- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-38/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari (Italy) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino and Shpetim Hyka
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CN0038
62018CN0038
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
23.4.2018
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 142/25
(Case C-38/18)
(2018/C 142/34)
Language of the case: Italian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka
Question referred
Must Articles 16, 18 and 20(b) of Directive 2012/29/EU (1) be interpreted as precluding the victim of a crime from having to give evidence again before the court sitting in a new composition when one of the parties to the proceedings, in accordance with Articles 511(2) and 525(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (as consistently interpreted by the case-law of the Supreme Court of Cassation), does not consent to that court reading the written record of the oral evidence previously given by that victim, in accordance with the audi alteram partem rule, before a different bench in the same proceedings?
Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (OJ 2012 L 315, p. 57).
* * *