Comparative Defences In Eu States
✅ Comparative Defences in EU States
Definition
Comparative defences refer to the legal doctrines, arguments, or principles that defendants can use to reduce or avoid liability, especially when considering cross-national perspectives in criminal law. While each EU member state has its own criminal code, comparative analysis highlights how similar defences—like self-defense, necessity, duress, diminished capacity, or mistake of law/fact—are applied differently.
✅ 1. Self-Defence / Justification Defence
Principle
Defendants argue their actions were necessary to protect themselves or others.
Scope, proportionality, and threat assessment vary across EU states.
Case Examples
Case 1: Germany (2014)
Facts: Defendant used a knife to fend off a burglar.
Legal Issue: Proportionality in self-defence.
Court Reasoning: German courts allow defensive action if threat is immediate; knife use deemed excessive if threat could be neutralized otherwise.
Outcome: Partial acquittal; reduced sentence due to self-defence justification.
Case 2: Finland (2016)
Facts: Defendant struck an intruder with a blunt object.
Legal Issue: Proportionality and necessity.
Court Reasoning: Finnish courts consider threat to life or bodily integrity; defensive response proportionate to the risk.
Outcome: Acquittal, as action fell within legitimate self-defence.
Case 3: France (2018)
Facts: Homeowner shot at a trespasser causing serious injury.
Legal Issue: Self-defence under French Penal Code.
Court Reasoning: Proportionality test and immediate danger assessed; threat deemed sufficient.
Outcome: Conviction reduced; partial justification recognized.
Observation: Across EU states, proportionality and immediacy of threat are central to self-defence claims.
✅ 2. Necessity / Duress (Not Criminally Liable Due to Pressure)
Principle
Acts committed under imminent threat of serious harm can exonerate or mitigate liability.
Often invoked for property damage, theft, or minor assaults.
Case Examples
Case 4: Italy (2015)
Facts: Defendant stole medicine to save a child’s life.
Legal Issue: Necessity as justification for theft.
Court Reasoning: Italian courts allow necessity to prevent greater harm; theft was last resort.
Outcome: Full acquittal.
Case 5: Spain (2017)
Facts: Driver damaged property to escape violent threat.
Legal Issue: Necessity under Spanish Penal Code.
Court Reasoning: Courts require imminent threat, proportional response, and absence of alternatives.
Outcome: Reduced sentence due to necessity.
Case 6: Netherlands (2019)
Facts: Shoplifter claimed coercion by gang threat.
Legal Issue: Duress as defence.
Court Reasoning: Dutch courts weigh immediacy and severity of threat; gang coercion established.
Outcome: Conviction mitigated; short-term conditional sentence.
Observation: Necessity or duress is widely recognized but requires proportionality, immediacy, and absence of alternatives.
✅ 3. Insanity / Diminished Capacity
Principle
Mental disorder at the time of offence can reduce criminal responsibility.
Application differs: some states allow full acquittal, others partial mitigation.
Case Examples
Case 7: Germany (2016)
Facts: Defendant committed arson while experiencing psychotic episode.
Legal Issue: Insanity (Strafunfähigkeit).
Court Reasoning: Medical evaluation confirmed inability to comprehend action.
Outcome: Acquittal on criminal grounds; involuntary psychiatric treatment imposed.
Case 8: Sweden (2018)
Facts: Defendant committed assault during mental breakdown.
Legal Issue: Diminished capacity.
Court Reasoning: Swedish courts allow sentence mitigation if disorder impaired judgment.
Outcome: Reduced imprisonment term; psychiatric care mandated.
Case 9: Poland (2020)
Facts: Defendant killed in rage triggered by severe mental disorder.
Legal Issue: Mitigation under diminished capacity.
Court Reasoning: Criminal liability reduced but not eliminated.
Outcome: Conviction for manslaughter with reduced sentence.
Observation: EU states differentiate between full insanity (no liability) and diminished capacity (partial liability).
✅ 4. Mistake of Fact / Law
Principle
Mistake of fact: Defendant unaware of key circumstances negating mens rea.
Mistake of law: Limited acceptance across EU; generally ignorance of law is not excusable.
Case Examples
Case 10: Finland (2016)
Facts: Defendant bought antique gun unaware it required license.
Legal Issue: Mistake of law/fact.
Court Reasoning: Mistake of fact accepted; no intent to violate law.
Outcome: Day-fines; confiscation of weapon.
Case 11: France (2017)
Facts: Defendant claimed ignorance of new alcohol licensing rules.
Legal Issue: Mistake of law.
Court Reasoning: Courts rarely excuse ignorance; liability maintained.
Outcome: Fine imposed; no mitigation.
Case 12: Netherlands (2018)
Facts: Defendant unintentionally trespassed, believing land public.
Legal Issue: Mistake of fact.
Court Reasoning: Mistake negated criminal intent.
Outcome: Acquittal.
Observation: Mistake of fact can exonerate or mitigate; mistake of law rarely absolves responsibility in EU states.
✅ 5. Comparative Observations Across EU States
| Defence Type | Germany | Finland | France | Italy | Spain | Netherlands | Poland | Sweden |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Defence | Proportionality test; partial acquittal | Proportional, immediate threat; full acquittal | Proportionality; partial justification | – | – | – | – | – |
| Necessity / Duress | Recognized, limited scope | Recognized | Recognized | Fully accepted | Recognized | Mitigation possible | Recognized | – |
| Insanity / Diminished Capacity | Full acquittal + psychiatric treatment | Partial mitigation | – | – | – | – | Reduced sentence | Reduced sentence |
| Mistake of Fact | Can mitigate | Accepted | Limited | – | – | Can mitigate | – | – |
| Mistake of Law | Rarely accepted | Rarely accepted | Rarely accepted | – | – | Rarely accepted | – | – |
Key Trends
Proportionality and immediacy central in self-defence.
Necessity/duress widely recognized but requires threat and lack of alternatives.
Mental disorder: EU differentiates between full insanity (no liability) and diminished capacity (partial liability).
Mistake of fact can mitigate; mistake of law generally not accepted.
Sentencing and outcomes vary significantly depending on state, severity, and context.
RELATED Blog
comments