1 / 15

VIDEOCONFERENCE IN NATIONAL LAW AND EU REGULATIONS

doc . dr . sc . Aleksandra Maganić , Pravni fakultet Zagreb. VIDEOCONFERENCE IN NATIONAL LAW AND EU REGULATIONS. 1. INTRODUCTION. BENEFITS speed easier access to other courts availability of witnesses who are located in other Member States savings effectiveness of procedure.

clayton-browning
Download Presentation

VIDEOCONFERENCE IN NATIONAL LAW AND EU REGULATIONS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. doc. dr. sc. Aleksandra Maganić, Pravni fakultet Zagreb VIDEOCONFERENCE IN NATIONAL LAW AND EU REGULATIONS

  2. 1. INTRODUCTION • BENEFITS • speed • easier access to other courts • availability of witnesses who are located in other Member States • savings • effectiveness of procedure • DISADVANTAGES • the high cost of equipment • training • technical problems • problems in identification

  3. 2. NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK • National legislation show very large differences: • 1. Countrieswhere is no legal framework for the implementation of videoconferencing • 2. Countrieswherethe legal framework exists but there is no technical equipment • 3. Countries where the use of video links is very good accepted

  4. The Relationship between the Hague Convention and Regulation: • Regulation explicitly provides for the application of videoconferencing (Art. 10/4) • Hague Convention regulates only that • it will follow a request of the requesting authority that a special method or procedurebe followed, unless this is incompatible with the internal law of the State of execution • or is impossible of performance by reason of its internal practice and procedure or by reason of practical difficulties. • (Art. 9/2) Regulation shall in relation to matters to which it applies, prevail over other provisions contained in bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements concluded by the Member States (Art. 21/1).

  5. Are the national provisions on the videoconference necessary or not? • Inprinciplevideoconferencing is prescribed in the rules of civil procedure • WHY IST THAT IMPORTANT? • In terms of Regulation, the courts of the Member States can be REQUESTING COURT and REQUESTED COURT • As the requesting court – may ask the requested court to use communication technology at the performance of the takingof evidence (videoconference and teleconference) – Art. 10/4 • The requesting court may call for the request to be executed in accordance with a special procedure provided for by law of its Member State – Art. 10/3

  6. The requested court shall execute the request in accordance with the law of its Member State (Art. 1/11, 10/2). • The requested court shall comply with such requirement unless; • this is incompatible with the law of the Member State, or • by reason of major practical difficulties • 1. Countries without legal framework for VCF • Does that mean that requested courts may refuse videoconference, if this issue is not regulated by their national law on the grounds that is incompatible with the law of the Member State of the requested court ? • In this case, only possibility to made available technical means are not sufficient

  7. 2. Countries that regulated VCF but tehnical equipment is not available • Possibility to made available technical means are not sufficient because the judges do not have practical knowledge of the VCF • The requested court may refuse to comply with the requirement for major practical difficulties • 3. Countries that regulated VCF and have experience in the application of VCF • The requested court shall execute the request in accordance with the lexfori.

  8. Other provision which prescribes encouraging the use of communication technology such as VCF is in connection with direct taking of evidence by the requesting court. • Where a court requests to take evidence directly in another Member State , it shall submit a request to the central body or competent authority. • Central body or the competent authority shall encourage the use of VCF (Art. 17/4) only if the direct taking of evidence is not contrary to fundamental principles of law in its Member State. • Difference – in this case is applied law of Member State which is requesting for direct taking of evidence • Can be only performed on a voluntary basis (without the coercivemeasures)

  9. 3. DOUBLE ROLE OF VCF • Videoconferencehasdouble role – meansofevidenceandmethodintakingofevidence • If the VCF used as evidence - will be evaluated video or audio recordings. • Isthis new meansofproof or not? • a) subjectofostensibleevidence(Austria, German in the initial period before the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure) b) electronicdocuments(private or public); which status haselectronicdocumentsineachMember State? c) what is the probative value of each of these means of evidence?

  10. 4. SOME COMPARATIVE MODELS • GERMANY • Art. 128.a/1 CCP 2001. • With the consent of the parties, the court mayallow the parties, their attorneys and assistants at their requestto be present at another location during a hearing, and there perform procedural acts. The hearing will besimultaneously transmit, audio and video, to the place where the parties, attorneys and assistants are andin the courtroom. • Problems: consentofthepartiesandtheirrequest • VCF trail • Art 128.a/1 CCP 2014. • The court may order the parties, their attorneys and assistants at their request or ex officio to be present at another location during a hearing, and there perform procedural acts. The hearing is at the same time audio and video transfer to this place and in themeeting room • New – court canorder VCF withoutconsentofthepartiesandex officio • VCF trail

  11. Art. 128.a/2 CCP 2001 • With the consent of the parties, the court mayorder to witness, expert orparty to be present at another location during a hearing. The hearing is at the same time audio and video transfer to this place and in themeeting room.If parties, their attorneys and assistantsofparties referred to in paragraph 1 , sentence 1are allowedto stay at a different location,the hearing willbetransferedto this place. • VCF takingofevidence • Art. 128.a/2 2014 • On requestthe court mayorder towitness,expert orparty to be present at another location during a hearing. The hearing is at the same time audio and video transfer to this place and in themeeting room.If parties, their attorneys and assistantsparties referred to in paragraph 1, sentence 1are allowedto stay at a different location,the hearingwillbetransferedto this place. • New – court mayorder VCF withoutconsentoftheparties • VCF takingofevidence

  12. 4.2. AUSTRIA • §§ 289.a-289.b CCP – special provision for victim of crimes and minors. • Court is able to limit the hearings topic or decide completely against the hearing if the underage persons well-being is endengered. • § 277. CCP • Videoconference conveys a better personal impression than a protocol of a questioning through mutual assistance procedures. • 2009. – 1 404 (cross border 130) • 2013. – 4 134 (cross border 632) • IT- Reservation system - system for booking rooms equipped with technical equipment for videoconference

  13. 4.4. CROATIA • TheCodeof Civil Procedure doesnotcontainspecific legal provisionfor thetakingofevidencebyvideoconference • As a meansofevidence – video recordings are subject to ostensibleevidence • ElectronicDocumentActprovidesthat the contents of electronic documents including all forms of written text, data, pictures and drawings, maps, sound, music, speech (Art. 4 No. 1) – are video recordingselectronicdocuments? • In this case, this meansofevidencehavegreater probative value thenthatofsubject to ostensibleevidence • As thetypeoftakingofevidence, videoconference is notpossiblein civil procedure • If a national court or judges have no experience with the use of videoconferencing technology-how they can apply demands of Regulation? • Videoconferencing is provided for explicitlyintheCodeofCriminal Procedure (Art. 87/1) • As provided in this Act, hearings,evidentiary action or other action is recorded withdevices for audio-video or audio recording. • This provision has a much wider range of the hearing of witnesses. • Judgesincriminal procedure haveexperienceinapllyingofvideoconference.

  14. 5. CONCLUSION • Member States of the European Union have a very different approach to the application of videoconferencing in civil proceedings. • Differences are reflected in the normative sense:1. whether is videoconferencing in principle prescribed in national law 2. the way inwhich is prescribed • In thepractical sense1. whether are available technical means or not 2. havejudges experience in the application of videoconferencing Therefore, differences in national systems can be an obstacle for the application of Regulation • There is no uniformly approach inthesense of probative valueofvideoconference or in relation to thelegal requirements

  15. The first step that needs to be done isregulation on videoconferencing in national law –applicationof VCF without common normative framework is notusual • VCF should not be linked with the consent of all participantsin the case - it's the brakes to its application • criminal proceedings generally has greater experience in the application of video-link from civil proceedings • experiences of criminal judges could be very valuable • insufficient and expensive technical equipment can be better utilized withrational use - selecting the date and place of the hearing in which it intends to apply • good national experiences are a precondition for the application of videoconferencing in Regulation

More Related