Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Right to a new trial under directive 343/16

Más Contenido Relacionado

Más de Nicola Canestrini

Right to a new trial under directive 343/16

  1. 1. Right to a new trial in Directive 2016/343 Nicola Canestrini ERA Academy of European Law , 9 JUNE 2020 The presumption of innocence and the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings
  2. 2. common minimum rules concerning (a) certain aspects of the presumption of innocence (b) the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings. Directive 2016/343
  3. 3. presumption of innocence? New trial under directive 2016/343
  4. 4. Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have an effective remedy if their rights under this Directive are breached. art. 10 remedies
  5. 5. Presence = fair trial right in “EU law” Secondary EU law Art 47 EU CHARTA art 6 ECHR directive 343/16 Primary EU LAW ..
  6. 6. In absentia trial?
  7. 7. “Without being present, it is difficult to see how that person could exercise the specific rights set out in sub- paragraphs (c), (d) d (e) of paragraph 3 of Article 6, i.e. the right to “defend himself in person”, “to examine or have examined witnesses” and “to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”. The duty to guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present in the courtroom ranks therefore as one of the essential requirements of Article 6.” Hermi v. Italy [GC], 18 October 2006
  8. 8. trials in absentia are not per se incompatible with the right to a fair trial, provided the following safeguards are in place: 1.the accused must have effective knowledge of the proceeding / hearing; 2.the accused must be legally represented in the proceedings and have effective assistance of counsel; and 3.the accused should have the right to retrial or an ex novo trial in his or her presence Colozza v. Italy , 1985 Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], 2006
  9. 9. Right to be present at the trial (art. 8) 1. Member States shall ensure that suspects and accused persons have the right to be present at their trial. 2. Member States may provide that a trial which can result in a decision on the guilt or innocence of a suspect or accused person can be held in his or her absence, provided that: (a) the suspect/accused person has been informed, in due time, of the trial and of the consequences of non-appearance; or (b) the suspect or accused person, having been informed of the trial, is represented by a mandated lawyer, who was appointed either by the suspect or accused person or by the State. Videolink?
  10. 10. the defendant's participation in the proceedings by videoconference is not as such contrary to the Convention. it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that recourse to this measure in any given case serves a legitimate aim and that the arrangements for the giving of evidence are compatible with the requirements of respect for due process, as laid down in Article 6 of the Convention. ECthr, Viola v Italy, 2006
  11. 11. "virtual reality is rarely a substitute for actual presence." “the quality of the video conference connection is irrelevant in this situation”. United States Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuitMay 11, 2011-641 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2011)
  12. 12. “The right to a fair trial of an accused person includes the right of the person concerned to appear in person at the trial.” Considerandum 8 Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA et alia
  13. 13. "“Trial judges and lawyers should keep in mind that the many meanings or interpretations of nonverbal behaviours, influenced by cultural backgrounds or other contextual factors, prohibit literal translations, and that only paying attention to words at the expense of gestures, facial displays, and eye gaze, is not without hazards.” (Denault, Vincent & Dunbar, Norah. 2017).