Cross Border Execution Of Judgements Involving Deprivation Of Liberty In The Eu

In 2008, the introduction of the EU's Framework Decision - the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters, imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement - sparked discussions as to whether the practical operation of the instrument would be compatible with its very objective, being the enhancement of detained persons' social rehabilitation prospects. Transferring detained people back to their respective Member State of residence and/or nationality within the mutual recognition framework is somewhat precarious in light of the variety of Member States' legal and prison systems. In this context, and following a call for tender by the European Commission, the authors of this book conducted the largest study to date on Member States' material detention conditions, early/conditional release provisions, and sentence execution modalities. In addition to exploring the diversity of legal frameworks, the study also assessed practitioners' views on the cross-border execution of custodial sentences in the EU. This book contains EU-level legal and practitioners' analyses, as well as the high level final report to the study, confirming preliminary concerns that flanking measures are urgently needed for a proper operation of the Framework Decision. It will be essential reading for policy makers, judicial and law enforcement authorities, and defense lawyers. Additionally, it will be an asset to everyone who is involved in or taking an interest in detention issues and cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 40)

In 2008, for the European Union, the introduction of the Framework Decision - the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters, imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement - sparked discussions as to whether the practical operation of the instrument would be compatible with its very objective, being the enhancement of detained persons' social rehabilitation prospects. Transferring detained people back to their respective Member State of residence and/or nationality within the mutual recognition framework is somewhat precarious in light of the variety of Member States' legal and prison systems. In this context, and following a call for tender by the European Commission, the authors of this book conducted the largest study to date on Member States' material detention conditions, early/conditional release provisions, and sentence execution modalities. In addition to exploring the diversity of legal frameworks, the study also assessed practitioners' views on the cross-border execution of custodial sentences in the EU. The book contains individual Member State reports resulting from legal practitioners' analyses, backed by additional information drawn from monitoring and evaluation conducted at the Council of Europe (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) and United Nation levels. This will be essential reading for EU policy makers, judicial and law enforcement authorities, and defense lawyers. Additionally, it will be an asset to everyone who is involved in or taking an interest in detention issues and cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 41)

In the European Union, international cooperation in criminal matters has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Importantly, there are a wide variety of authorities involved therein, rendering the traditional distinction between police and judicial cooperation as outdated. Furthermore, its rapid growth exposed this policy field to inconsistencies and incoherence. Additionally, despite the wave of new legislation, important lacunae can be identified, setting important challenges for the future. The combination of these issues clarifies the title of this book: there is a pressing need to rethink international cooperation in criminal matters. In answer to a call from the European Commission, the contributors of this book have designed a comprehensive methodological framework to review the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters, combining desktop reviews, expert consultations, Member State questionnaires, and focus group meetings in each of the Member States to obtain a comprehensive overview of the currently experienced obstacles and future policy options that are both needed and feasible. Over 150 individuals from different backgrounds contributed to the study, including academics, lawyers, policy makers, police, customs, intelligence services, prosecution, judiciary, correctional authorities, Ministries of Justice, and Home Affairs. The book provides an overview of the research findings and the recommendations formulated. These findings include, but are not limited to: (1) a helicopter view on cooperation with criminal justice finality, (2) a clear demarcation of the role of the judicial authorities, (3) a comprehensive review of refusal grounds, including proportionality and capacity concerns, (4) an assessment of gaps in the current body of instruments regulating international cooperation in criminal matters and possible remedies thereto, (5) a well-considered further development of Eurojust, and (6) ensuring EU wide effect of mere domestic actions. This book represents the first overall analysis of the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters in the EU. As essential reading, it is an analysis that moves beyond the actors, bringing logic back, footed in reality. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - No. 42)

In the past 10 years, the Member States of the European Union (EU) have intensified their exchange of information for the purposes of preventing and combating serious cross-border crime, as manifested in three main aspects. Firstly, there is a need to ensure the practical application of innovative principles (availability, mutual recognition) and concepts (Information Management Strategy, European Information Exchange Model) for tackling criminal organisations and networks that threaten the Internal Security of the EU. Secondly, there has been a gradual consolidation of EU agencies and bodies (Eurojust, Europol) aimed at promoting cooperation and dialogue among law enforcement officials and judicial authorities responsible for preventing and combating drug trafficking, trafficking in human beings, child pornography, and other serious trans-national offences. Thirdly, important EU information systems and databases (Prüm, SIS-II, ECRIS) have been created, enabling law enforcement and judicial authorities to gain access to essential information on criminal phenomena and organisations. Pursuing a practice-orientated approach, this work provides comprehensive coverage of all these measures, as well as the applicable rules governing data quality, data protection and data security. It is especially intended for law enforcement and judicial authorities who need to develop the appropriate expertise for the practical application of the above-mentioned principles. It also offers a solid basis of practical training material for police training centres and judicial schools.

Discussions of the possibility to attribute liability to legal persons for committing offenses are far from new. The EU landscape however is scattered. Although there are obligations for the Member States to introduce liability for legal persons committing offenses, diversity remains as to: the offenses that may trigger liability * the legal persons that may be held liable * the attribution theories and mechanisms used * the type of liability, which may be either penal, administrative, or civil * the sanctions that legal persons may incur. Consistent policy making requires an identification of the main commonalities and differences in view of being able to adequately reflect them in cross-national policy initiatives. Hence, the European Commission launched a call for tender for a study on the issue, which was awarded to the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP). The results are published in this book. Based on comparative legal analysis in the EU27, recommendations are formulated relating to the EU approximation policy (amongst others to reconsider the concept of a 'legal person' and to look into the need for specific 'legal person'-offenses), the functioning of mutual recognition (amongst others to extend the current mutual recognition instrumentarium), the exchange of information (amongst others to develop a criminal records policy), and procedural safeguards (amongst others to secure equivalent protection outside a criminal liability context). In other words, a helicopter view is taken to ensure consistent EU policy making. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 44)

Any effort to gather evidence may prove pointless without ensuring its admissibility. Nevertheless, the EU, while developing instruments for smooth gathering of evidence in criminal matters, is not taking much effort to enhance its admissibility. Due to the lack of common rules in this matter, gathering and use of evidence in the EU cross-border context is still governed by the domestic law of the member states concerned. This may lead to situations where, given the differences between legal systems across the EU, evidence collected in one member state will not be admissible in other member states. Due to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty opened the possibility to adopt minimum rules concerning, among other things, the mutual admissibility of evidence, this research investigates the concept of minimum standards designed to enhance mutual admissibility of evidence in the EU. Through a study of two investigative measures, telephone tapping and house search, the author examines whether coming to various common minimum standards is feasible and whether compliance with these standards would finally shape the as yet nonexistent concept of the free movement and mutual recognition of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. Essential reading for both national and EU policy makers, scholars and practitioners involved in cross-border gathering of evidence in the EU.

Examining the principle of mutual recognition in the EU legal order, this book takes a cross-policy approach to focus on the principle in the internal market and in the criminal justice area. It asks whether the principle of mutual recognition, as developed in relation to the free movement provisions (internal market), can equally be applied in judicial cooperation in criminal matters (the area of freedom, security, and justice), and if such a cross-policy application is desirable. Divided into three parts, the book first looks at the way this principle functions in the internal market. Part II examines how the principle works in judicial cooperation in criminal matters, with the final part answering the book's central questions. In each part, further related questions are asked: What is the object of the principle of mutual recognition? Who are the main actors involved? How does the mechanism of mutual recognition operate (with an emphasis on the existing limits to mutual recognition)? How does mutual recognition relate to harmonization and to mutual trust? What is the relevance of equivalence requirements and the distribution of competence between the home (issuing) State and the host (executing) State? What are the main characteristics of the principle of mutual recognition? And is it a workable principle? Through an in-depth analysis of the relevant Treaty provisions, EU legislation, EU case law, and EU policy documents, the book comes to the conclusion that a cross-policy application of the principle of mutual recognition is both feasible and desirable.

Reviewing European policy with respect to different phases in the criminal justice chain, the contributions in this book range from looking into the extension of criminalization in the sphere of trafficking in human beings and labor exploitation, to the operability of cross-border execution of sentences involving deprivation of liberty. Most contributions look into the need to develop a conceptual framework to support future policy making, pointing to the lack thereof with respect to liability of legal persons, ne bis in idem as an EU principle, cross-border effect of disqualifications, and cooperation with private security actors. One essay looks into the public expenditure in different phases of the criminal justice chain, based on a case study on the public expenditure of Belgian drug policy. Additionally, from a historical and comparative perspective, the book analyzes specific European and Chinese interrogation rules to provide a solid context for the current situation and to support future legal reforms. (Series: Governance of Security (GofS) Research Paper - Vol. 7)