Caselaw

Criminal Case (Tel Aviv) 4368-05-16 State of Israel v. Siemens Israel Ltd. - part 99

July 3, 2017
Print

The European Court of Human Rights has considered these claims in the context of human beings but not in the context of corporations.    The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) heard the matter in the context of a breach of antitrust and competition laws.  It should be emphasized, however, that, as a rule, these laws are not discussed on the criminal level within the framework of the European Union.  It was held that as a rule, a person who holds the documents must forward them and answer the Commission'  s questions, unless in response to the question (and not regarding the document) he is liable to admit to a violation of competition law.

A  2016 EU directive on this issue states that these protections will not apply to corporations.  EU Directive 2016/343 (of 9.3.16, available for viewing on http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2016.065.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2016:065:TOC).  The Directive deals with strengthening certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings  (this is the title of the Directive: "On the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings").  The preamble to the convention states that the presumption of innocence and the right to due process are set out in articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter);  As well as Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR); Article 14 of  the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) and Article  11 of  the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The preamble states that since the purpose of the Union is to promote and develop freedom, security and justice,  it was decided, in various resolutions, to mutual recognition of criminal judgments and decisions between the member states, and to cooperate in their enforcement.  This recognition is based on the fact that member states rely on the criminal justice systems in each of them.  The scope of mutual recognition depends on a number of factors, including the scope of protection given to suspects and defendants, and therefore it was decided to set minimum requirements for the protection of suspects and defendants, in order to enable cooperation in criminal matters as well.  On 30 November 2009, the Council adopted a decision on a road map for strengthening the procedural rights of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings.  The roadmap calls for the adoption in stages of a number of matters related to the criminal proceeding, such as the right to an interpreter,  the right to legal and public representation, and more.  Subsequently, it was determined that the road map does not include all the issues and that additional issues should be considered for promotion, such as the presumption of innocence.   The purpose of this directive, as stated in the introduction, in section 9, is to promote the right to  a fair trial, by setting minimum conditions regarding the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial.  For our purposes, the presumption of innocence is important.  Article 2 explicitly states that the Directive will apply only to human beings: "This Directive applies to natural persons who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings."  In paragraph 13 of the preamble, it is stated that all the rules derived from the presumption of innocence with respect to human beings were discussed in the European kits, but no rules were established for corporations.  The Directive states that there are differences in the levels of protection required between incorporated bodies and human  beings.  It was held that in light of the difference between the arrangements between the EU members,  it is too early to regulate this, but the fact that the Directive will not apply to incorporated bodies does not prevent the various courts of the Union from making a decision on this matter.

Previous part1...9899
100...138Next part
Skip to content