Low-Level Offences and Procedural Rights in Europe (online event)

Online Event: "Low-Level Offences and Procedural Rights in Europe" on Thursday, 4 Mar 2021 17:00 - 18:30 CET.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, police and prosecution pursued punishment of violations of COVID-related measures. These prosecutions fell heavily on people of colour, people experiencing homelessness or poverty, or other groups that are often targeted by policing.

Prosecutions for such "minor offences" do not always have "minor" consequences: they have very serious consequences for people, including incarceration. Yet under domestic and European law people charged with low-level offences are not granted the same procedural protections as people charged with more serious offences—often because the law assumes that these offences do not carry serious consequences. In this session, we will learn about how low-level offences are punished in Europe, the procedural deficiencies and/or lack of protections available to people being tried of low-level cases, and about the types of conduct that is generally punished. We hope to understand what policy solutions we may take forward, and using what approached and tools.

Speakers:

Emmanuelle Debouverie, Fair Trials (moderator)
Nicole Bögelein, University of Cologne
Sarah Ganty, Yale Law School
Mitali Nagrecha, Fair Trials
Christiaan van Veen, Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU School of Law
Mohammed Wa Baile, Allianz Gegen Racial Profiling Switzerland

This event is a public panel as part of our 2021 Legal Experts Advisory Panel (LEAP) Annual Conference: Power and Punishment in Europe. LEAP is Fair Trials’ European network of experts in criminal justice and human rights which works to promote fair trial rights in Europe. LEAP currently counts some 200 organisational members, with representatives from law firms, CSOs, and academic institutions, covering all 27 EU Member States. (photo:pixabay)

Register here

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ombudsman inquiry on Commission President’s text messages is a wake-up call for EU

Image
The European Ombudsman inquiry into the Commission’s handling of a request for text messages between its President and the CEO of a pharmaceutical company is a wake-up call for all EU institutions about ensuring accountability in an era of instant messaging. One year after the initial request by a journalist, the Commission has still not clarified whether messages reported to concern major vaccine procurement deals exist and whether the public is entitled to see them. The Ombudsman had asked the Commission, in a finding of maladministration in January, to conduct a more thorough search for the text messages. The Commission’s recent response failed to say whether it had looked directly and correctly for the text messages and if not, why not. While the response recognised that work-related text messages can be EU documents, it reiterated that the Commission’s internal policy is, in effect, not to register text messages. The Ombudsman has closed  the inquiry  and upheld...
Read more

An overview of the regulatory framework on Gambling Services in the European Union

Image
written by Efi Thoma * The European Union (EU) does not have a harmonized, single regulatory framework for betting companies. Instead, the regulation of gambling services, including betting, remains largely within the competence of individual Member States.  This results in a diverse and often fragmented legal framework across the EU. While the EU facilitates some level of cooperation and sets overarching principles, the specifics of licensing, operational requirements, and consumer protection measures vary significantly from country to country. Despite the lack of a unified framework, several key principles and EU-level instruments influence the national regulations of betting companies. More specifically, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) guarantees the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services within the EU. These fundamental freedoms mean that Member States cannot unjustifiably restrict betting companies legally established in ano...
Read more

Access to documents: the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled (CJEU)

Image
In its Judgment dated 14/5/2025 in Case T-36/23 (Stevi and The New York Times v Commission), the General Court ruled that the Commission decision refusing a journalist of The New York Times access to the text messages exchanged between President von der Leyen and the CEO of Pfizer is annulled. By an application based on the Access to Documents Regulation, [1], Matina Stevi, a journalist working for the daily newspaper The New York Times, requested the European Commission to provide access to all text messages exchanged between President Ursula von der Leyen and Albert Bourla, the chief executive officer of Pfizer, between 1 January 2021 and 11 May 2022.  The Commission rejected that application on the ground that it did not hold the documents covered by it. Ms Stevi and The New York Times requested the General Court of the European Union to annul the Commission’s decision.  In its judgment, the General Court upholds the action and annuls the Commission’s decision. The Court re...
Read more

New President of the European Court of Human Rights

Image
The European Court of Human Rights has elected on 28.4.2025 Mattias Guyomar, Judge elected in respect of France, as its new President.  Mattias Guyomar succeeds Marko Bošnjak, Judge elected in respect of Slovenia. He will take up office on 30 May 2025. Read his bio here Furthermore, the Judge elected in respect of Armenia, Vahe Grigoryan, was formally sworn in in the Court's Main Hearing Room on 28.4.2025. Read as well:  Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence / article by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer in Cyprus
Read more

Delays in national courts lead to violations of right to a fair trial (ECtHR)

Image
The European Court of Human Rights found that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that applicants' cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. In Chamber’s judgment in the case of ARB SHPK and Others v. Albania (applications nos. 39860/19, 38996/20, 6142/22 and 27370/22) the European Court of Human Rights held,unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights as regards ARB SHPK’s and Mr Gazidedja’s applications, and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) as regards Mr Gazidedja’s application. The case concerned alleged excessive length of proceedings in cases taken before the Albanian courts. The Court found in particular that the delays of eight years and six months and seven years that ARB SHPK’s cases had been pending before the Supreme Court had been excessive. Regarding Mr Gazidedja’s case, the Court noted that he had not received c...
Read more