Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Despite the applicable general principles and essential standards provided for in the law, the right of vulnerable persons (i.e. children under 18 years of age and vulnerable adults, for example, adults with mental disabilities) to a fair hearing at different stages of criminal proceedings in the EU is not yet ensured to the full extent. Based on both EU and Lithuanian legal regulation, this article will review only the principal provisions concerning the allocation of victims, suspects, and accused persons to the category of “vulnerable persons”. Due to the scope of the article, the vulnerability identification procedure falls outside this research. EU and national legislation suggest that early identification of vulnerability allows for the provision of specific protection measures during criminal proceedings. Analysis of EU and Lithuanian normative acts suggests that minor victims are a priori considered vulnerable and specific protection measures must apply in their case. Meanwhile, the vulnerability of adult victims and their specific protection needs are not assessed at any stage of the proceedings in Lithuania, although the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for certain specific protection measures for victims who, due to a public hearing or questioning, may be subject to “psychological trauma or other serious consequences”. Given future EU requirements concerning suspected or accused children and current recommendations concerning the consideration of suspected or accused adults as vulnerable participants of the proceedings, Lithuanian legal regulations in this area must be improved.
EN
Employing systematic document analysis and other methods, this article analyses a long-standing and still relevant issue related to the interpretation and application of the law regulating relationships in the field of European Union criminal justice within the framework of the national criminal proceedings that are taking place in EU member states. The article places special emphasis on the explanation and application of the principle of mutual recognition within the framework of one of the newest instruments of international cooperation in the European Union criminal proceedings meant to prevent conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and to solve issues arising between two or more member states. The analysis of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction provided in this paper is not limited to a mere explanation of the concept as such, but includes an essential analysis of other related issues, such as the principle of mutual recognition, its influence on the recognition of criminal proceedings as parallel proceedings, and including other aspects related to the matching of the form of national criminal proceedings with the criminal proceedings taking place in another member state. Finally, significant attention is given to one of the objectives in terms of prevention and solution of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, namely, the ne bis in idem principle and its application in case of parallel criminal proceedings taking place in two or more member states. One of the key conclusions offered here is that in order to eliminate conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction, positive law in the process of conflicts of jurisdiction must become an effective measure in criminal justice; however, only on the condition that at least a minimum likelihood in the form of criminal proceedings adopted by different EU members states is ensured as a precondition necessary to enable a smooth application of the principle of mutual recognition.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.