Judicial protection in transnational criminal proceedings

与国内刑事诉讼不同，刑事事项国际合作框架内的跨境诉讼不仅构成各国刑事司法制度的一部分，而且也影响各国的对外关系。因此，司法互助的跨国层面对个人的司法保护产生了重大影响。例如，请求国的司法决定（如逮捕令）在被请求国不受司法审查，而只在请求国受司法审查。然而，获得法律补救往往受到距离、语言问题和不熟悉外国刑事司法制度的阻碍。在允许诉诸国内法院的情况下，最近的判例法在审查标准和适用法律（宪法法律、欧盟法律）方面造成了不确定性。在欧盟，这些问题由于相互承认的原则和在刑事事项上的新的合作工具（例如欧洲逮捕令）而变得更加严重。另一方面，欧盟法律也提供了跨国法律救济的原型（例如在申根信息系统中）。在德国，跨国刑事诉讼中的司法保护在《刑事事项国际合作法》中缺乏连贯的法律框架。例如，对于将某人引渡到非欧盟成员国的自由裁量决定是否需要司法审查，并没有规定。该研究项目的目的是制订一个在跨国刑事诉讼中提供司法保护的全面框架，以确保司法审查的权利，而不妨碍刑事事项国际合作的有效运作。为此目的，在被请求国扩大司法审查的范围可能是一种选择（见上文关于逮捕令的司法控制）。另一方面，欧洲联盟的跨国司法保护可以通过在请求国和被请求国的法院程序之间发展更密切的协调和相互联系来加强，例如，可以选择向被请求国的法院对请求国的决定（例如逮捕令）提出补救。应在选定的国家刑事司法制度的背景下审查各种可能的办法。比较分析应包括欧盟成员国和非欧盟成员国。应特别注意欧洲联盟内部合作与与第三国合作之间的区别，以及这种区别对司法审查范围的影响。该项目的调查结果将产生一项关于德国《国际刑事司法保护公约》下司法保护的改革建议。

In contrast to domestic criminal proceedings, cross-border proceedings within the framework of international cooperation in criminal matters do not only form part of criminal justice systems of states, but do also affect their of foreign relations. The transnational dimension of mutual legal assistance hereby significantly affects judicial protection of the individual. For example, judicial decisions of the requesting state (e.g. an arrest warrant) are not subject to judicial review in the requested state, but only in the requesting state. However, the access to legal remedies is often hampered by physical distance, language problems and unfamiliarity with a foreign criminal justice system. Where access to domestic courts is granted, recent case-law has created uncertainty regarding the standard of review and the applicable law (constitutional law, EU law). In the EU, these problems have been aggravated by the principle of mutual recognition and the new instruments of cooperation in criminal matters (e.g. the European Arrest Warrant). On the other hand, EU law also provides for prototypes of transnational legal remedies (e.g. in the Schengen Information System). In Germany, judicial protection in transnational criminal proceedings is lacking a coherent legal framework in the Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (AICCM). For instance, there is no rule on whether a discretionary decision to extradite a person to a non-member state of the EU is subject to judicial review.The research project aims at developing a comprehensive framework for judicial protection in transnational criminal proceedings which ensures the right to judicial review without hampering the effective functioning of international cooperation in criminal matters. To that end, extending the scope of judicial review in the requested state might be an option (see supra, with regard to judicial control of arrest warrants). On the other hand, transnational judicial protection in the European Union could be enhanced by developing a closer coordination and interconnection of court proceedings in the requesting and the requested state, e.g. by the option to lodge a remedy against a decision of the requesting state (e.g. an arrest warrant) with a court of the requested state. The spectrum of potential approaches shall be examined in the context of selected national criminal justice systems. The comparative analysis shall comprise EU member states as well as non-member states.Special attention shall be paid to the differences between cooperation within the European Union on the one hand and cooperation with third states on the other, and the consequences of this distinction for the scope of judicial review. The findings of the project shall result in a reform proposal on judicial protection under the German AICCM.