Key international and EU law standards ? overview of procedural rights in criminal proceedings

• Author: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EU body or agency)
• Pages: 19-21

19



Key international and EU law

standards – overview of procedural

rights in criminal proceedings

1.1

International standards

1.1 International standards

Procedural rights in criminal proceedings have been long

established and widely recognised at the international,

European and nationa l levels. At the internation al level,

they were f‌irst established and recognised by the Uni-

versal Declaratio n of Human Rights

12

and the Internation -

al Covenant on Civil and Pol itical Rights (ICCPR).

13

Article

14 (1) of the ICCPR recognises the general right to a f air

trial in crimina l proceedings, while A rticle 14 (3) fur ther

specif‌ies the minimum procedural rights guaranteed for

anyone charged with a cri minal offence. These i nclude,

for instance, the rig ht to information, the rig ht to legal

assistance, the right to l egal aid and the rig ht to inter-

pretation. Beside s the key international hu man rights

instruments , several other internatio nal treaties, such as

the United Nations Convent ion against Torture and Other

Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

14

set out a series of mini mum safeguards in cr iminal pro-

ceedings, including the period immediately after the

deprivation of liberty.

A number of legal in struments rati f‌ied by the EU Mem-

ber States also recognise th e criminal procedur al rights

of persons belong ing to specif‌ic groups t hat could be

vulnerable, suc h as children, perso ns with disabilit ies or

third-country nationals. For example, the Convention on

the Rights of the Chi ld

15

and the Convention on the R ights

of Persons with Disabilities.

16

For a more detailed over-

12 United Nations (UN), U niversal Declara tion of Human Right s,

10 December 194 8, Art. 11 (1).

13 UN, Internation al Covenant on Civil and Po litical Rights,

16December 19 66, Art. 9 (2), Art. 14 (1) and Ar t. 14 (3).

14 UN Convention against Tortu re and Other Cruel, I nhuman or

Degradin g Treatment or Punishment , 10 December 1984.

15 UN, Convention on t he Rights of the Child , 20November1989,

Art. 40 (2) (b).

16 UN, Convention on the Right s of Persons with Disab ilities,

13December 20 06, Art. 13.

view of international le gal standards, pl ease see FRA’s

report on the Rights of suspected and accused persons

across the EU: translation, interpretatio n and formation.

1.2 European and EU law

standards

At the European level, the main i nstruments o n criminal

procedural right s are the ECHR

17

and the Charter of Fu n-

damental Right s of the European Union (Charter).

18

These

are further inter preted and delineated by the Eu ropean

Court of Human Rig hts (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of

the European Union (CJEU).

In the ECHR, Ar ticle 6 lays down the mini mum criminal

procedural right s. Article 6 (1) of the ECHR provides for

the right to a fair trial , guaranteeing equality of a rms and

the right to adversar ial proceedings, as well a s the right

to a prompt and public h earing by an impartial and inde -

pendent court. A rticle 6 (2) and (3) impos es several ad-

ditional requirements applicable to criminal proceedings.

Article 6 (2) introduces the p resumption of innocence.

Article 6 (3) includes specif‌ic aspects of fair trial rights

19

and sets out the f‌ive m inimum rights t hat an accused

person has in criminal proceedings:

17 Council of Europe, Europ ean Convention on Huma n Rights,

ETS No. 005 , 1950, Art. 5 (2) and Art. 6 .

18 Ch arter of Fundament al Rights of the Europea n Union,

OJ 2012 C 326, A rt. 6, Art. 47 and Ar t. 48.

19

ECtHR, F.C.B. v. Italy, No. 12 151/86, 28 August 1991, p ara. 29;

ECtHR, Padalov v. Bu lgaria, No. 54784/00, 10 Aug ust 2006,

para.30; ECtHR , Windisch v. Austria, No. 12489/86, 27 September

1990, para.23 ; ECtHR, Lüdi v. Switzerland, No . 12433/86, 15

June 1992, pa ra.43; ECtHR, Funke v. Fra nce, No. 10828/84,

25 Februar y 1993, para. 44; ECtH R, Saunders v. the United

Kingdom, No.19187/91, 17Decembe r 1996, para. 68; ECtHR ,

Gäfgen v. Germany, No.2297 8/05, 1 June 2010, para. 1 69; ECtHR,

Sakhnovskiy v. Russia, No. 21272/03, 2 Novemb er 2010, para. 94.