Judicial protection in transnational criminal proceedings

跨国刑事诉讼中的司法保护

基本信息

批准号：
389499413
负责人：
Professor Dr. Martin Böse
金额：
--
依托单位：
Lehrstuhl für Strafrecht und Strafprozessrecht sowie Internationales und Europäisches Strafrecht
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2017
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2016-12-31 至 2020-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/389499413?language=en
关键词：
Judicial protection transnational criminal proceedings

项目摘要

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.

与国内刑事诉讼相比，国际合作案件中的跨境程序不仅构成了国家刑事司法系统的一部分，而且还影响了他们的外交关系。相互法律援助的跨国维度在此显着影响个人的司法保护。例如，请求状态的司法裁决（例如逮捕令）不受要求州的司法审查，而仅在要求状态下进行司法审查。但是，与外国刑事司法系统不熟悉的身体距离，语言问题和不熟悉的人，通常会阻碍获得法律补救措施的机会。如果批准获得国内法院的地方，最近的判例法对审查标准和适用法律（宪法法，欧盟法）产生了不确定性。在欧盟中，这些问题因相互承认和刑事事项合作的新文书的原则而加剧了这些问题（例如欧洲逮捕令）。另一方面，欧盟法律还规定了跨国法律补救措施的原型（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缺乏《国际刑事事项合作法》（AICCM）的一致法律框架。例如，没有关于将一个人引渡到非成员欧盟国家的酌处决定是否受到司法审查的规定。该研究项目旨在为跨国刑事诉讼中的司法保护制定综合框架，以确保在不妨碍国际犯罪事务中有效运作的司法审查的权利。为此，可能是一种选择，将司法审查的范围扩大范围可能是一种选择（有关逮捕令的司法控制，请参见同上）。另一方面，可以通过在要求和要求的国家（例如可以选择对要求国家的裁决（例如逮捕令）提出补救措施。应在选定的国家刑事司法系统的背景下检查潜在方法的范围。比较分析应包括欧盟成员国和非成员国。一方面应特别注意欧盟内部的合作与另一方面与第三州合作的差异，以及这种区别对司法审查范围的后果。该项目的调查结果应导致德国AICCM下的司法保护的改革提案。