Issuu

Directora

Elena Martínez García

ALTA CALIDAD EN INVESTIGACIÓN JURÍDICA

ELENA MARTÍNEZ GARCÍA Directora

RAQUEL BORGES BLÁZQUEZ ELISA SIMÓ SOLER MARÍA DOLORES HERNÁNDEZ RUEDA Coordinadoras

THE CONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE THROUGH JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN MATTERS OF PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

The world's multipolar geopolitical configuration, the crisis of the economic system, the presence of neoconservative approaches in parliaments or the crisis of refugees are some of the factors that have defined a new stage in the history of the European Union. This scenario is combined with the inherent diversity of the European Union, a set of sovereign cultural, legal and sociological identities and realities. Thus, in this context the Directive 2011/99/EU on the Europeanprotection order arises with the aim of Creating Europe through Equality, Freedom and Judicial Cooperation civil and criminal. Judicial cooperation between European States shows us the limits of the European Union. Not only the European legislator finds these limits, but also national judges. Different legal systems complicate mutual recognition and without mutual recognition the Space of Freedom, Security and Justice cannot guarantee the security of its citizens. Moreover, we cannot speak of real Justice if victims do not have freedom to move around the European Union. Gender violence victims find another problem: the non-existence of a gender concept in the European Union. Taking all these facts into account, we firmly believe that we must continue creating a real European Union in order to fight against violence. Within this work we study the Directive 2011/99/EU on the European Protection Order contextualized with the surprising data that the European Union has about gender equality.

monografías

THE CONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE THROUGH JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN MATTERS OF PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO DE LA EDITORIAL TIRANT LO BLANCH María José Añón Roig

Catedrática de Filosofía del Derecho de la Universidad de Valencia

Ana Cañizares Laso

Catedrática de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Málaga

Jorge A. Cerdio Herrán

Catedrático de Teoría y Filosofía de Derecho. Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México

José Ramón Cossío Díaz

Ministro en retiro de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación y miembro de El Colegio Nacional

Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot

Presidente de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Investigador del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM

Owen Fiss

Catedrático emérito de Teoría del Derecho de la Universidad de Yale (EEUU)

José Antonio García-Cruces González

Catedrático de Derecho Mercantil de la UNED

Luis López Guerra

Catedrático de Derecho Constitucional de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Ángel M. López y López

Catedrático de Derecho Civil de la Universidad de Sevilla

Marta Lorente Sariñena

Catedrática de Historia del Derecho de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Javier de Lucas Martín

Catedrático de Filosofía del Derecho y Filosofía Política de la Universidad de Valencia

Víctor Moreno Catena

Catedrático de Derecho Procesal de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Francisco Muñoz Conde

Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad Pablo de Olavide de Sevilla

Angelika Nussberger

Jueza del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Catedrática de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad de Colonia (Alemania)

Héctor Olasolo Alonso

Catedrático de Derecho Internacional de la Universidad del Rosario (Colombia) y Presidente del Instituto Ibero-Americano de La Haya (Holanda)

Luciano Parejo Alfonso

Catedrático de Derecho Administrativo de la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

Tomás Sala Franco

Catedrático de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social de la Universidad de Valencia

Ignacio Sancho Gargallo

Magistrado de la Sala Primera (Civil) del Tribunal Supremo de España

Tomás S. Vives Antón

Catedrático de Derecho Penal de la Universidad de Valencia

Ruth Zimmerling

Catedrática de Ciencia Política de la Universidad de Mainz (Alemania)

Procedimiento de selección de originales, ver página web: www.tirant.net/index.php/editorial/procedimiento-de-seleccion-de-originales

THE CONSTRUCTION OF EUROPE THROUGH JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN MATTERS OF PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

ELENA MARTÍNEZ GARCÍA Directora

RAQUEL BORGES BLÁZQUEZ ELISA SIMÓ SOLER MARÍA DOLORES HERNÁNDEZ RUEDA Coordinadoras

Mª DOLORES HERNÁNDEZ RUEDA JAVIER HERNÁNDEZ GARCÍA ALFONSO PERALTA GUTIÉRREZ ANA CRISTINA SANZ ÁLVAREZ Mª JOSÉ JORDÁN DÍAZ-RONCERO KATIXA ETXEBARRIA ESTANKONA SONIA RODRÍGUEZ LLAMAS MIGUEL LORENTE ACOSTA

tirant lo blanch Valencia, 2019

Copyright ® 2019 Todos los derechos reservados. Ni la totalidad ni parte de este libro puede reproducirse o transmitirse por ningún procedimiento electrónico o mecánico, incluyendo fotocopia, grabación magnética, o cualquier almacenamiento de información y sistema de recuperación sin permiso escrito de los autores y del editor. En caso de erratas y actualizaciones, la Editorial Tirant lo Blanch publicará la pertinente corrección en la página web www.tirant.com. R+D Project: DER 2015-70568-R “La construcción de Europa a través de la cooperación judicial en el marco de la protección de víctimas de violencia de género” (The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation within the Framework of the Protection of Victims of Gender-Based Violence). Project PROMETEO 2018/111 “Claves de la justicia civil y penal en la sociedad del miedo: feminización, inteligencia artificial, supranacionalidad, eficiencia y securitization” (Keys of Civil and Criminal Justice in the Society of Fear: Feminisation, Artificial Intelligence, Supranationality, Efficiency and Securitisation) Collaboration Agreement dated 16th of July 2018 between the Regional Government of Valencia (through the Regional Ministry of Justice, Public Administration, Democratic Reforms and Public Liberties) and Universitat de València, for the development of research work and/or studies about violence against women from a legal standpoint.

© TIRANT LO BLANCH EDITA: TIRANT LO BLANCH C/ Artes Gráficas, 14 - 46010 - Valencia TELFS.: 96/361 00 48 - 50 FAX: 96/369 41 51 Email:tlb@tirant.com www.tirant.com Librería virtual: www.tirant.es ISBN: 978-84-1336-339-4 MAQUETA: Tink Factoría de Color Si tiene alguna queja o sugerencia, envíenos un mail a: atencioncliente@tirant.com. En caso de no ser atendida su sugerencia, por favor, lea en www.tirant.net/index.php/empresa/politicas-de-empresa nuestro procedimiento de quejas. Responsabilidad Social Corporativa: http://www.tirant.net/Docs/RSCTirant.pdf

Index The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protection of Victims of Gender-Based Violence........................................ 13 Elena Martínez García

PART I A PRACTICAL OVERVIEW ON THE APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER IN SPAIN Chapter I CHALLENGES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER Mª Dolores Hernández Rueda

I. Introduction................................................................................... 27 II. Implementation of the European Protection Order in Spain........... 28 1. Rules of procedure.................................................................... 28 2. Object....................................................................................... 29 3. Subjects..................................................................................... 30 III. Issuance of a Protection Order in Spain......................................... 31 IV. Reception in Spain of a Restraining Order..................................... 32 V. Questions regarding the European Protection Order...................... 34 1. Can an EPO be agreed ex officio?............................................. 34 2. Can an EPO be requested at the magistrate’s court on duty?....... 35 3. Does the protected person necessarily have to be a woman and the person causing danger a man?............................................. 35 4. What happens when the protected person and the person causing danger, whether under investigation or already sentenced, move to another EU State?........................................................ 35 5. Can civil measures be agreed upon for their enforcement in the State to which the EPO victim is moving to within the criminal proceeding?............................................................................... 36 6. Who has the competence in Spain to enforce EPOs issued by an authority or Judge from another Member State?....................... 36 7. Is a Court of First Instance competent to adopt a restraining order decreed in another Member State of the EU?................... 38 8. When can a Court of First Instance Judge issue the Regulation 606/2013 Certificate?................................................................ 38

Index

Chapter II REMARKS ON DIRECTIVE 2011/99/EU, ON THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER Javier Hernández García

I. On the (in)efficacy of the scheme................................................... 41 1. Lack of or insufficient information............................................ 42 2. Request submitted by the parties............................................... 42 3. Lack of a common substantive framework................................ 44 4. Fragmentation of the protection instruments............................. 45 II. Main features of the scheme.......................................................... 47 1. Facilitation................................................................................ 47 2. Limited protective measures...................................................... 47 3. Flexibilisation of the enforcement conditions............................ 47 4. Direct communication............................................................... 48 5. Open regulatory categories........................................................ 49 6. Comprehensive grounds for non-recognition............................. 49 II. Enactment of Spanish Act 23/2014 [Ley 23/2014] for the implementation of the Directive: special remarks on the grounds for non-recognition............................................................................. 51 1. Mandatory nature..................................................................... 51 2. Completeness............................................................................ 52 3. Limitation period...................................................................... 53 4. Pardon...................................................................................... 53 5. Ne bis in idem........................................................................... 54 6. Immunity.................................................................................. 56 7. Double criminality.................................................................... 57 Chapter III PRACTICAL WORKSHOP FOR ISSUING THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER Alfonso Peralta Gutiérrez

I. Precautions during its processing................................................... 59 1. Procedural options.................................................................... 59 2. Fears, complexes, positive predisposition and involvement........ 60 3. Criminal records....................................................................... 61 4. Statements by the parties and witnesses..................................... 62 5. Procedure difficulties in mixed courts........................................ 65 II. Issuing, sending, receiving and executing a European Protection Order............................................................................................. 66 1. Issuing a European Protection Order......................................... 66 2. Referral and sending an EPO.................................................... 70 3. Recognition and executing the EPO.......................................... 70

Index

Chapter IV THE POTENTIAL CLASH BETWEEN DIRECTIVE 2011/99/EU AND OTHER MUTUAL RECOGNITION INSTRUMENTS Raquel Borges Blázquez

I. Mutual recognition instruments that may clash with the Directive 2011/99/EU................................................................................... 73 II. Regulation (EU) 606/2013............................................................. 75 III. The Framework Decisions on probation and on alternatives to provisional detention..................................................................... 77 1. Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA......................................... 79 2. Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA......................................... 80 3. Competence.............................................................................. 80 IV. Reflections..................................................................................... 81

Chapter V BUILDING EUROPE THROUGH JUDICIAL COOPERATION REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE: THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION. THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE Ana Cristina Sanz Álvarez

I. Introduction................................................................................... 85 II. Relevant scope of application........................................................ 86 1. Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA......................................... 86 2. Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA......................................... 88 3. Directive 2011/99/EU................................................................ 89 III. Territorial scope of application...................................................... 90 IV. Issuing requirements...................................................................... 91 V. Conclusions................................................................................... 94 Chapter VI LEGAL AID FOR EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER PROCEDURES PROCESSED IN SPAIN Mª José Jordán Díaz-Roncero

I. Legal aid for European Protection Order procedures..................... 95 1. Legal aid for the victim within the European Protection Order. 95 2. Legal aid for the alleged aggressor in the European Protection Order........................................................................................ 96 II. Right to free legal aid in the issuance and execution of a European Protection Order............................................................................ 96 2. Right to free legal aid of the person under investigation-accused in the issuing and executing procedure of a European Protection Order................................................................................. 102

Index

PART II MAP OF THE PROTECTION MEASURES WITHIN THE EUROPEAN UNION Chapter VII REGULATION (EU) 606/2013 ON MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF PROTECTION MEASURES IN CIVIL MATTERS. SPAIN AS A CERTIFICATE-ISSUING STATE? Katixa Etxebarria Estankona

I. The cross-border protection of victims of gender-based violence across the European Union............................................................ 107 1. Regulation 606/2013 as a supplement to the Directive on the European Protection Order....................................................... 107 2. Why are there two different instruments for a same purpose?..... 110 II. Essential aspects of Regulation (EC) 606/2013.............................. 113 1. Object....................................................................................... 113 2. Scope of application.................................................................. 115 3. Certificates as a document enabling the automatic recognition of measures............................................................................... 118 4. Recognition and enforcement in the Member State addressed..... 122 III. The situation in Spain.................................................................... 123 1. Spain: State receiving civil certificates and issuing EPOs............ 123 2. Can Spain be a civil-certificate issuing State?............................. 125 3. Procedure applicable and authorities competent for the issuance and recognition of measures.............................................. 129 4. A practical experience of recognition and enforcement of a civil certificate in Spain..................................................................... 132 IV. By way of conclusion..................................................................... 134 Chapter VIII PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN SPAIN OF REGULATION (EU) NO. 606/2013 OF 12 JUNE ON MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF PROTECTION MEASURES IN CIVIL MATTERS Sonia RodrÃguez Llamas

I. Executing gender-based violence civil matters from other Member States in Spain................................................................................ 137 II. Analysis of the factual assumption................................................. 139 III. Inhibition due to lack of objective jurisdiction on the matter......... 140 IV. Executing protection measures in civil matters by the Spanish legal system............................................................................................ 142

Index

PART III RISK ASSESSMENT Chapter IX GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE RISK ASSESSMENT AS AN INSTRUMENT TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EUROPEAN PROTECTION ORDER Miguel Lorente Acosta

I. “Violence” in the European Union................................................. 147 II. Interpersonal violence and gender-based violence: differential characteristics................................................................................ 149 III. Gender-based violence in theEuropean Union................................ 152 IV. The European Protection Order: limitations in the cases of gender-based violence and the need to assess risk................................ 153 Chapter X EMANCIPATORY RIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE Elisa Simó Soler

I. What is the reality of gender-based violence in the European Union?................................................................................................ 159 II. Providing women an instrument for protection, what would this mean?............................................................................................ 163 III. Is criminal law a factor for social awareness?................................ 165

The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protection of Victims of Gender-Based Violence ELENA MARTÍNEZ GARCÍA Professor of Procedural Law Universitat de València

This work has been conducted under the framework of the R+D Project “DER 2015-70568”, titled “The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protection of Victims of Gender-Based Violence” (La construcción de Europa a través de la cooperación judicial penal en el marco de la protección de víctimas de violencia de género), which was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Sciences and Universities. The title of the project and of this book aims to respond to the ideas that drive this research study — the progressive construction of Europe through judicial cooperation on a specific matter such as the protection of the victims of gender-based violence that exercise their fundamental right to move across Europe within a framework of safety and protection. This is the purpose that led to the enactment of Directive 2011/99/EU on the European Protection Order and Regulation (EU) no. 606/2013 on Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters. The process followed until this directive was finally enacted has not been an easy one, especially due to several factors. Firstly, it is self-evident that the European Union is not a strong community of countries, but a union that is sustaining a clear backward movement, as exemplified by Brexit or the rise of populist political movements and parties almost in all the countries of the EU. Secondly, it is easy to understand that the Member States find it difficult to implement and integrate the European policies that favour equality and deal with gender-based violence. And thirdly, the processing of this directive in the European institutions has seen many complications, with clashes amongst countries and also between the European Parliament and the European Commission.

Elena Martínez García

Since 2004, major decisions have been taken in the EU, creating a culture and the set of laws and regulations that laid the foundations to combat gender-based violence. Instead of harmonising the legal systems, several programmes, as well as framework decisions and directives have been created to establish the basis for a (remotely) future harmonisation. For instance, Decision no. 803/2004/EC of the European Council, adopting a programme of Community action (the DAPHNE II programme) to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk; Decision 779/2007/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, approving the DAPHNE III Programme; the decisive Istanbul Convention of 11 of May 2011; Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, establishing minimum standards on the rights, the support to and the protection of victims of crime; and Directive 2011/99/EU on the European Protection Order and Regulation (EU) 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters. At the same time, the Council of Europe approved the Istanbul Convention, a basic instrument that, in comparison to the documents mentioned above, intends to accomplish its goals by more straightforward measures1. Within this framework, the Stockholm Programme2 establishes lines of action for the development of these contents within the area of freedom, security and justice. To comply with this obligation and upon the initiative submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 13 of December, on the European Protection Order, was adopted3. Today, as of this writing, it can be said that Spain has met the deadline established for the implementation of

Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Istanbul, 11.V.2011, adopted by Spain on the 1st of August 2014. “The Stockholm Programme. An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens” (2010/C 115/01) OJEU C 115, of 4.5.2010), adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009. Official Journal of the European Union, L 315, 14 November 2012.

The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protectionâ€Ś

the Directive (11th of January 2015) by the approval of the Spanish Act 23/2014 [Ley 23/2014] of 20th of November on the mutual recognition of sentences and criminal decisions in the European Union (published in the Official Gazette of the Spanish State (BOE) dated 21st of November). As set out above, Regulation (EU) 606/2013 on civil measures for the protection of victims was also adopted. Even though its contents are almost identical to the Directive, this regulation deals with civil matters only4. The new legislative situation created by the adoption of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union must be briefly described as well, since this instrument established the principle of mutual recognition of criminal sentences and court decisions and of those resulting from their enforcement across the EU. In particular, Art. 82.2 of the TFEU establishes that, through directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, which shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions and systems of the Member States, minimum rules can be established in criminal proceedings regarding the mutual admissibility of evidence, the rights of the individuals in criminal procedure, the rights of victims of crime and other specific elements of criminal procedure. The Treaty of Lisbon introduced a novel provision that is closely linked to the subject matter of this study â€“ a quarter of the Member States now have the capacity to forward a judicial and police cooperation initiative in criminal matters (Art. 76 of TFEU). Up to that date, however, this power was exclusively vested in the Commission. This means that the ordinary procedure allows both to establish rules in terms of judicial cooperation and to establish minimum rules on the rights of the victims, the definition of the criminal offenses and the potential penalties, provided that they have cross-border implications (Arts. 82.1.d), 82.2.c) and 83 of the TFEU). These provisions reflect the willingness to go beyond the general judicial cooperation in criminal matters. For this purpose, some steps have been put forward, to be used as an experimental model to combat violence against women. The 21st century will be the time to create Europe through the Victims and, after the macro-survey carried out by the

Official Journal of the European Union, L 181,4, 29 June 2013.

Elena Martínez García

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights5, this century may be also the time to create the Europe of Equality and of Gender, because, insofar as both elements are protected, a contribution will be made to protect victims and to prevent individuals from becoming victims. There is no doubt that the gaps in the primary law have not facilitated the promotion of gender equality and, accordingly, the fight against sexist violence. Indeed, these gaps were the main focus during the processing of the Directive that is the subject matter of this work, which finally gave rise to the adoption not only of the Directive, but also of the Regulation of protection measures in civil matters. The lack of the power to enact laws on these matters is another symptom that proves that the European Union’s legislative bodies were oblivious to the protection of women, in clear contrast with the interest that is currently seen in the national and European agendas6. As MARTÍN MARTÍNEZ has perfectly put it, the lack of a legal basis is not an obstacle for the enactment of legal instruments on this matter, since the unforeseeability clause (Art. 353 of the TFEU) provides that those actions that are not foreseen in the Treaty (combating gender-based violence) can be taken in the case that they prove necessary to attain the objectives established in the Treaty (the creation of area of freedom, security and justice to ensure the free movement of persons and the equality between men and women)7. Thus, the judicial cooperation in criminal matters through these legal instruments is presented and

http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2014-vaw-survey-factsheet_es.pdf LOMBARDO, E., “La igualdad de género en el Tratado Constitucional de la Unión Europea”, Revista de Pensament i Análisi, no. 6 (2006), p. 121 et seq. 7 MARTÍN MARTÍNEZ, M., “Protección a las víctimas…” pp. 430-432. Martín Martínez considers that, in practice, the interest in and the protection of gender-based violence has been linked with other policies (public health, area of freedom, security and justice) and with the principles that govern the competences shared by the European Union and the States, i.e., subsidiarity and proportionality. An example of this connection is the link between the regulation of gender-based violence and the Victims’ Statutes issued in 2001 (the preliminary ruling, by M. Gueye y V. Salmerón, dated 12 of May 2011, As. C-483/09 y C-1/10, conclusions of the Lawyer General J. Kokott. Ratified in the judgment dated 15.11.2011 by the Fourth Chamber. 5 6

The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protection…

announced as a preliminary step towards the potential creation (in the long term) of a European criminal and procedural legal system8. In our opinion, the European Protection Order (EPO) was a sort of experimental measure intended to re-balance the powers between, on the one hand, the Commission and, on the other hand, the partnership between the Parliament and the Council, as established after the Treaty of Lisbon (as set above), putting an end to the legislative monopoly that the Commission had had until then in terms of judicial criminal cooperation. From this moment onwards, where a quarter of the Member States lead a legislative initiative, this initiative can be developed and implemented. This new functioning methodology seems to have the European Protection Order as its starting point. This is the only explanation that helps us understand the “botched” job that resulted in a double regulation for civil and criminal matters that may be perfectly covered by the European Protection Order, regardless of the fact that, according to the legal tradition of some Member States, these issues are dealt with by civil courts in some countries. In my opinion, however, this aspect is not decisive for the judicial cooperation instrument and, therefore, this type of cases may be included as cases of civil nature linked to a potential crime that would be dealt with through a criminal proceeding. On the contrary, the regulation implemented led to the perception that the protection of gender-based violence (or of victims in general) are minor issues (civil cases). The recent Directive 2012/29/EU, however, seems to be very clear on this regulation, even though this directive was an initiative of the Commission. Therefore, the difference between civil and criminal cooperation established in the Treaty of Lisbon is somehow elaborate. As a result, as MARTÍN MARTÍNEZ has anticipated, the EPO will likely give rise to flood of preliminary rulings. Furthermore, the development of this civil instrument is to some extent weird, considering that the Directive on victims is especially of criminal nature and includes a specific focus on gender-based victims. The nature of the (fundamental) rights behind the legal rights that are

ARROYO ZAPATERO/NIETO MARTÍN/MUÑOZ MORALES, El derecho penal de la Unión Europea. Situación actual y perspectivas de futuro, Universidad Castilla La Mancha, 2007.

Elena Martínez García

the subject matter of the restrictions provided for by these instruments and the (fundamental) rights that intend to be protected by such restrictions (such as the physical and moral integrity and the freedom of movement) seem to be another clear reason for the development of this regulation. Finally, it is self-evident that, because the protection of women could not be the common topic of this confrontation between institutions, the regulation focused on victims in general. All these circumstances resulted in conceptual errors linked to the lack of “public interest” in these topics of gender-based inequality. For instance, gender protection (women) has been associated with family and that is why civil protection measures have been developed to combat gender-based violence. In Spain, where this dilemma has been overcome, the Spanish Criminal Code protects the fundamental rights of women, whereas the Civil Code protects family. On the contrary, in most European countries, this reality is protected by Family Courts of civil nature9. It must be also mentioned that Ireland and Denmark, in accordance with the opt-out and opt-in clauses of Protocols 21 and 22 attached to the TEU and TFEU, have remained outside of the implementation of the EPO. Finally, after the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, new interpretation efforts must be made regarding this mutual recognition instrument in criminal matters, to be soon named international (instead of European) judicial cooperation. Paradoxically, several protection orders have been issued with the United Kingdom. In fact, to continue to protect the victims, the European Union will have to approve a bilateral agreement on judicial cooperation and on police cooperation in criminal matters (Art. 24 and 38 of the TEU). Throughout this process, a jurisdictional obligation has been progressively confirmed to the States in terms of women’s protection. In order to briefly explain the reasons why the States have the obligation to protect the female victims of sexist violence or gender-based violence, the rationale of the protection must be specified. Both from

ROMAN, L., La protección jurisdiccional de las víctimas desde la perspectiva constitucional, Tesis inédita defendida en la Universitat Rovira y Virgili, 2016, pp. 33 and 39-45. See also the EPOGENDER Proyect https://e-justice.europa. eu/content_mutual_recognition_of_protection_measures-358-en.do, also by this author.

The Construction of Europe through Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Protection…

the perspective of the European and of the national (and international) law, this fundamental right is undergoing a change of paradigm: a State has specific obligations in connection with the principle of Equality and prohibition of discrimination and, therefore, States are subject to the duty of due diligence10both regarding their actions and omissions for the protection of the individual rights of their citizens and for the development and assurance of their social rights. This reason is basic to understand the justification and necessity of this instrument in connection with the European Victim Protection Order. It must be noted that, even though the classical liberal rights recognised the States’ negative obligations or the States’ omission of citizens’ rights, the modern constitutional law has introduced positive actions and rights that States must guarantee as a part of the citizens’ fundamental rights. Both views are currently applied not only to the actions carried out by States, but also to the actions of citizens (in the latter case, for a State’s failure to have taken the necessary measures to avoid the injuries caused). Subject to this, a State can be found liable for the failure to protect a victim against its own actions or against the actions carried out by another individual. This is the so-called obligation of due diligence for the actions or omissions that resulted in the death or the serious injury of a victim11. Importantly, this due diligence is also applicable to the State in connection with the obligations of prevention, detection and eradication of the discrimination against women12. This obligation is specifically mentioned in Article 5 of the Istanbul Convention “State Obligations and Due Diligence”13. 10

MARTINEZ GARCÍA, E., “Deberes del Estado en la protección de los derechos de las víctimas de violencia de género y la garantía de acceso a la justicia”, Teoría y Derecho, (press) LOZANO CONTRERAS, J.F., La noción de diligencia debida en derecho internacional, op.cit., p. 231 et. seq. For due diligence in matters of violence against women, see the Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yaskin Ertürk, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A_HRC_23_49_English.pdf. See the Judgment of the ECHR in the case Opuz vs Turkey dated 9 of June 2009 and the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case González and Others (“Campo Algodonero”) vs Mexico dated 15 of November 2009. According to the judgment “Campo Algodonero” dated 16 April 2009, passed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a State is responsible for the

Elena Martínez García

Considering the above, it must be recognised that the States’ due diligence has two dimensions: a systemic and an individual dimension14. Therefore, the measures that States must establish should aim to subvert the pre-existent patterns of structural subordination, the gender-based hierarchies, the systemic marginalisation and the structural inequalities, which comprise the roots of the violence suffered by women. The failure to do this means to fail to comply with the States’ obligation to remove the obstacles that comprise discrimination and make it deeper: States are responsible for their failure to change a systemic model that adversely affects women and creates inequalities. In turn, regarding the individual dimension of the States’ responsibility, specific obligations must be put in place in order to provide victims of violence with efficacious protection, sanction and redress measures with a high degree of adaptation and flexibility15. Based on this, in the case that a woman is a victim of violence because she has not been protected by the State’s due diligence, the State must be penalised. In fact, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (DEDAW), as well as the Istanbul Convention, provide for a catalogue of obligations that include the protection of gender-based violence, topics for public actions carried out by individuals, since the State acts as a guarantor of the relationship between the individuals, considering that there is some “tolerance” of unlawful, abusive actions performed by individuals, based on the doctrine of foreseeable, avoidable risk. This does not mean that a State should be deemed responsible for any violation committed by individuals, but a State has the obligation to adopt preventive, protection measures for any cases of actual, immediate risks to an individual or group of individuals, as the avoidance of such risk is reasonable. For women, there is a systematic pattern of patriarchal discrimination against them and, therefore, a State must act as a guarantor of women and ensure individual protection in such a specific case. A State, therefore, cannot claim the impossibility to prevent a risk in the case that it has not taken the appropriate measures to guarantee the security of its women, both in a broad and strict sense. Similar judgments have been delivered by the European Court of Human Rights. Cases including Opuz vs Turkey (2 June 2009), Rumor vs Italy (27 May 2014). 14 ROMAN, L., “La protección jurisdiccional de las víctimas desde la perspectiva constitucional”, unpublished thesis presented at Universitat Rovira y Virgili, 2016, p. 33 and 39-45. 15 ROMAN, op.cit., p. 33.