References of "New Journal of European Criminal Law"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailNotes on the ECHR and the Disunited Kingdom 'After' Brexit - In Memoriam Scott Crosby
Robinson, Gavin UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2020)

When the idea of this special edition occurred to the team behind the New Journal of European Criminal Law, my first thought was to go back through all of Scott Crosby’s contributions in print as editor ... [more ▼]

When the idea of this special edition occurred to the team behind the New Journal of European Criminal Law, my first thought was to go back through all of Scott Crosby’s contributions in print as editor-in-chief and see whether a mini-retrospective on the themes and views therein would be worthy of inclusion here – by Scott’s own standards. These notes focus on what gradually became the single biggest concern expressed in Scott’s editorials: the perilous position of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a post-Brexit UK – in concreto, the prospect of what he labelled ‘Brexit plus’: a British exit from the ECHR system. I begin with Scott’s views on the European Union (EU) Referendum and the Brexit process. Next comes the great uncertainty currently surrounding the future of Convention rights in the United Kingdom, set against the emphasis placed by the editorials on the instrumental role of the ECHR in fostering peace across the whole of Europe, within and beyond the territory of the EU. In the event that Brexit plus should materialise, writing in the wake of polls showing all-time record support in Scotland for secession from the United Kingdom I close by asking whether Scotland might be able to ‘leave a light on for Strasbourg’. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 58 (0 UL)
See detailBook Review: Counter-Terrorism, Constitutionalism and Miscarriages of Justice: A Festschrift for Professor Clive Walker
Robinson, Gavin UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2020), 11(2), 258-261

Detailed reference viewed: 77 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailAll evidence is equal, but electronic evidence is more equal than any other: The relationship between the European Investigation Order and the European Production Order
Tosza, Stanislaw UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2020), 11(2),

The European Investigation Order (EIO) was supposed to offer a comprehensive solution to cross-border gathering of evidence within the area of freedom, security and justice replacing a patchwork of ... [more ▼]

The European Investigation Order (EIO) was supposed to offer a comprehensive solution to cross-border gathering of evidence within the area of freedom, security and justice replacing a patchwork of instruments and providing for one single standardised order for all types of evidence. However, not even a year since the deadline for its implementation had passed, the Commission proposed an instrument that would be applicable for electronic evidence: European Production Order (EPO). This initiative was born from an increasing frustration in gathering this type of evidence and the conviction that the EIO is not suitable for that purpose. The need for digital evidence (according to the estimate of the EU Commission, 85% of criminal investigations require electronic evidence) is a direct consequence of the place information and communication technology has taken in everyday life. However, electronic evidence differs in a number of ways from ‘real-life’ evidence rendering current legal framework extremely impractical for law enforcement. One of the major obstacles that law enforcement authorities encounter is the fact that the data they need are often stored abroad or by a foreign service provider. Both instruments were conceived because of the need to gather evidence across borders; however, the transnational component is different (evidence being abroad vs. service provider being foreign). Both instruments subject ‘European citizens to the investigative machinery of any other Member State’, however, in a different way. If the e-evidence package is adopted, it will create a dual system of cross-border gathering of evidence, with different philosophy, procedure, enforcement and protective framework. The goal of this article is to analyse and compare two different models of acquiring evidence that these two instruments offer as well as to delimitate their (non-exclusive) scope. The concluding part will provide a reflection on the systemic consequences of this duality of instruments and of introducing the EPO model in particular. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 32 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailTHE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION A Chameleon of Criminal Procedure
Lamberigts, Stijn UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2016), 7(4), 418-438

This article revisits the different justifications of the privilege against self-incrimination and examines two topical issues, the relation between the privilege and documentary evidence and the ... [more ▼]

This article revisits the different justifications of the privilege against self-incrimination and examines two topical issues, the relation between the privilege and documentary evidence and the applicability of the privilege to corporations, in light of these justifications. Although the Presumption of Innocence Directive has recently addressed these two issues, several lingering uncertainties remain. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 263 (14 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailEU Criminal Justice Actors: Accountability and Judicial Review vis a vis the EU Citizen
Ligeti, Katalin UL; Marletta, Angelo UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2016), 7(2), 175

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice represents both a constitutional objective and a solemn commitment of the Union towards its citizens. Being the AFSJ a domain of shared competence, many different ... [more ▼]

The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice represents both a constitutional objective and a solemn commitment of the Union towards its citizens. Being the AFSJ a domain of shared competence, many different actors are entrusted and responsible for the fulfilment of this commitment. After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, EU citizenship became a central reference point for allocating shared responsibility and regulating the multilevel and multifarious interactions between the different legislative and enforcement actors involved in the development of the EU’s most sensitive policy domain. Accordingly, this contribution will explore and provide a critical account on the potential of the “fundamental status” with regard to the democratic accountability of the legislative process under Title V TFEU, the parliamentary scrutiny over the AFSJ Agencies and the judicial protection of citizens’ rights against the acts of the AFSJ enforcement actors. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 228 (6 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailDirective 2014/42/EU and Non-Conviction Based Confiscation: A Step Forward on Asset Recovery?
Simonato, Michele UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2015), 6(2), 213-228

Detailed reference viewed: 394 (4 UL)
Full Text
See detailThe European Public Prosecutor's Office: Toward a Truly European Prosecution Service?
Ligeti, Katalin UL; Simonato, Michele UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2013), 4(1-2), 7

Th is Article provides an overview of the possible institutional designs of the European Public Prosecutor’s Offi ce [EPPO] with a view to the forthcoming proposal of the Commission. To this purpose, it ... [more ▼]

Th is Article provides an overview of the possible institutional designs of the European Public Prosecutor’s Offi ce [EPPO] with a view to the forthcoming proposal of the Commission. To this purpose, it clarifi es meaning, scope and limits of Article 86 TFEU. Furthermore, it argues that in order for the EPPO to be able to act as a real European prosecution service and for complying with the objectives of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, a set of powers uniformly formulated and valid in all Member States participating in the EPPO need to be elaborated [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 468 (28 UL)
Full Text
See detailThe Spontaneous Exchange of Information between European Judicial Authorities from the Italian Perspective
Simonato, Michele UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2011), 2(2), 220

This article outlines the legal grounds which allow for spontaneous exchange of information at the judicial level within the European Union, clarifying the purposes and modalities of such transmission ... [more ▼]

This article outlines the legal grounds which allow for spontaneous exchange of information at the judicial level within the European Union, clarifying the purposes and modalities of such transmission. Furthermore, it provides an overview of the Italian legal system’s approach towards received information. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 185 (0 UL)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe legal framework of OLAF's investigations. What lessons for the European penal area ?
Covolo, Valentina UL

in New Journal of European Criminal Law (2011), 2

Detailed reference viewed: 65 (1 UL)