Οι ποινικοδικονομικές όψεις του άρθρου 19 παρ.3 του Συντάγματος : ζητήματα ερμηνείας κι εφαρμογής των αποδεικτικών απαγορεύσεων
Κύρια Υπευθυνότητα:
Καραγιάννη, Βασιλική
Επιβλέπων:
Τσόλκα, Όλγα Β.
Θέματα:
Αποδείξεις (Δίκαιο) -- Ελλάδα Πολιτική δικονομία -- Ελλάδα Evidence (Law) -- Greece Civil procedure -- Greece
Ημερομηνία Έκδοσης:
2011
Εκδότης:
Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο Κοινωνικών και Πολιτικών Επιστημών
Abstract:
The subject of this paper is: "Complexions of Article 19 para. 3 of the Constitution incriminal procedure. Issues on interpretation and application of evidentiary prohibitions". Thepaper deals with the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, as well as the function of article 19para. 3 of the Constitution during the criminal proceedings, given that this article constitutes thefundamental specific prohibition of evidence.The conflict between the interest of dispensation of justice and that of protection offundamental individual rights often leads to a reduction of the latter. In order that the search forgenuine truth attempted for the sake of justice administration does not result in infringement ofthose rights, a procedural institution of evidence prohibitions has been developed. According tothis institution, several restrictions on the acquisition and utilization of material have been put inthe overall evidence. These restrictions have resulted from deliberation of the conflictinginterests.The most conclusive statutory prohibition established by the Revision of theConstitution in 2001, is found in Article 19 para. 3 of the Constitution. This article prohibits theuse of evidence acquired in violation of private and family life, the right to informationownership and privacy of communications.The problem on this provision is found in its absolute literal version, which contains noreservation for illegal evidence used for the defense of the accused. The fact that the accusedis devoid of the opportunity to prove his innocence violates the principle of human dignity,therefore the provision is often judged by the theorists as reprehensible. Furthermore,according to the article, there is no margin for weighing the conflicting legitimate interests on abasis of the principle of proportionality.Years after the introduction of the constitutional provision, rules of substantive law (370A para.3 of Penal Code and 177 para. 2 of Penal Proceeding Code) are finally aligned with thisprovision, whereas theory and jurisprudence insist on the foundation of the decline ofprohibition pertaining to constitutionally superior legal interests, including advocacy ofinnocence of the accused. This reluctance demonstrates the accuracy problem of theconstitutional provision, particularly in view of its application as an absolute and hard rule thatwould lead to deadlocks.
Περιγραφή:
Διπλωματική εργασία - Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο. Γενικό Τμήμα Δικαίου, ΠΜΣ "Δίκαιο και Ευρωπαϊκή Ενοποίηση", κατεύθυνση Ποινικό Δίκαιο και Θεωρία του Δικαίου, 2011
