The present publication can be defined in three words: relevant, original and novel. It is a work divided into four parts, which is immersed in the study of procedural and procedural law for the cross-border litigation in civil and criminal disputes, from a very interesting perspective, mainly for two reasons: originality and critical-constructive character. The book begins with a work on teaching innovation in procedural law in today's globalised, multicultural and interconnected society. The other three parts of the book deal with very new topics in the resolution of cross-border disputes, from the protection of the rights of vulnerable groups, procedural issues such as digital evidence, data encryption, class actions, alternative dispute resolution methods, among many other subjects that shape the resolution of disputes today.
- Cover
- Title page
- Copyright page
- Table of contents
- Foreword: Three colors for a new european procedural flag: Teaching, Scientific and technological innovation, Dra. Sonia Calaza López
- Part I. The teaching of procedural law in international clasrooms and forums, Dra. Begoña Vidal Fernández
- 1. Landscape of multi-international classroom
- 2. Main content of the subject judicial protection of fundamental rights systems
- 2.1. Key concepts
- 2.2. Main content
- 2.2.1. Spanish Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights System
- 2.2.2. European Union Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights System
- 2.2.3. European Convention of Human Rights Procedural Protection System
- 2.2.4. International Criminal Court of Justice Procedural Protection System
- 3. Useful tools and teaching methods
- 3.1. Sources
- 3.2. Most useful links:
- 3.2.1. Spanish Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights system
- 3.2.2. European Union Judicial Protection of Fundamental Rights system
- 3.2.3. European Convention of Human Rights Procedural Protection system
- 3.2.4. International Criminal Court of Justice Procedural Protection system
- 4. Lessons learned and conclusion
- Part II . Cross-border litigation: Procedural law to guarantee the rights of vulnerable groups
- Evolution of the same interest in the united kingdom representative procedure in the xx century, Lucio Morcillo Peñalver
- 1. Introduction
- 1.1. The importance of Law for modification of society´s conduct
- 1.2. A whole system based on precedent
- 2. Duke of bedford V. Elis
- 2.1. A common interest born in Covent Garden
- 2.1.1. A common interest
- 2.1.2. A common grievance
- 2.1.3. In its nature beneficial to all whom the plaintiff proposed to represent
- 3. Markt & co ltd V. Knight steamship co ltd, Sale & frazar v knight steamship co ltd
- 3.1. From the result of the action to “common wrong but different right”
- 3.1.1. Different Bills of Lading
- 3.1.2. There were common elements in the damages, but a difference in the right arising from such damages
- 3.1.3. Common wrong, but different right. The purpose of the destination was different
- 4. Conclusions
- Restorative justice in the italian juvenile process, Luca Lupoli
- 1.Restorative justice
- 1.1. Features of restorative justice
- 1.2. Restorative justice in the Italian legal system
- 2. The italian juvenile justice system
- 2.1. Principles of the Italian juvenile justice system
- 2.2. Juvenile penal mediation in Italy
- 2.2.1. Pre-trial phase
- 2.2.2. Trial phase
- 2.3. Other causes of extinction of the offence
- 2.4. Reparation in alternative sanctions or probation in community service programs
- 2.5. Conduct of the mediation
- 2.6. Victim’s rights
- The long path to the recognition of victim’s rights in spain: Past, Present and future, Dra. Núria Mallandrich Miret
- 1. Introducción
- 2. Past: From the spanish criminal procedure code to specific regulations on victim’s rights
- 2.1. The birth of victimology as a pivotal moment on recognizing victims’ rights
- 2.2 First legal steps in Spain
- 2.3. Council Framework Decision 2011/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the sanding of victims in criminal proceedings
- 2.4. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 18 May 2011, Strengthening victims’ rights in the EU
- 2.5. Directive 2012/29/UE of the European Parliament and the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime
- 2.6. Law 4/2015, of victims’ rights statute
- 3. Present: The ue strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025)
- 3.1. The background of the Strategy: The assessment of Directive 2012/29/UE on victims’ rights
- 3.2. The strategy goals and priorities
- 4. Future: Proposal for a directive amending directive 2012/29/ue establishing minumum standards of the rights, Support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing council framework decision 2001/220/jha
- 4.1. A victim-centred approach to justice
- 4.2. Digitalization of justice
- 4.3. Other measures to improve support, protection and compensation to victims of crime
- 4.3.1. Victims’ support and protection
- 4.3.2. Compensation
- 5. Conclusions
- The applicability of universal jurisdiction - have we forgotten to act as a society?, Dra. Andrea Spada Jiménez
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The principle of universal jurisdiction and its two main purposes: Guaranteeing the right to effective judicial protection and the fight against impunity
- 2.1. The protection of an injured right outside the national territory
- 2.2. First aim: The principle of universal jurisdiction as a guarantee of effective judicial protection
- 2.3. Second aim: the fight against impunity as a safeguard for international peace and security
- 3. The material applicability of the principle of universal jurisdiction
- 3.1. The applicability of the principle to certain criminal acts
- 3.2. Conditional right of access to jurisdiction for victims
- 3.2.1. The concept of victim and its interpretation as a first condition
- 3.2.2. The nationality of the victim and the perpetrator as a condition for access
- 3.3. Kinship as a condition for legitimising the victim
- 3.4. Procedural constraints
- 4. Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Part III. Cross-border litigation: Proceedings and jurisprudence
- The international child abduction regime in the brussels ii ter regulation and its main modifications, Dra. María González Marimón
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The international child abduction framework
- 3. The main improvements in the return procedure
- 3.1. The clarification of the legal framework of intra-EU child abduction cases
- 3.2. The main improvements on the return procedure
- 3.2.1. The clarification of the age of the child
- 3.2.2. The partial harmonization of procedural rules to improve efficacity: Expeditious court proceedings
- 3.3. The novelties in the modifications of the 1980 Hague Convention procedure for the return of the child
- 3.3.1. Right of the child to express his or her views in return proceedings
- 3.3.2. The contact of the child with the left-behind parent
- 3.3.3. Looking for the child’s “safe return”
- 3.3.4. The introduction of mediation for abdcution cases
- 4. The mainteinance of the “overriding mechanism” as a missed opportunity
- 5. Conclusions
- The “trial resulting in the decision” as an autonomous concept of eu law for the purposes of the european arrest warrant, Dra. Patricia Llopis Nadal
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The european arrest warrant and decisions rendered in absentia: An amended regulation that requires recognizing “the trial resulting in the decision”
- 3. The “trial resulting in the decision” as an autonomous concept of european union law interpreted uniformly by the european court of justice
- 3.1. The ordinary appeal proceedings are the only instance to be considered as the “trial resulting in the decision”
- 3.2. The concept “trial resulting in the decision” covers the decision finally amending the quantum of the initial penalty provided the competent authority had certain discretion
- 3.3. The concept “trial resulting in the decision” does not include proceedings leading to a decision revoking the suspension of the execution of a sentence unless it amends the nature or the quantum of the initial penalty
- 3.4. The concept “trial resulting in the decision” includes proceedings leading to a second criminal conviction that is decisive to issue the European arrest warrant based on the revocation of the suspension of a first sentence
- 4. Findings
- 5. Cited case-law of the european court of justice
- The obligation of consistent interpretation and the validity of domestic procedural law: An unsolved riddle? Dr. Pedro Manuel Quesada López
- 1. Introduction
- 2. The principle of effectiveness in european union law: Fundamental characteristics
- 3. The imperative of integrating domestic procedural norms through consistent interpretation
- 4. The scope of interpretation of national procedural law: Adherence and contradiction with union law in recent case law
- 5. Conclusion. Reconciling domestic procedural law with the principle of consistent interpretation: Implications, Challenges, And jurisprudential reflections in european union context
- Bibliography
- The right to enforce an arbitral award within the framework of the european convention on human rights, Dr. José Caro Catalán
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Bts holding, A.S. V. Slovakia, (NO. 55617/17)
- 2.1. The facts
- 2.2. The law
- 3. An isolated case or a consolidated case law?
- 3.1. Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis v. Greece (No. 13427/87)
- 3.2. Marini v. Albania (n.º 3738/02)
- 3.3. Regent Company v. Ucrania (n.º 773/03)
- 3.4. Kin Stib c. Majkic v. Serbia (n.º 12312/05)
- 3.5. Singularities of the case BTS Holding, A.S. v. Slovakia (no. 55617/17)
- 4. Basis and scope of the right to enforce the award
- 4.1. Protection under art. 6.1. ECHR
- 4.2. Protection under art. 1 of Protocol 1
- 5. Practical implications of the ecthr doctrine
- Part IV. Cross-border litigation: Digital evidence and alternative dispute resolution
- Data encryption: The delicate balance of the privacy-security trade-off, María Dolores García Sánchez
- 1. Previous considerations: The privacy and security duality
- 1.1. The data encyption debate
- 2. Data encryption in the extracommunity scope
- 2.1. Australia
- 2.2. United States
- 2.3. United Kingdom
- 3. European context
- 3.1. The approach to encryption technology in Europe
- 3.1.1. Note 10730/20 on September 18, 2020
- 3.1.2. Resolution 13084/1/20 of the Council of the European Union on November 24, 2020
- 3.1.3. CSA proposal
- 3.2. The approach to encryption technology in the State Members
- 4.Conclusion
- Security, Freedom and criminal procedure: Data retention, European jurisprudence and the new italian regulation, Alessandro Malacarne
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Values and the european law
- 3. The principles of european jurisprudence
- 4. The italian regulation
- 5. The new italian legislation in 2021
- 5.1. The necessary authorisation of the Court
- 5.2. The acquisition request
- 5.3. Offences for which telephone records can be obtained
- 5.4. Authorisation requirements
- 5.5. The passive subjective of the acquisition procedure
- 6. Unresolved issues
- 6.1. The “timeline” of conservation of metadata
- 6.2. The geographic criterion
- 6.2.1. The praxis: Belgian and Danish “new” legislation
- 7. Final remarks
- Production and preservation of electronic evidence within the european union, Dra. Elisabet Cueto Santa Eugenia
- 1. E-Evidence in the digitalization context
- 1.1. Definition of e-evidence
- 1.2. Chain of custody of electronic evidence
- 2. Cross-border access to electronic evidence
- 2.1. Production order
- 2.2. Preservation order
- 3. Current state of the european regulation
- 4. Final conclussions
- 5. Bibliography
- The influence of european jurisprudence in the admission of evidence obtained by the employer to control the worker, Dra. Paloma Arrabal Platero
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Starting point: The conflict between business control and the licitude of the evidence obtained
- 3. Jurisprudential development of the relationship between the power of employersand the rights of workers
- 4. Latest resolutions as requirements for judicial assessment
- 4.1. ECHR sentence Barbulescu vs Romania, January 12, 2016
- 4.2. ECHR sentence, Grand Chamber, of October 17, 2019, in the case of López Ribalda and others against Spain
- 5. Conclusions
- Untitled
Text
Audio
Adobe DRM
Login to your account