Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- Police and information exchange : European Union information exchange policy -- Fundamental rights and freedoms under consideration -- Information exchange under Schengen acquis -- Europol -- Swedish initiative -- Example of networking : financial intelligence units and asset recovery offices -- Information exchange under Prüm decisions -- Passenger name record -- Projects in the pipeline -- Cooperation between the EU and the United Kingdom after Brexit -- Conclusions

Nowadays, a modern state without the institution of prosecution could rarely be found. It is considered one of the crucial elements for the proper functioning of the system of justice and for the application of the rule of law through such functions as carrying out of pre-trial investigation and / or the prosecution in criminal matters, safeguarding social interests, and judicial independence. The objective of this article is to provide a brief reflection on the necessity and the content of the independence of the modern prosecutor's office. The article is based on the policy tendencies used in the Council of Europe and the European Union and with the more profound analysis of the legal regulation of the Spanish prosecutor's office and its conformity with these tendencies. ; anna.fiodorova@uc3m.es ; Anna Fiodorova – PhD, assistant professorat the Department of Criminal Law, Procedural Law and History Law, University Carlos III de Madrid, Spain. ; University Carlos III of Madrid, Spain ; Armenta Deu T., Lecciones de Derecho procesal penal, 12th Edition, Madrid, 2019. ; Armenta Deu T., Principio acusatorio y derecho penal, Barcelona, 1995. ; European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), Report on European standards as regards the independence of the judicial system: part II – the prosecution service", 2010. ; European Network of Councils for the Judiciary, "Independence and Accountability of the Prosecution", Report 2014–2016". ; Group of State against Corruption (GRECO), Fourth evaluation round. Corruptions prevention in respect of members of parliament, judges and prosecutors. Evaluation Report. Spain, 2013. ; Gómez Colomer J.L., La Fiscalía Española, ¿Debe ser una institución independiente?, Teoría y Realidad Constitucional, 2018, no. 41, pp. 157–184. ; Guerrero Palomares S., Elprincipio acusatorio, Navarra, 2005. ; International Commission of Jurists, "International Principles on the Independence and Accountability of Judges, Lawyers and Prosecutors", Practitioners Guide No. 1, 2007. ; Morán Martínez R.A., Investigaciones transfronterizas y cooperación judicial internacional en la Fiscalía Europea, Revista del Ministerio Fiscal, no 9, 2020, pp. 30–57. ; Moreno Catena V., El papel del Ministerio Fiscal en el Estado democrático de Derecho, 2002, no 16, pp. 139–166. ; Special Rapporteur o the independence of judges and lawyers (Unites Nations), Independence of Judges and lawyers, 2020. ; Zaragoza Aguado J.A., El Ministerio Fiscal Español y la Fiscalía Europea. Su configuración institucional. La autonomía y la independencia en su estatuto jurídico. Conflictos de competencia y mecanismos de resolución. La Fiscalía Europea y la orden europea de detención, Revista del Ministerio Fiscal, no 9, 2020, pp. 58–82. ; 25 ; 3 ; 87 ; 97

Cross-border information exchange became more relevant a few decades ago, when organised crime, moving "in the rhythm of time"4, identified globalisation and the facilitated movement of persons as an opportunity for new criminal markets. It was especially perceived in the EU and the Schengen zone with the establishment of the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services, the abolition of internal borders and the introduction of a single currency in the majority of the Member States. Notwithstanding, these negative side effects have not been led automatically by their antidote – the free movement of investigation and prosecution. Actions of law enforcement, prosecution and judicial authorities remained limited to state territory; this meant a high probability of impunity in the case of transnational crimes. ; Programa Oficial de Doctorado en Derecho ; Presidente: Víctor Moreno Catena; Secretario: Sabela Oubiña Barbolla; Vocal: Luis Valles Causada

Since its first successful use in criminal investigations in the 1980s, DNA has become a widely used and valuable tool to identify offenders and to acquit innocent persons. For a more beneficial use of the DNA-related data possessed, the Council of the European Union adopted Council Decisions 2008/615 and 2008/616 establishing a mechanism for a direct automated search in national EU Member States' DNA databases. The article reveals the complications associated with the regulation on the use of DNA for criminal investigations as it is regulated by both EU and national legislation which results in a great deal of variations. It also analyses possible violations of and limitations to human rights when collecting DNA samples, as well as their analysis, use and storage.

Since its first successful use in criminal investigations in the 1980s, DNA has become a widely used and valuable tool to identify offenders and to acquit innocent persons. For a more beneficial use of the DNA-related data possessed, the Council of the European Union adopted Council Decisions 2008/615 and 2008/616 establishing a mechanism for a direct automated search in national EU Member States' DNA databases. The article reveals the complications associated with the regulation on the use of DNA for criminal investigations as it is regulated by both EU and national legislation which results in a great deal of variations. It also analyses possible violations of and limitations to human rights when collecting DNA samples, as well as their analysis, use and storage.

This is Part I of the reporting of FAIRCOM, a collaboration of partners, both academics and NGO's, in several member states of the European Union. The aim of FAIRCOM is to contribute to justice for victims of sexual crimes in the European Union by improving the possibilities for obtaining compensation (https://sexualviolencejustice.eu/). This Report part I presents the first results of an investigative study on State Compensation and Offender Compensation in the current five partner countries: Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. In the follow-up to this first Report there will also be a Report part II, as well as a Final Report. FAIRCOM is financed by The EU Justice Program (2014-2020).

This is Part II of the reporting of FAIRCOM, a collaboration of partners, both academics and NGO's, in several member states of the European Union. The aim of FAIRCOM is to contribute to justice for victims of sexual crimes in the European Union by improving the possibilities for obtaining compensation (https://sexualviolencejustice.eu). This Report part II presents the results of an investigative study on State Compensation and Offender Compensation in the current five partner countries: Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain. It identifies good practices en offers recommendations. It is the follow-up of the first FAIRCOM Report ('Fair and Appropriate? Part I'). There will also be a Final Report. FAIRCOM is financed by The EU Justice Program (2014-2020).