Диссертация (1154446), страница 100
Текст из файла (страница 100)
[Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:http://www.ifsa-forensics. org/#.624. Inter-institutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, theCouncil of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internalinvestigation by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) // Official Journal of the European Union. –1999. – Vol. L 136.625. Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding theEuropean Investigation Order in Criminal matters: - Answers to the questionnaire on interception oftelecommunications – DG H 2 B COPEN 205 EUROJUST 100 EJN 44 CODEC 975 14591/10.
–12.10.2010.626. Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, theKingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden fora Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Orderin criminal matters – Answers to the questionnaire related to issuing authorities in application of theinitiative for a Council Framework Decision on the European Investigation Order. – DGH 2 B COPEN170 EJN 32 EUROJUST 81 CODEC 754 13049/1/10 REV.
– 4.10.2010.627. Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Estonia, theKingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Slovenia and the Kingdom of Sweden fora Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Orderin criminal matters.
– 21 May 2010 – 9288/10.628. Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding theEuropean Investigation Order in criminal matters, Brussels. –29 April 2010. – 9145/10.629. Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding theEuropean Investigation Order in criminal matters, Text agreed as a general approach, 18228/1/11 REV1 COPEN 356 EUROJUST 212 EJN 181 CODED 2339.630. Initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, theKingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, theFrench Republic, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, Republic of Hungary, theKingdom of the Netherlands, Romania, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and theKingdom of Sweden for a Council Framework Decision 2009/…/JHA of … on transfer of proceedingsin criminal matters // Official Journal – 2009.
– C 219/7.631. Jeffreys A.J. et. al. Individual specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA, The Hague, 1985.632. JHA Trio Presidency Programme January 2010 – June 2011 (5008/10, 4/1/2010).[Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://db.eurocrim.org/db/en/vorgang/222/633. Joint Action 98/427/JHA 29.06.98 on good practices on MLA request.634. Joint Action on the Creation of a European Judicial Network // Official Journal of theEuropean Union.
– 1998. – Vol. L 191/4.635. 96/277/JHA: Joint Action of 22 April 1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of ArticleK. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, concerning a framework for the exchange of liaison magistrates360to improve judicial cooperation between the Member states of the European Union // Official Journalof the European Union. – 1996. – Vol. L 105/1.636. International Society for Forensic Standards. [Электронный ресурс].
– Режим доступа:www.forensicstandards. org/.637. INTERPOL's DNA Database. [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Forensics/DNA.638. INTERPOL’s Forensic Report on FARC Computers and Hardware seized by Colombia.May 2008. [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: www.interpol.int/News-andmedia/News/2008/PR017.639. Krahl M. Verdeckter Ermittler und V-Mann bei der Beweiserhebung undBeweisverwertung in der Hauptverhandlung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der §§ 52, 136, 136a/163a, 252 StPO. – Yannover, 2000. – 43 S.640. Kaunert C.
Without the Power of Pursue or Sword. – 2009. – Vol. 31. – № 1. – P.103-118.641. Kirby, S. and McPherson, I. 2004, ‘Integrating the National Intelligence Model with a'problem solving' approach’, Community Safety Journal, vol. 3, no. 2, February, pp.36‐46.642. Krey V. Kriminalitätsbekämpfung um jeden Preis? Zur kontinuierlichen Ausweitung desBereichs Verdeckter Ermittlungen // IRP-Rechtspolitisches Forum. 2003. – № 9. – S. 15.643. Labayle M., Nilsson H.G.
The Role and Organisation of Eurojust. Added Value for JudicialCooperation in Criminal Matters. The Institutional Dimension of the European Union’s Area ofFreedom, Security and Justice.644. Letsas G. Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. OxfordUniversity Press, 2009.645. Letsas G. The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR // EuropeanJournal of International Law. 2004. Vol.
15 (2).646. Lewis, D. Non-Governmental Organizations, Management and Development, 3rd Edition /D. Lewis. – London: Routledge, 2014. – 315 p.647. Lewis, P., Newburg, T., Taylor, M. and Ball, J. (2011) «Blame the Police: Why the RiotersSay They Took Part» The Guardian 5 December 2011: 1.648. Lisbon Treaty // Official Journal of EU 2007/C 306/01.
[Электронный ресурс]. – Режимдоступа: europa.eu/reform-treaty.649. The Lisbon Treaty's impact on the Justice and Home Affairs Council: More co-decision andnew working structures // General Secretariat of the Council of the EU. Press release. – Brussels, 2009.– P. 4.650. L’acquis de Schengen integre dans l’Union Europeen, Bruxelles, Conseil de l’UnionEuropeenne: Secretariat general. 1999. – P. 21-100.651.
MC (22). JOUR/2 4 December 2015 Annex 1. [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:http: www.osce.org/ru/cio/?download=true.652. McHarg A. Reconciling Human Rights and the Public Interest: Conceptual Problems andDoctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights Modern Law.Review. – 1999. – Vol. 62.653. Mahoney P. The Comparative Method in Judgment of the European Court of Human Right:Reference Back to National Law // Comparative Law Before the Courts / Edited by Canviet G. et al.BIICL, 2004.654. Monar, J. The Institutional Framework of the AFSI.
Specific Challenges and Dynamics ofChange. / The Institutional Dimension of the European Union’s Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.– Brugge: College of Europe, 2010. – 268 p.655. Martens P. Perplexity of the National Judge Faced with the Vagaries of EuropeanConsensus // Dialogues between Judges. – Council of Europe, 2008.656. Meyer-GoBner L. Strafprozessordnung, Gerichtsverfassungsgesets, Nebengesetze undergänzende Bestimmungen. 49. new bearbeitete Auflage. München. C.H.
Beck, 2006. 2 – S. 304361657. Memorandum of Understanding between Eurojust and CEPOL [Электронный ресурс]. –Режим доступа: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/feb/eu-cooperation-between-agencies-581610.pdf658. Memorandum of Understanding between Eurojust and UNODC [Электронный ресурс]. –Режим доступа:http://www.unodc.org/ropan/en/CARIBBEAN/memorandum-of-understandingbetween-unodc-and-impacs.html.659. Murray J. L.
Consensus: Concordance, or Hegemony of Majority // Dialogues betweenJudges. – Council of Europe, 2008.660. Nilsson H.G. Judicial cooperation in the EU: Eurojust and European Public Prosecutor /The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: Ten Years on.661. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007) The Forensic Use of Bio Information: Ethical Issues.NuffieldCouncilonBioethics:London[Online]Режимдоступа:htpp://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/The%20forensic%20use%20of%20bioinformation%20%20ethical%20issues.pdf.662. OLAF Manual – Operational Procedures (01.12.2009).
[Электронный ресурс]. – Режимдоступа: http://www ec.europa.eu/anti-fraud.663. Practical Agreement on arrangement of cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF(24.09.2008)[Электронныйресурс].–Режимдоступа:http:www.eurojust.europa.eu/jit_funding.htm.664. The Presidency Conclusions (doc no 7753/00).665. Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Memberstates of the European Union // Official Journal – 2001 – C 326/2.666. Explanatory Report on the Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in CriminalMatters between the Member states of the European Union // Official Journal of the European Union.– 2002. – Vol.
C 257/1.667. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing andconfiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union 2012/0036 (COD); Council FrameworkDecision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA,2005/214/JHA, the procedural rights of persons and fostering the application of the principle of mutualrecognition to decisions rendered in the absent of the person concerned at the trial // Official Journal ofthe European Union.
– 2009. – Vol. L 81. – P. 24-36.668. Putin W. Von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok // Süddeutsche Zeitung vom 25.11.2010.669. Police Journal, Great Britain. – 2010. – Vol. 85. – № 3.670. Posner E., Yoo J. Judicial Independence in International Tribunals // California LawReview. 2005. Vol. 93. № 1. – P. 1-74.671. Presidency Conclusions, Tampere European Council, 15/16 October 1999. Press / EuropeanParliament. – Brussels, 1999. – Nr: 200/1/99.672.
Proceedings of the 3rd European Academy of Forensic Science meeting, September 22-272003, Istanbul, Turkey // Forensic Science International. Special Issues. – 2003. – Vol. 136.Supplement. [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: www.journals.elsevier.com/forensic-scienceinternational/special-issues.673. Proposal for a Council Decision on the establishment of the European Criminal RecordsInformation System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2008/XX/JHA –Brussels, 27.5.2008. – COM (2008) 332 final.674.
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
