Stretegic litigation in EU criminal law aims to improve an effective use of a powerful yet underused tool to protect fundamental rights in the European Union: the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR).

1. FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS DEFENSE
STRATEGIC LITIGATION IN EU CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Hertie School, Starlight programme 2023

2. FSJ
p
os
t
Tamper
e
1999
right
s
trus
t
mutua
l
recognitio
n
right
s
of individual
s
i
n
crimina
l
procedur
e
(ar
t
82 TFEU)
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s

3. “Feindstrafrecht”
“Both the principle of mutual trust between the Member
States and the principle of mutual recognition, which is
itself based on the mutual trust between the latter, are, in
EU law, of fundamental importance given that they allow an
area without internal borders to be created and maintained.
More specifically, the principle of mutual trust requires,
particularly as regards the area of freedom, security and
justice, each of those States, save in exceptional
circumstances, to consider all the other Member States to
be complying with EU law and particularly with the
fundamental rights recognised by EU law.”
CJEU, Dorobantu 2019

4. “international criminal law
enforcement needs
cannot
prejudice fundamental
rights.”
Italian Constitutional Court, Judgment 280/1985

5. EUROPEAN UNION
AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
ar
t
. 2 TEU
“The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom,
democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights (..)”
6 TEU
“Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result
from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall
constitute general principles of the Union's law.”
ECHR
EU Chart
a

6. ECHR
art 2
art 3
art 4
art 5
art 6
art 8
art 10
art 2
art 4
art 5 1/2
art. 6
art 47
art 7
art 11
lif
e
prohibitio
n
of tortur
e
prohibitio
n
force
d
labour
libert
y
securit
y
fair tria
l
Provat
e
an
d
famil
y
lif
e
…
CHARTA

7. “Although all the Member States are party to the
ECHR, experience has shown that that alone does
not always provide a sufficient degree of trust in
the criminal justice systems of other Member
States.”
whereas n. 6 dir. 64; n. 7 dir. 13; n. 5 dir. 48 , ..
wh
y
EU
procedura
l
right
s
?

8. “Strengthening mutual trust requires a
more consistent implementation of the
rights and guarantees set out in Article 6
of the ECHR. It also requires, by means of
this Directive and other measures, further
development within the Union of the
minimum standards set out in the ECHR and
the Charter.”
Whereas n. 7 Dir. 64; n. 8 Dir. 13; n. 6 Dir. 48
EU
procedura
l
right
s
!

9. Swedish ROADMAP
(Stockholm Program 2009)
“procedura
l
right
s
”
Righ
t
t
o
Interpretatio
n
an
d
Translatio
n
A
Righ
t
t
o
Informatio
n
B
A
cc
es
s
t
o
a
Lawyer C1
Lega
l
A
i
d
Refor
m
C2
Vulnerabl
e
A
ccuse
d
an
d
Suspecte
d
Person
s
E
Pr
e
-Tria
l
Detentio
n
F
Pr
es
umptio
n
of Innocenc
e

10. Th
e
Roadmap
is
d
es
igne
d
t
o
operat
e
as
a
whol
e
; onl
y
whe
n
al
l
it
s
component
s
ar
e
implemente
d
wil
l
it
s
bene
fi
t
s
b
e
fel
t
i
n
fu
l
l
.
(Whereas 9 directive 2013/48/UE).
Pr
es
umptio
n
of
innocenc
e
an
d
pr
es
enc
e
2016/343
Righ
t
t
o
Interpretatio
n
an
d
Translatio
n
2010/64
Lega
l
ai
d
2016/1919
Righ
t
t
o
Informatio
n
2012/13
A
cc
es
s
t
o
a
Lawyer
2013/48
Childre
n
safeguard
s
2016/800
Vulnerabl
e
suspect
s
2013/C 378/2

11. Job don
e
.

12. “not rights that are
theoretical or illusionary
but rights that are practical
and effective”
European Court of Human Rights, Artico vs. Italy, 1980

13. directiv
e
2010/64/EU
interpretation and
translation
“first EU fair trial law”
directiv
e
2016/343/EU
Presumption of innocence
EAW
EIO
EPPO

14. Safeguard
s
ar
e
nationa
l
no
t
transnationa
l
EPPO

15. EAW
(10)
Th
e
mechanis
m
of th
e
Europea
n
arres
t
warran
t
i
s
base
d
o
n
a
hig
h
leve
l
of
con
fi
denc
e
betwee
n
Member State
s
. It
s
implementatio
n
ma
y
b
e
suspende
d
onl
y
i
n
th
e
even
t
of
a
seriou
s
an
d
persisten
t
breac
h
b
y
on
e
of th
e
Member State
s
of th
e
principle
s
se
t
ou
t
i
n
Articl
e
6(1) of th
e
Treat
y
o
n
Europea
n
Unio
n
, determine
d
b
y
th
e
Counci
l
(..)
(12)
Th
i
s
Framewor
k
Decisio
n
respect
s
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
an
d
o
bs
erve
s
th
e
principle
s
recognise
d
b
y
Articl
e
6 of th
e
Treat
y
o
n
Europea
n
Unio
n
an
d
re
fl
ecte
d
i
n
th
e
Charter of Fundamenta
l
Right
s
of th
e
Europea
n
Unio
n
1/3
Th
i
s
Framewor
k
Decisio
n
shal
l
no
t
hav
e
th
e
e
ff
ec
t
of modifyin
g
th
e
obligatio
n
t
o
respec
t
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
an
d
fu
ndamenta
l
lega
l
principle
s
a
s
enshrine
d
i
n
Articl
e
6 of th
e
Treat
y
o
n
Europea
n
Unio
n
.

16. “.. wit
h
respec
t
t
o
detentio
n
condition
s
i
n
th
e
issuin
g
Member Stat
e
(..)
th
e
ex
ecutin
g
judicia
l
authorit
y
mus
t
determin
e
,
speci
fi
call
y
an
d
precisel
y
, whether ther
e
ar
e
su
bs
tantia
l
ground
s
t
o
believ
e
tha
t
th
e
individua
l
concerne
d
b
y
a
Europea
n
arres
t
warran
t
(..) wil
l
b
e
ex
p
os
e
d
, becaus
e
of th
e
condition
s
for hi
s
detentio
n
i
n
th
e
issuin
g
Member Stat
e
, t
o
a
rea
l
ris
k
of inhuma
n
or degradin
g
treatmen
t
“
“fundamental rights risk assessment”
CGUE, C
-
404/15 Aranyosi e Caldăraru, 5 April 2016, GS

17. Th
e
creatio
n
of a
n
are
a
of freedo
m
, securit
y
an
d
justic
e
withi
n
th
e
Unio
n
i
s
base
d
o
n
mutua
l
con
fi
denc
e
an
d
a
presumptio
n
of complianc
e
b
y
other
Member State
s
wit
h
Unio
n
law an
d
, i
n
particular, wit
h
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
. However, tha
t
presumptio
n
i
s
rebuttabl
e
.
Consequentl
y
, if ther
e
ar
e
su
bs
tantia
l
ground
s
for believin
g
tha
t
th
e
ex
ecutio
n
of a
n
investigativ
e
measur
e
indicate
d
i
n
th
e
EIO woul
d
resul
t
i
n
a
breac
h
of
a
fu
ndamenta
l
righ
t
of th
e
perso
n
concerne
d
an
d
tha
t
th
e
ex
ecutin
g
Stat
e
woul
d
disregar
d
it
s
obligation
s
concernin
g
th
e
protectio
n
of
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
recognise
d
i
n
th
e
Charter, th
e
ex
ecutio
n
of th
e
EIO
shoul
d
b
e
re
fu
se
d
.
EIO DIRECTIVE 2014/41 (cons. 19)
EIO

18. Re
fu
sa
l
groun
d
of
potentia
l
violatio
n
of
fu
ndamenta
l
right
s
11.1/f
EIO

19. rol
e
of
Cour
t
of Justic
e
preliminary ruling

20. No need for political consensus
Binding effect of its decisions
for 27 jurisdictions
GC 15 judges - Sc 3/5

21. nationa
l
Court
s
?
Defense

22. Knowledge is power
Join international
associations (FT, ECBA, ..)
Ask for help
Get clients
Don’t wait for the
perfect case but insist
when you find it
Believe in fundamental
rights
Believe in your case
Defense

24. “Human progress is neither automatic
nor inevitable... Every step toward the
goal of justice requires sacrifice,
suffering, and struggle; the tireless
exertions and passionate concern of
dedicated individuals.”
Martin Luther King, Jr.