Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to European Criminal Law
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to European Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I Foundations of European Criminal Law
- Part II Purposes and Principles
- Part III European Substantive Criminal Law
- Part IV European Criminal Procedure
- Part V Institutions
- Part VI Perspectives
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Part IV - European Criminal Procedure
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 February 2023
Book contents
- The Cambridge Companion to European Criminal Law
- Cambridge Companions to Law
- The Cambridge Companion to European Criminal Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Notes on Contributors
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I Foundations of European Criminal Law
- Part II Purposes and Principles
- Part III European Substantive Criminal Law
- Part IV European Criminal Procedure
- Part V Institutions
- Part VI Perspectives
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to European Criminal Law , pp. 229 - 326Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Further Reading
Ambos, K., ‘C-486/14 – Kossowski – Judgment (Grand Chamber) C-486/14 Piotr Kossowski, 29 June 2016’, in Mitsilegas, V., di Martino, A., and Mancano, L. (eds.), The Court of Justice and European Criminal Law, Oxford: Hart 2019, p. 227.Google Scholar
Böse, M., ‘Harmonizing Procedual Rights Indirectly. The Framework Decision on Trials in Absentia’, (2011) 37 N.C. J. Int’l L., 489.Google Scholar
Böse, M., ‘The Transnational Dimension of the ne bis in idem principle and the Notion of res iudicata in the European Union’, in Böse, M., Bohlander, M., Klip, A., and Lagodny, O. (eds.), Justice without Borders Essays in Honour of Wolfgang Schomburg, Leiden, Boston: Brill 2018, p. 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lelieur, J., ‘Transnationalising ne bis in idem: How the Rule of ne bis in idem Reveals the Principle of Personal Legal Certainty’, (2013) 9 (4) Utrecht L. Rev., 198.Google Scholar
Quattrocolo, S. and Ruggeri, S. (eds.), Personal Participation in Criminal Proceedings, Cham, Springer:2019.Google Scholar
Vervaele, J., ‘Ne bis in idem: Towards a Transnational Constitutional Principle in the EU?’, (2013) 9 (4) Utrecht L. Rev., 211.Google Scholar
Schomburg, W., ‘Internationales “ne bis in idem” nach Art 54 SDÜ’, (1997) 17 StV, 383.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Boister, N., ’Global Simplification of Extradition: Interviews with Selected Extradition Experts in New Zealand, Canada, The US and EU’, (2017) 29 CLF, 327–375.Google Scholar
Brière, C. and Weyembergh, A. (eds.), The Needed Balances in EU Criminal Law: Past, Present and Future, Oxford: Hart, 2018.Google Scholar
Fichera, M., The Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in the European Union, Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2011.Google Scholar
Jansson, J., Terrorism, Criminal Law and Politics: The Decline of the Political Offence Exception to Extradition, London et al.: Routledge, 2019.Google Scholar
Mitsilegas, V., ’The Limits of Mutual Trust in Europe’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: From Automatic Inter-State Cooperation to the Slow Emergence of the Individual’, (2012) 31 YEL, 319–372.Google Scholar
Ouwerkerk, J., Quid Pro Quo? A Comparative Law Perspective on the Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Matters, Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2011.Google Scholar
Pyle, C.H., Extradition, Politics, and Human Rights, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Spencer, J.R., ’Extradition, the European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights’, (2013) 72 CLJ, 250.Google Scholar
Suominen, A., The Principle of Mutual Recognition in Cooperation in Criminal Matters, Cambridge et al.: Intersentia, 2011.Google Scholar
Xanthopoulou, E., Fundamental Rights and Mutual Trust in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Role for Proportionality?, Oxford: Hart, 2020.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Winter, L. Bachmaier, ‘Transnational Criminal Proceedings, Witness Evidence and Confrontation: Lessons from the ECtHR’s Case Law’, (2013) 9(4) Utrecht L. Rev., 126–148.Google Scholar
Ligeti, K., Strafrecht und strafrechtliche Zusammenarbeit in der Europäischen Union, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot 2005.Google Scholar
Ruggeri, S. (ed.), Transnational Inquiries and the Protection of Fundamental rights in Criminal Proceedings, Heidelberg, New York: Springer 2013.Google Scholar
Schünemann, B. (ed.), Ein Gesamtkonzept für die europäische Strafrechtspflege, Köln: Carl Heymanns Verl. 2006.Google Scholar
Vermeulen, G. et al., EU Cross-Border Gathering and Use of Evidence in Criminal Matters. Towards Mutual Recognition of Investigative Measures and Free Movement of Evidence?, IRCP-series Volume 37 (2010), available at www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6335/evidence%20study.pdf.Google Scholar
Further Reading
Aden, Hartmut (ed.) Police cooperation in the European Union under the Treaty of Lisbon, Baden-Baden: Nomos 2015.Google Scholar
Cyrille, Fijnaut, A Peaceful Revolution. The Development of Police and Judicial Cooperation in the European Union, Cambridge: Intersentia 2019.Google Scholar
Anne, Weyemberg ‘History of the Cooperation’ in Kostoris, Roberto E. (ed.) Handbook of European Criminal Procedure, Cham: Springer 2018, pp. 173–199.Google Scholar