Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2016)
| Autor: | Anneli Soo |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Criminal Law and Criminology, RS: FdR Institute MICS |
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
European Convention on Human Rights as a minimum standard
Sociology and Political Science Divergence (linguistics) remedies to violation of the right of access to a lawyer Directive 2013/48/eu Common law Foundation (evidence) Article 52 (3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Directive European court of justice Supreme court criminal proceedings Law Political science Political Science and International Relations autonomous meaning-of eu law media_common.cataloged_instance European union violation of the right of access to a lawyer media_common |
| Zdroj: | European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 25(4), 327-346. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers |
| ISSN: | 1571-8174 0928-9569 |
| DOI: | 10.1163/15718174-02504002 |
| Popis: | In Directive 2013/48/eu the standard for remedies applicable in cases the right of access to a lawyer has been violated was built on the European Court of Human Right’s judgment Salduz v. Turkey (27 November 2008). Shortly before the deadline to implement Directive 2013/48/eu, the Strasbourg Court handed down its judgment on Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13 September 2016) significantly lowering this standard. In its ruling on 4 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Estonia interpreted the right of access to a case file upon arrest in conjunction with the Strasbourg case law, without considering that eu law might raise the standard. This article argues that the question whether to follow the Salduz- or Ibrahim-standard serves as a perfect opportunity for the European Court of Justice to clearly articulate that Strasbourg standards on defence rights form just a part of the foundation that eu standards consist of. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|