Słowa kluczowe
Jak cytować
Abstrakt
The article analyses the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning ‘effective legal remedies’ under Article 14 of the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO) and ‘effective remedies’ provided for in EU directives regulating the rights of defendants in criminal proceedings. An analysis of this case law leads to the conclusion that the CJEU has established a more specific and higher standard of protection through effective remedies in the first of the aforementioned areas when interpreting Article 14 of the EIO Directive. By contrast, the case law on ‘effective remedies’ provided for in directives regulating the rights of defendants is based on the general assumption that EU law does not govern the admissibility of evidence, which means that it may sometimes be regarded as inconsistent with the standard established in this area by the European Court of Human Rights. The article also argues that the right to an effective remedy does not imply an obligation to create a separate legal measure in the form of a ‘complaint’ or ‘appeal’ within the national legal system.
Bibliografia
Bachmaier Winter L., Salimi F. (eds), ELI Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council on Mutual Admissibility of Evidence and Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings.
Draft Legislative Proposal of the European Law Institute, Vienna, 2023; https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/news-events/news-contd/news/eli-publishes-a-legislative-proposal-onmutual-admissibility-of-evidence-and-electronic-evidence-in/ [accessed on 30 October 2025].
Bajović V., ‘EncroChat and Sky ECC Data as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Light of the CJEU Decision’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 2025, Vol. 33, No. 2.
Branicka Z., ‘Implementation of the right to effective legal remedies in European Parliament Directives’, in: Wiliński P. (ed.), Effective Legal Remedies in Criminal Justice System. European Perspective, Berlin, 2024.
Cras S., ‘The Directive on Procedural Safeguards for Children Who Are Suspects or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings. Genesis and Descriptive Comments Relating to Selected Articles’, Eucrim, 2016, Vol. 11, No. 2.
Goss R., ‘The Disappearing “Minimum Rights” of Article 6 ECHR: The Unfortunate Legacy of Ibrahim and Beuze’, Human Rights Law Review, forthcoming (20 August 2023), ANU College of Law Research Paper No. 23.6; https://ssrn.com/abstract=4541954 [accessed on 30 October 2025].
Hoxhaj A., ‘The CJEU Ruled that the EncroChat Data Can Be Admissible Evidence in the EU’, European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2025, Nos 1–13; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395161249_The_CJEU_Ruled_that_the_EncroChat_Data_can_be_Admissible_Evidence_in_the_EU#fullTextFileContent [accessed on 15 September 2025].
Jasiński W., ‘Dostęp osoby oskarżonej o popełnienie czynu zagrożonego karą do adwokata na wstępnym etapie ścigania karnego – standard strasburski’, Europejski Przegląd Sądowy, 2019, No. 1.
Kiejnich-Kruk K., Prawo do skutecznego środka naprawczego w postępowaniu dowodowym, Warszawa, 2023.
Ligeti K., Garamvölgyi B., Ondrejová A., von Galen M., ‘Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in the EU’, Eucrim, 2020, No. 3.
Rap S.E., Zlotnik D., ‘The Right to Legal and Other Appropriate Assistance for Child Suspects and Accused. Reflections on the Directive on Procedural Safeguards for Children Who Are Suspects or Accused Persons in Criminal Proceedings’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal
Law and Criminal Justice, 2018, Vol. 26, No. 2.
Sakowicz A., ‘Suspect’s Access to a Lawyer at an Early Stage of Criminal Proceedings in View of the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights’, Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 2021, Vol. 7, No. 3.
Steinborn S., ‘Środek odwoławczy od wydania europejskiego nakazu dochodzeniowego dotyczącego wideokonferencji. Wyrok Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z dnia 11 listopada 2021 r., C-852/19, postępowanie karne przeciwko Ivanowi Gavanozovowi’, Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, 2024, No. 2.
Steinborn S., ‘The Concept of an Effective Remedy Under Article 47 of the Charter in Context of the European Investigation Order’, European Criminal Law Review, 2024, Vol. 14, No. 2.
Steinborn S., Świeczkowski D., ‘Verification in the Issuing State of Evidence Obtained on the Basis of the European Investigation Order’, Review of European and Comparative Law, 2023, Vol. 54, No. 3.
Steinborn S., Wąsek-Wiaderek M., ‘Moment uzyskania statusu biernej strony postępowania karnego z perspektywy konstytucyjnej i międzynarodowej’, in: Rogacka-Rzewnicka M., Gajewska-Kraczkowska H., Bieńkowska B.T. (eds), Wokół gwarancji współczesnego procesu karnego. Księga Jubileuszowa Profesora Piotra Kruszyńskiego, Warszawa, 2015.
Wąsek-Wiaderek M., ‘Vulnerable Suspects and the Nemo Tenetur Principle in Poland – A Few Remarks on the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-603/22’, in: Nemo tenetur: The Many Faces of a Fundamental Principle, forthcoming, planned publication: December 2025.
Wiliński P., ‘Closing remarks’, in: Wiliński P. (ed.), Effecti ve Legal Remedies in Criminal Justice System. European Perspective, Berlin, 2023.
Wiliński P. ‘Introducing effective remedies’, in: Wiliński P. (ed.), Effective Legal Remedies in Criminal Justice System. European Perspective, Berlin, 2023.
Wiliński P., Kiejnich-Kruk K., ‘Right to Effective Legal Remedy in Criminal Proceedings in the EU. Implementation and Need for Standards’, Review of European and Comparative Law, 2023, Vol. 54, No. 3.
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Na tych samych warunkach 4.0 Międzynarodowe.