| Description |
1 online resource (xviii, 217 pages) |
| Series |
Comparative, European and international criminal justice ; volume 3 |
|
Comparative, European and international criminal justice ; v. 3.
|
| Contents |
Intro -- Foreword -- Acknowlegements -- Contents -- Abbreviations -- Chapter 1: Jurisdiction and Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction Within the European Union -- 1.1 Introduction -- 1.2 Criminal Jurisdiction and ius puniendi -- 1.3 Grounds for Claiming Jurisdiction -- 1.3.1 Previous Considerations -- 1.3.2 Principle of Territoriality -- 1.3.3 Extraterritorial Principles for Claiming Jurisdiction -- 1.3.3.1 Principle of Personality -- 1.3.3.2 Principle of Protection -- 1.3.3.3 Principle of Universality -- 1.3.3.4 Principle of Vicarious or Representational Jurisdiction |
|
1.3.4 Rules on Jurisdiction Within International and Supranational Instruments -- 1.4 Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction: General Profiles -- 1.4.1 The ̀̀Hierarchy Issue ́́on the Allocation of Jurisdiction -- 1.4.2 Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction -- 1.4.2.1 Positive Conflicts of Jurisdiction -- 1.4.2.2 Negative Conflicts of Jurisdiction -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 2: EU Legal Framework on Conflicts of Criminal Jurisdiction -- 2.1 Primary Law -- 2.1.1 Background -- 2.1.2 Current Legal Basis in the Treaties -- 2.1.2.1 Art. 82(1)(b) TFEU -- 2.1.2.2 Art. 85(1)(c) TFEU |
|
2.1.2.3 Compatibility of Both Provisions -- 2.1.3 Other Relevant Primary Law: CISA and CFREU -- 2.2 The Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA -- 2.2.1 Background -- 2.2.2 Procedure -- 2.2.3 Limits and Shortcomings -- 2.3 The Role of Eurojust in the Prevention and Settlement of Conflicts of Jurisdiction -- 2.3.1 Background -- 2.3.2 Limited Powers Granted to Eurojust -- 2.3.3 Eurojustś Guidelines for Deciding on Jurisdiction -- 2.4 Lack of EU Instruments for Transfer of Criminal Proceedings -- 2.4.1 The Concentration of Proceedings as an Ideal Procedural Solution |
|
2.4.2 Transfer of Criminal Proceedings Provided by International Law -- 2.5 Implementation into National Law: The Spanish and Italian Examples -- 2.5.1 Procedure Acting as Contacting Authority -- 2.5.1.1 Spain -- 2.5.1.2 Italy -- 2.5.2 Procedure Acting as Contacted Authority -- 2.5.2.1 Spain -- 2.5.2.2 Italy -- 2.5.3 Agreement on the Settlement of the Conflict -- 2.5.3.1 Spain -- 2.5.3.2 Italy -- 2.5.4 Referring the Case to Eurojust -- 2.5.4.1 Spain -- 2.5.4.2 Italy -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 3: Conflicts of Jurisdiction and Due Process of Law -- 3.1 Introduction |
|
3.2 The ne bis in idem Principle -- 3.2.1 National Dimension -- 3.2.2 Transnational Dimension -- 3.3 Right to Be Heard by a Court Previously Established by Law -- 3.4 Substantive Legality -- 3.5 Procedural Safeguards and the Right to Defence of the Suspected or Accused Person -- 3.6 Victimś Interest in the Allocation of Jurisdiction -- 3.7 Negative Consequences for the Effective Prosecution of Crimes -- References -- Further Reading -- Chapter 4: Towards a New Model of Settlement of Conflicts: Background and Methodology -- 4.1 Foreword -- 4.2 Legislative Backgrounds |
| Summary |
Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings established an ad hoc procedure for settling conflicts of criminal jurisdiction based on the mutual exchange of information and the establishment of direct consultations between the competent authorities with a view to reaching consensus on an effective solution. However, neither common legally binding criteria for deciding the best jurisdiction nor specific rules for the transfer of proceedings (which can occur after parallel proceedings have been identified) were established in this instrument, or in any other instrument adopted by the EU to date. This book analyses the current EU legal framework on conflicts of jurisdiction and transfer of criminal proceedings, paying special attention to its numerous shortcomings and loopholes from a fundamental rights and due process of law perspective. The book begins with an assessment of the various principles and grounds used by Member States for claiming criminal jurisdiction. Secondly, de lege lata EU procedure on the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction, as well as its implementation in Spain and Italy, are thoroughly examined. After discussing the main principles and fundamental rights at stake, the author proposes two alternative and original de lege ferenda models for the prevention and settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction and transfer of criminal proceedings, exploring the different possibilities offered by the EUs primary law |
| Bibliography |
Includes bibliographical references |
| Notes |
Online resource; title from PDF title page (SpringerLink, viewed December 16, 2022) |
| Subject |
Criminal jurisdiction -- European Union countries
|
|
Criminal justice, Administration of -- European Union countries
|
|
Conflict of laws -- European Union countries
|
|
Conflict of laws
|
|
Criminal jurisdiction
|
|
Criminal justice, Administration of
|
|
European Union countries
|
| Form |
Electronic book
|
| ISBN |
9783031156915 |
|
3031156919 |
|
