权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

The statute of limitation as a challenge of cross-border cooperation in criminal matters - Development of a harmonization proposal

时效作为刑事事项跨境合作的挑战 - 制定协调提案

基本信息

批准号：
392065098
负责人：
Professor Dr. Walter Gropp
金额：
--
依托单位：
Lehrstuhl für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht und Strafrechtsvergleichung
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2018
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2017-12-31 至 2021-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/392065098?language=en
关键词：
statute limitation challenge cross border

项目摘要

The currently existing striking differences in the national statutes of limitations are difficult to justify in a common Europe. They lead to frictions in the cooperation in criminal matters. Against this background, there is an urgent need for harmonization of limitation rules in the European Union, which will be satisfied by this research project.There is not even a consensus in the fundamental question of whether offenses can expire due to lapse of time: English law is based on the principle that criminal prosecution is generally not time-barred. By contrast, the criminal law of most European countries provides that crimes are subject to limitation. The statutes of limitation usually draw a distinction between prescription of prosecution and limitation of enforcement. The specific embodiment differs considerably. This applies to their assignment to the substantive or procedural law, the length of limitation periods and the question of what impact, if any, acts of prosecution or other events have on the regular length of limitation periods.From this situation results primarily the risk of a forum shopping by the prosecuting authorities. The rules on limitation also prove to be obstacles in the practical application of the principle of mutual recognition. Some acts, like the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, allow refusing of cooperation if an offense is time-barred under the domestic law. Serious differences in the length of limitation periods complicate the acceptance of the grounds for refusal and may lead to confusion on both sides.The research project will point out the international and European legal framework for the first time. Furthermore, the limitation rules in twelve selected EU and two non-EU countries are subjected to a comparative analysis. To this end, the national rules on limitation of 14 countries will be systematically and critically examined and tested for their general suitability. The comparison also includes provisions which are functional equivalents to the statute of limitations, e.g. the objection of abuse of rights. On this basis, the first regulatory proposal harmonizing the rules on limitation will be developed. This project at the interface between material criminal law and criminal procedure law will last three years.

在一个共同的欧洲，各国时效法规目前存在的显著差异是难以自圆其说的。它们导致在刑事事项合作方面的摩擦。在这种背景下，欧盟内部迫切需要统一诉讼时效规则，而本研究项目将满足这一需求。甚至在犯罪是否会因时间的流逝而失效这一根本问题上也没有达成共识：英国法律基于刑事诉讼一般不受时效限制的原则。相比之下，大多数欧洲国家的刑法规定，犯罪受时效限制。时效法规通常区分起诉时效和执行时效。具体的实施例显著不同。这一点适用于将其分配给实体法或程序法、时效期限的长短以及起诉行为或其他事件对时效期限的正常长度有何影响（如果有的话）的问题。限制规则也证明是实际适用相互承认原则的障碍。有些法案，如关于欧洲逮捕令的框架决定，允许在犯罪行为根据国内法已过时效的情况下拒绝合作。时效期限长短的严重差异使拒绝理由的接受复杂化，并可能导致双方的混乱。该研究项目将首次指出国际和欧洲的法律的框架。此外，在十二个选定的欧盟和两个非欧盟国家的限制规则进行了比较分析。为此，将对14个国家的国家时效规则进行系统和严格的审查，并检验其是否普遍适用。这种比较还包括在功能上等同于时效的规定，例如反对滥用权利。在此基础上，将制定统一时效规则的第一个监管提案。这一实质性刑法和刑事诉讼法之间的接口项目将持续三年。