Third Party Financed Projects
In the past, the chair has carried out various projects funded by the DFG and the European Union, including projects on judicial legal protection in the context of cross-border criminal prosecution and on the prevention and resolution of conflicts between national criminal authorities in the European Union.
Mutual Recognition 2.0
The Mutual Recognition Next Level (MR2.0) research project examines how effectively and coherently EU cross-border cooperation instruments, such as the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order, are applied in practice. The aim is to identify inconsistent applications that could lead to disproportionate infringements of fundamental rights or delays, and to develop solutions to remedy these problems and promote alternative measures to pre-trial detention. The project is funded by the European Commission and involves several European universities.
Cross-border cooperation within the European Union has become increasingly important for the prosecution of criminal offenses and the enforcement of criminal judgments. This applies, for example, when the person being prosecuted or convicted is staying in another Member State, is a national of that Member State, or is resident there. In these and other cases, the support of the Member State concerned can be crucial for the investigation and prosecution of crimes or the enforcement of penalties imposed. The competent authorities of the Member States have at their disposal a range of cooperation instruments created by the EU legislator on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition (e.g. European arrest warrant, European investigation order, mutual recognition and enforcement of custodial sanctions, decisions on the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions, and supervision measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention); these are supplemented by international treaties, insofar as these continue to apply between Member States (EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention, European Mutual Legal Assistance Convention) and possible alternatives to pre-trial detention (summons of the accused, transfer of prosecution). The research project “Mutual Recognition Next Level (MR2.0)” aims to investigate whether and to what extent these cooperation instruments are applied effectively and coherently in practice. Incoherent application can lead to disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of the person concerned, cause unnecessary costs or delays in proceedings, and, in some cases, even lead to impunity for the person being prosecuted, thereby undermining mutual trust among Member States. The central question is whether and to what extent the detention of the accused can be avoided by less intrusive measures, while at the same time ensuring effective prosecution. The research project also aims to identify possible causes of inconsistent application of the available cooperation instruments and to develop approaches to solving the problems in question.
The project is funded by the European Commission with funds from the European Union (Justice Program – JUST-2022) and coordinated by the District Court (Rechtbank) of Amsterdam. In addition to the University of Bonn, the universities of Maastricht (Netherlands), Lublin (Poland), and Burgos (Spain) are also participating in the project. The project will run for two years (July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2025).
Judicial legal protection
From September 2017 to January 2021, Prof. Böse conducted a DFG-funded project on the topic of “Judicial legal protection in the context of cross-border criminal prosecution.” This was done in collaboration with Maria Bröcker and Dr. Anne Schneider, LL.M.
This project addresses the gaps in legal protection that arise from cross-border criminal prosecution and recommends various solutions to these problems.
Judicial legal protection in the context of cross-border criminal prosecution
From September 2017 to January 2021, Prof. Dr. Böse conducted a DFG-funded project on the topic of “Judicial legal protection in the context of cross-border criminal prosecution.”
Judicial legal protection in the context of cross-border criminal prosecution has a number of shortcomings. These gaps in legal protection are due, on the one hand, to the fact that the relevant provisions (in part) refer to legal remedies in domestic criminal proceedings and thus do not take sufficient account of the transnational dimension; this also applies in particular to the decision not to submit or to reject a request. On the other hand, judicial review powers are curtailed out of consideration for the sovereignty of the other state, thereby taking into account the distribution of tasks and responsibilities between the requesting and requested states (or, in the Union, between the issuing and executing states). However, the joint responsibility of these two states for the effective protection of fundamental and procedural rights gives rise, on the one hand, to an obligation on the part of the requesting state to guarantee effective legal protection with regard to the interference with fundamental rights sought in the request, as demonstrated in particular by the recent case law of the ECJ on the European arrest warrant. On the other hand, the distribution of tasks and responsibilities between the states involved is not to be understood in the sense of mutually exclusive judicial review powers; rather, the joint responsibility of both states gives rise to a residual competence to grant legal protection, even with regard to issues that fall within the primary jurisdiction of the other state. The following recommendations can be derived from this finding for the design of judicial legal protection in Germany: Legal protection in mutual legal assistance proceedings should be structured independently; the regulations can be based on domestic criminal proceedings, for example by providing for jurisdiction of the ordinary courts, but should take account of the above-mentioned aspects by means of an independent legal protection regime within the IRG. This regime should cover both mutual legal assistance within the European Union and cooperation with third countries and all areas of cooperation (extradition, enforcement assistance, other mutual legal assistance), and legal protection should be granted not only against the approval and execution of foreign requests, but also against outgoing requests and negative decisions, insofar as the respective decision affects subjective rights. As accompanying measures, further steps should be taken to strengthen procedural rights in mutual legal assistance proceedings (right to interpretation and translation, access to files, and assistance in mutual legal assistance proceedings) in order to compensate for the fact that the person concerned is in some cases referred to judicial protection by foreign courts.
- The European arrest warrant and the independence of public prosecutors: OG & PI, PF, JR &YC, Common Market Law Review, Vol. 57 (2020), 1259-1282
- Böse, Martin/ Bröcker, Maria/ Schneider, Anne (Hrsg.), Judicial Protection in Transnational Criminal Proceedings, Legal Studies in International, European and Comparative Criminal Law 5, Springer, Heidelberg 2020 – 441 Seiten
- Böse, Martin/ Bröcker, Maria/ Schneider, Anne, Rechtschutz in der internationalen Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen – Defizite und Reformbedarf, JuristenZeitung 2021, S. 81 – 87
Conflicts of jurisdiction
From late 2010 to mid-2014, Prof. Dr. Böse led a DFG-funded project at the chair on the prevention and resolution of conflicts between national criminal jurisdictions in the European Union. The project examines how conflicts between national criminal authorities in the European Union can be avoided or resolved by harmonizing criminal law enforcement. The aim is to develop a procedural mechanism that efficiently coordinates cross-border criminal proceedings.
Prevention and resolution of conflicts between national criminal justice authorities in the European Union
From late 2010 to mid-2014, Prof. Dr. Böse conducted a DFG-funded project at the chair on the prevention and resolution of conflicts between national criminal justice authorities in the European Union.
Press release dated December 9, 2014
In today's globalized world, criminal offenses with cross-border implications are no longer limited to organized crime, but have become a widespread phenomenon due to the increasing mobility of society and the growing importance of the Internet. Individual citizens are thus confronted with the criminal law of several states, according to which the same behavior may be considered punishable in some cases and not punishable in others due to differing criminal policy assessments, and are consequently exposed to the risk of being prosecuted in several states at the same time. In the European Union as an “area of freedom, security, and justice without internal borders” (Article 3 of the Treaty on European Union), the current legal situation is particularly precarious, especially since the new instruments of criminal law cooperation (European arrest warrant) have expanded the scope for exercising national criminal jurisdiction. At the same time, however, as a community based on shared values and laws, the Union also provides a legal framework for the mutual restriction of national criminal jurisdiction on the basis of mutual trust. The planned study will therefore examine whether conflicts between national criminal jurisdictions can be avoided or resolved in advance of criminal proceedings by limiting the criminal jurisdiction of member states through harmonization of criminal law enforcement. In a second step, a procedural mechanism for coordinating national criminal proceedings will be developed on this basis.
Böse, Martin/Meyer, Frank
Die Beschränkung nationaler Strafgewalten als Möglichkeit zur Vermeidung von Jurisdiktionskonflikten in der Europäischen Union
Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 2011, S. 336-344
Böse, Martin
Choice of Forum and Jurisdiction
in: Luchtman, Michiel (Hrsg.), Choice of Forum in Cooperation Against EU Financial Crime
Den Haag 2013, S. 73-87
Böse, Martin
Ausnahmen vom grenzüberschreitenden "ne bis in idem"? - Zur Fortgeltung der Vorbehalte nach Art. 55 SDÜ
in: Esser, Robert/Günther, Hans-Ludwig/Jäger, Christian/Mylonopoulos, Christos/Öztürk, Bahri (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Hans-Heiner Kühne zum 70. Geburtstag
Heidelberg 2013, S. 519-529
Böse, Martin
Die Ermittlung der "besten" Strafgewalt im Spannungsfeld von Strafanwendungsrecht und internationaler Zuständigkeit
in: Zöller, Mark A./Hilger, Hans/Küper, Wilfried/Roxin, Claus (Hrsg.), Gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft in internationaler Dimension, Festschrift für Jürgen Wolter zum 70. Geburtstag
Berlin 2013, S. 1311-1328
Schneider, Anne
Der transnationale Geltungsbereich des deutschen Verbandsstrafrechts - de lege lata und de lege ferenda
Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik (ZIS) 2013, 488-499
Schneider, Anne
Corporate Criminal Liability and Conflicts of Jurisdiction
in: Brodowski, Dominik/Espinoza de los Monteros de la Parra, Manuel/Tiedemann, Klaus/Vogel, Joachim (eds.): Regulating Corporate Criminal Liability
Cham 2014, S. 249-260
Böse, Martin/Meyer, Frank/Schneider, Anne
Die Regulierung strafrechtlicher Jurisdiktionskonflikte in der europäischen Union - ein Modellentwurf
GA 2014, 572-587
Schneider, Anne
Grenzen des Geltungsbereichs von Strafrecht
in: Asholt, Martin/Beck, Susanne/Basak, Denis/Kuhli, Milan/Nestler, Nina/Reiß, Marc/Ziemann, Sascha (Hrsg.), Grundlagen und Grenzen des Strafens
Baden-Baden 2015
Böse, Martin/Meyer, Frank/Schneider, Anne (Hrsg.)
Conflicts of Jurisdictions in criminal matters in the European Union
Volume I: National Reports and Comparative Analysis
Baden-Baden 2013 – 466 Seiten
(besprochen von Bantekas, Criminal Law Forum 2014, 569; Waßmer, Archiv für Kriminologie 234 (2014), 69)
Böse, Martin/Meyer, Frank/Schneider, Anne
Conflicts of Jurisdictions in criminal matters in the European Union
Volume II: Rights, Principles and Model Rules
Baden-Baden 2014 – 473 Seiten