Suchergebnisse

The European Union (EU) has set the objective to develop an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, in which on the one hand freedom of movement is promoted and on the other hand a high level of security is ensured. The EU is therefore adopting measures to enhance international cooperation in criminal matters among the police and judicial authorities of its Member States. The adopted instruments concerning evidentiary matters, such as the gathering, freezing and/or confiscation of information and materials in another EU Member State, seem to serve the main purpose of assisting the authorities in investigating and prosecuting (cross-border) crime. This raises the question to what extent the defence is also given the possibility to gather – or to have gathered – information and materials in another EU Member State with the aim of preparing and presenting its case at trial and, in particular, whether the current (EU) legal framework on cross-border evidence gathering meets the requirements of the principle of equality of arms. This book addresses this question by, first of all, discussing the concept of equality of arms, as enshrined in both Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 CFR. It explains to what extent this principle is applicable to cross-border or transnational criminal proceedings and whether it has an autonomous meaning within the EU. In addition, it discusses which requirements can be deduced from the principle in relation to the possibilities of the defence to gather evidence in another EU Member State to prepare and presents its case. Subsequently, the focus is on the development of the European legislation – from both the Council of Europe and the EU – regulating the procedure of cross-border evidence gathering over the last decades. The aim is to explain the position of the defence in this development and to what extent the European legislation gives opportunities to the defence to request the assistance of foreign authorities in obtaining specific information and materials in another EU Member State. In ...

The goal of the research is to analyze and evaluate different applied and proposed models of cross-border evidence gathering in European Union criminal law. Its starting hypothesis is that European Union Criminal Law needs a model of cross-border evidence gathering that is going to take into account and adequately balance the interests of all the actors involved in the process of cross-border evidence gathering: the cooperating States, the individual affected, and the EU. Primary object of the analysis and evaluation are the traditional cooperation model – mutual legal assistance model, and the modern, EU specific, model – mutual recognition model. Next to them, other proposed alternative models of cross-border evidence gathering are also analyzed and evaluated. In order to achieve its goal, the research uses the following methods which are characteristic for legal sciences: the theoretical method, the normative method, the comparative method, and the case study method. Theoretical method is used to provide a better understanding of the historical background and the main principles of different models. The normative method is used in order to analyze the provisions of the legal instruments which govern the area. When the normative analysis is conducted, the respective legal instruments are looked at from three different perspectives: the position of the requesting/issuing State, the position of the requested/executing State, and the position of the individual concerned. The comparative method is used to present the differences between the models. The case study method is used in order to analyze the practical functioning of the models. The result of the research can be summarized as follows: 1. the traditional cooperation model – the mutual legal assistance model - can not answer the challenges posed before cross-border evidence gathering by the increase of transnational criminal activities, 2. the mutual recognition model is a better solution, both on the theoretical, and on the normative level, because it is more successful in balancing the interests of all the actors involved in the process; 3. the mutual recognition model would function much better in the surrounding of harmonized national criminal laws, 4. it is also possible to develop the elements of a supranational legal order in the selected areas, 5. different models can be applied and combined at the same time.

AbstractSelect committees play an important role in scrutinising government policy. They have come under increasing pressure to seek evidence for their inquiries—including both formal and informal evidence—from a wider range of stakeholders. Two particular pressures can be observed within this trend. First, committees are expected to show commitment to hearing from a more diverse set of stakeholders. The second pressure relates to the representativeness of those providing evidence. Consequently, they have been urged to increase public engagement. The recent Citizens' Assembly into adult social care points to one mechanism for engaging a 'mini-public' in committee inquiries. Due to their use of random and stratified sampling to recruit participants, mini-publics could diversify the evidence base and facilitate public scrutiny of the committees. However, we know little of what committee members and staffs think about these issues. In this article, we draw insights from over 60 interviews with select committee chairs, members and staff to gain insight into their perspectives on evidence diversity and the potential of mini-publics to promote this. We find that traditional approaches to inquiries are still favoured. While mini-publics are seen as a solution to the failings of current approaches to public engagement, this is for instrumental reasons, meaning that they are only valued in particular circumstances. Ultimately, further culture change is required if committee inquiries are to move substantially beyond the traditional approach.