Abstract
According to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Marttinen v. Finland, a debtor has the right to remain silent in a debt enforcement enquiry given that the following conditions are met: first, that the inquiry is held concurrently with a criminal procedure; and second, that the same questions of evidence are investigated in both of the concurrent proceedings. Under these circumstances, the debtor enjoys the privilege against self-incrimination in the enforcement enquiry. The scope of this article is to examine whether the debtor has not only the right to remain silent, but also the right to give false statements. The assessment of this problem is built on the moral grounds of the privilege itself, but also on the law reforms and changes in case law after the judgment in the Marttinen case. As a conclusion of this article, the problem of false statements should not be evaluated by equating silence with false statements, but by considering two basic questions. First, would the right to remain silent suffice to protect the privilege against self-incrimination; and second, whether the motives for providing false statements express the aim to achieve something else than protection against inappropriate use of coercive power.
Highlights
Introduction and Basic Problems "DDPSEJOHUPUIFKVEHNFOUPGUIF&VSPQFBO$PVSUPG)VNBO3JHIUT &$U)3JO.BSUUJO FOW'JOMBOE a debtor has the right to remain silent in a debt enforcement enquiry given UIBUUIFGPMMPXJOHDPOEJUJPOTBSFNFUĕSTU UIBUUIFJORVJSZJTIFMEconcurrently with a criminal procedure;BOETFDPOE that the same questions of evidence are investigated in both of the concurrent QSPDFFEJOHT6OEFSUIFTFDJSDVNTUBODFT UIFEFCUPSFOKPZTUIF QSJWJMFHFBHBJOTUTFMGJODSJNJOBUJPOJOUIFFOGPSDFNFOUFORVJSZćFTDPQFPGUIJTBSUJDMF JTUPFYBNJOFXIFUIFSUIFEFCUPSIBTOPUPOMZUIFSJHIUUPSFNBJOTJMFOU CVUBMTPUIFSJHIU UPHJWFGBMTFTUBUFNFOUT* 1SPGFTTPS PG 1SPDFEVSBM -BX 6OJWFSTJUZ PG 5VSLV 'JOMBOE $FSUBJO QBSUT PG UIJT BSUJDMF XFSF QVCMJTIFE FBSMJFS JO 'JOOJTI TFF )VQMJ 8PVME * MJF UP ZPV 7BMFIUFMV JUTFLSJNJOPJOUJTVPKBO erityisongelmana in Oikeutta oikeudenkäynnistä täytäntöönpanoon
"TGBSBTUIFQSFMJNJOBSZJOWFTUJHBUJPOPSUIFDSJNJOBMQSPDFEVSFJODPVSUJTDPODFSOFE BOZ GBMTF TUBUFNFOUT NBEF CZ UIF TVTQFDU PS UIF BDDVTFE in those proceedings will not MFBE UP IBSNGVM DPOTFRVFODFT BHBJOTU IJN PS IFS "ęFS BMM BTJEF GSPN UIF SJHIU UP SF NBJOTJMFOU UIFTVTQFDUBOEUIFBDDVTFEBSFFOUJUMFEUPCFIFBSEBOE JGUIFZDIPPTFUP
DPOTJEFSBCMF damage caused by a false statement is one of the qualifications for an aggravated false statement in court
Summary
QQ o BU o BWBJMBCMF BU IUUQ EJHJUBMDPNNPOTMBXZBMFFEVZKSFHWPMJTT 'PS UIF TVCTUBOUJBM SFRVJSFNFOUT VOEFSMZJOH the duty to disclose adequateJOGPSNBUJPO TFF(BUUP %JTDMPTVSFJO$IBQUFS3FPSHBOJ[BUJPOT ćF1VSTVJUPG$POTJTUFODZBOE$MBSJUZ 70 Cornell L.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.