Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2016)

in European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In Directive 2013/48/eu the standard for remedies applicable in cases the right of access to a lawyer has been violated was built on the European Court of Human Right’s judgment Salduz v. Turkey (27 November 2008). Shortly before the deadline to implement Directive 2013/48/eu, the Strasbourg Court handed down its judgment on Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13 September 2016) significantly lowering this standard. In its ruling on 4 May 2016, the Supreme Court of Estonia interpreted the right of access to a case file upon arrest in conjunction with the Strasbourg case law, without considering that eu law might raise the standard. This article argues that the question whether to follow the Salduz- or Ibrahim-standard serves as a perfect opportunity for the European Court of Justice to clearly articulate that Strasbourg standards on defence rights form just a part of the foundation that eu standards consist of.

Divergence of European Union and Strasbourg Standards on Defence Rights in Criminal Proceedings? Ibrahim and the others v. the uk (13th of September 2016)

in European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice