HYA and Others: Reshaping participation at criminal trials in Europe

Published date01 June 2023
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X231205829
AuthorLorenzo Bernardini,Gaetano Ancona
Date01 June 2023
HYA and Others: Reshaping
participation at criminal trials in
Europe
Lorenzo Bernardini* and Gaetano Ancona**
Abstract
The recent decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union in HYA and Others has a sig-
nif‌icant impact on the use of untested witness statements in criminal proceedings. The case con-
cerned the right to examine witnesses, which is protected under 6(3)(d) of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The CJEU established a three-step test to determine whether
the use of untested evidence violates the right to a fair trial and ruled out the use of sole or
decisiveuntested evidence in criminal proceedings. The Court also held that the right to examine
witnesses is a fundamental right in criminal proceedings and falls within the scope of Article 8(1) of
Directive 2016/343. The HYA and Others judgment sets a higher standard than that guaranteed by
the ECtHR, preventing the use of sole or decisive witnesses in reaching a f‌inal conviction decision.
Finally, the judgment extends the scope of defence rights in EU law and enhances the effectiveness
of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings.
Keywords
Fair trial rights, right to be present at trial, sole or decisive rule, cross-examination, Article 52 of
the Charter, Article 8(1) of the Directive 2016/343, Article 6 ECHR.
1. Introduction
This article provides an analysis of a recent judgment rendered by the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU or the Court), HYA and Others,
1
regarding the use of untested witness state-
ments in criminal proceedings.
*
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg
**
Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Gaetano Ancona, Faculty of Law, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Maastricht University, 1-3 Bouillonstraat,
6221 LH Maastricht, Netherlands.
Email: gaetano.ancona@maastrichtuniversity.nl
1. Case C-348/21 HYA et al., EU:C:2022:965 (hereinafter: Judgment).
Case Note
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2023, Vol. 30(3) 312324
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X231205829
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT