The article discusses the rationales for excluding illegally obtained evidence in criminal cases starting from two recent judgments of the European Court of Justice on mass data collection. The two decisions concern the exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the retention of metadata in breach of EU law. According to the ECJ, exclusion may be justified by on the basis of the principle of effectiveness and the consequent need to protect the suspects’ rights (protective principle). Based on its analysis of these recent cases, the article demonstrates how important the choice of a rationale for excluding evidence is. It discusses the different exclusionary principles that could be adopted and illustrates their practical implications. Finally, the article advances a proposal of a cascade system of principles for exclusion of evidence in the context of criminal proceedings in Europe.

This article discusses the recent European Commission's Proposal for a Directive on procedural safeguards for children suspected and accused in criminal proceedings and the protection that it offers to juvenile suspects during interrogations. Given the importance of the interrogations for the outcome of a case and its sensitivity for the personality of vulnerable suspects, understanding how the Proposal protects children in this stage of proceedings seems a required step in the overall assessment of the quality of the proposed legislation. The Proposal's evaluation is conducted in light of the preliminary findings of an on-going EU funded research project that the authors are currently coordinating. After a critical assessment of the scope and relevant definitions of the Proposal, the attention will turn to some specific safeguards related to (pre-trial) interrogations such as the right to legal assistance, the right to an appropriate adult and the right to an individual assessment. By referring to the current legal status quo in a selection of EU Member States, the article challenges some aspects of the Proposal such as its relatively narrow scope, the lack of definitions of certain concepts and the fact that the complexity of the vulnerability of juvenile suspects is not adequately taken into account by some of the proposed rules. With this critical evaluation and by emphasizing the importance of taking full account of the complexity of the matter, the authors hope to offer a contribution to the future debate and negotiations on how to effectively strengthen the protection of juvenile suspects.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract