid-19 > accessed 26 January 2024. - 19Council of Europe, report on the functioning of State Parties’ courts and their respective COVID-19 measures (as of 15 April 2020): <
https://rm.coe.int/courts-covid-19-measures-as-of-15-april-2020/16809e2927 > accessed 26 January 2024. - 20Court of Cassation 14 January 2014, TGR 2014, 285. DOI: 10.1515/9781400865567-055
- 21Court of Cassation 21 June 2016, AR P.15.0403.N, RABG 2017-1, 58.
- 22Court of Cassation 20 September 2016, AR P.16.0231.N, RW 2017–18, 139.
- 23Court of Cassation 30 May 2017, AR P.14.0605.N.
- 24Court of Cassation 7 April 2020, AR. P.20.0231.N.
- 25Court of Cassation 23 March 2021, AR. P.21.0169.N.
- 26Court of Cassation 26 November 2021, AR C.20.0578.F, RGAR 2022, 15858.
- 27deVocht, Dorris, ‘Trials by video link after the pandemic: the pros and cons of the expansion of virtual justice’ (2022) 8 China-EU Law Journal 33. DOI: 10.1007/s12689-022-00095-9
- 28Decree of 23 October 2020 of the Flemish Government on the use of videoconferencing for the appearance of juvenile suspects, BS 15 December 2020 (Besluit van de Vlaamse Regering over het gebruik van videoconferentie voor de verschijning van minderjarige verdachten).
- 29Dijkhuizen v The Netherlands,
app no 61591/16 (ECHR, 8 June 2021). - 30Directive (EU) 2016/343 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings [2016] OJ L 65/1.
- 31Dobbertin v France, 25 February 1993, Series A no 256-D.
- 32European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Right to a Fair Trial (Criminal Limb) (2022 edn).
- 33European e-Justice Strategy and Action Plan 2019–2023 (2019/C 96/05), available via <
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52019XG0313(02) > accessed 26 January 2024. - 34Fair Trials, ‘Beyond the Emergency of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons for Defence Rights in Europe (June 2020) 13, 16; accessed via <
https://www.fairtrials.org/articles/publications/beyond-the-emergency-of-the-covid-19-pandemic/ >, 18 January 2023. - 35Falcone, Antonella.
‘Online Hearings and the Right to Effective Defence in Digitalised Trials’ in Lorena Bachmaier Winter and Stefan Ruggeri (eds), Investigating and Preventing Crime in the Digital Era (Springer 2022). DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-13952-9_9 - 36Fenech v Malta,
app no 190920 (ECHR, 23 March 2021). - 37Gori, Pierpaolo and Aniel Pahladsingh, ‘Fundamental rights under COVID-19: a European perspective on videoconferencing in court’ (2021) 21 ERA Forum 561. DOI: 10.1007/s12027-020-00643-5
- 38Harris, D J, M O’Boyle, E P Bates and C M Buckley, Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th edn, Oxford University Press 2023). DOI: 10.1093/he/9780198862000.001.0001
- 39Huzuneanu v Italy,
app no 36043/08 (ECHR, 1 September 2016). - 40Justia, ‘Remote Legal Proceedings in Criminal Courts’ (Last Update March 2023), <
https://www.justia.com/covid-19/impact-of-covid-19-on-criminal-cases/remote-criminal-court-proceedings-during-covid-19/ > accessed 27 January 2024. - 41Kamer, Krešimir, ‘The Right to a Fair Online Hearing’ (2022) 22 Human Rights Law Review 1. DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngac006
- 42Kim, Pauline, Do We Have the Numbers? Empirical Research in Law—International Law as a Case Study, Program at the American Association of Law Libraries Annual Meeting (2006).
- 43Klip, André, European Criminal Law: An Integrative Approach (4th edn, Intersentia 2021).
- 44Luyten, Bruno, ‘Reeds meer dan tien jaar wordt videoconferentie gebruikt voor terechtzittingen in België’ Jubel (3 August 2020) <
https://www.jubel.be/reeds-meer-dan-tien-jaar-wordt-videoconferentie-gebruikt-voor-terechtzittingen-in-belgie/ > accessed 27 January 2024; - 45Marcello Viola v Italy,
app no 45106/04 (ECHR, 5 October 2006). - 46Meese, Joachim, “Het recht van de beklaagde om persoonlijk aanwezig te zijn bij het strafproces”, RW (2018–19) 300.
- 47Order of Flemish Bars, “Wettelijk kader voor videoconferentie komt dichterbij”, 8 December 2023, <
https://www.ordevanvlaamsebalies.be/nl/nieuws-en-events/wettelijk-kader-voor-videoconferentie-komt-dichterbij >. - 48Orde van Vlaamse Balies in Dutch. Order of Flemish Bars, Nota—Voorontwerp van wet houdende diverse tijdelijke en structurele bepalingen inzake justitie in het kader van de strijd tegen de verspreiding van het coronavirus COVID-19 (2020) 1–10.
- 49Pishchalnikov v Russia,
app no 7025/04 (ECHR, 24 September 2009). - 50Poitrimol v France,
app no 14032/88 (ECHR, 23 November 1993). - 51Royal Decree No. 2 Relating to the extension of statutes of limitations and other time limits for taking legal action, as well as the extension of time limits for the administration of justice and written procedure before the courts and tribunals, BS 9 April 2020.
- 52Royal Decree No. 3 containing various provisions on criminal procedure and execution of sentences and measures in the context of the fight against the spread of the coronavirus COVID-19, BS 9 April 2020.
- 53Sakhnovskiy v Russia,
app no 21272/03 (ECHR, 2 November 2010). - 54Sejdovic v Italy,
app no 56581/00 (ECHR, 1 March 2006). - 55Shaheen, Mussarat, Sudeepta Pradhan and Ranajee Ranajee,
‘Sampling in Qualitative Resarch’ in Qualitative Techniques for Workplace Data Analysis, (IGI Global 2019) 34. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5366-3.ch002 - 56Stanford v the United Kingdom,
app no 16757/90 (ECHR, 23 February 1994). - 57Stoichkov v Bulgaria,
app no 9808/02 (ECHR, 24 March 2005). - 58Susskind, Richard, Online Courts and the Future of Justice (Oxford University Press 2021).
- 59Thiriar, Pierre ‘Virtuele terechtzitting – reële rechtspraak’, NJW (2021) 379.
- 60Vanhaegenborgh, Geert, and Willem Verrijdt,
‘De noodtoestand in het Belgische publiekrecht’ in Preadviezen (Boom 2016) 40. DOI: 10.5553/PVVR/266671262016010001001 - 61Vernimmen, Kaat, ‘Verantwoordt de coronacrisis een speciale behandeling van inverdekinggestelden in voorlopige hechtenis?’ T.Straf. (2020) 318.
- 62Verrijdt, Willem, ‘De Belgische overheden kunnen de noodtoestand niet uitroepen’, Leuven Blog for Public Law (2020) <
https://www.leuvenpubliclaw.com/belgie-kan-de-noodtoestand-niet-uitroepen/ > accessed 27 January 2024. - 63Webley, Lisa
‘Qualitative Approaches to Empirical Legal Research’ in Peter Cane and Herbert M Krtizer, The Oxford Handbook of Empirical Legal Research (Oxford University Press 2010). DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199542475.013.0039