Abstract
The ECtHR seems to be rethinking about its leading role in our Continent, getting back to the old times, in which the Court was far more concerned with ensuring the fairness of single cases than favouring the building up of a fair supranational criminal justice system. In several cruxes of criminal procedure, in fact, the ECtHR overruled its previous jurisprudence, following specific, non-replicable and closely related-to- the-single-case reasons. This “new-old-fashioned” trend begun probably in 2011, with the well-known Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. U.K. judgment on the defence’s right to examine or have examined witnesses given in the case. In all the aforementioned judgments, the Court justified the departing from its previous decisions with a new theory – actually, not so new according to the reasoning of the ECtHR – based on the occurrence of specific “counterbalancing measures”. In other words, the overturning was justified observing that, in the specific national proceedings under scrutiny, the defendant was afforded a certain number of counterbalancing measures.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and 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.
