In Absentia Proceedings in the Framework of a Human Rights-Oriented Criminal Law. The Perspective of Substantive Criminal Law

Abstract

The legislative regulation of in absentia proceedings presents important difficulties in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the criminal system without undermining the fundamental rights of citizens. Therefore, in general, the lawfulness of the in absentia proceedings has traditionally been linked to the respect of certain limits or conditions such as respect for the rights of the accused to the defence, to a fair trial or to an effective judicial protection. Trials held in absentia also can affect other fundamental guarantees such as, for example, the individual guilt principle or the protection of human dignity, as noted by the German Bundesverfassungsgericht in its decision of 15 December 2015. However, not all national statutes on trials in absentia sufficiently respect these limits, particularly those of a substantive criminal law nature, which has caused problems in European law instruments of judicial cooperation to recognize or execute decisions in absentia. In this context, a lively discussion arises on the primacy of Union law or the possibility that Member States can refuse the execution of foreign decisions because of the need to protect their citizens on the grounds of the individual guilt principle and human dignity. This discussion is extremely relevant, as it concerns the definition of the standards of protection of fundamental rights in the Member States and in the EU without, in our view, the claimed effectiveness of European cooperation being able to ground a lower protection. This highlights the need for an in-depth discussion on the incorporation of main criminal law principles and their dogmatic implications for harmonization in the EU criminal justice.