# EUR-Lex - 52013DC0820 - EN

*|*

# 52013DC0820

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Making progress on the European Union Agenda on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects or Accused Persons - Strengthening the Foundation of the European Area of Criminal Justice /* COM/2013/0820 final */**

			*

			*

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Making progress on the European Union
Agenda on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects or Accused Persons - Strengthening
the Foundation of the European Area of Criminal Justice

It is a well-known maxim that ‘justice must
not only be done, but be seen to be done’. In the European area of justice, the
corollary is that citizens must not only have the right to a fair trial
anywhere in the European Union, but be confident of this when exercising their
right to move freely in the European Union. The judicial authorities in the
Member States also need to be able to trust each other’s justice systems to
work fairly.

To develop this area of justice based on
mutual recognition and mutual trust, the Commission was in the Stockholm
Programme[1]
asked to submit proposals to strengthen the procedural rights of suspects or
accused persons.[2]
This political mandate for a strong focus on strengthening citizens’ rights in
criminal proceedings, to ensure the right to a fair trial across the European Union,
resulted in the Commission’s Procedural Rights Agenda.

The present package is the continuation of
a successful legislative program. Step by step, very good progress has been
made and the European Union has adopted three Directives on procedural rights.

·
A Directive on the right to interpretation
and translation in criminal proceedings was adopted in 2010 and must be
transposed by 27 October 2013.[3]
Defendants will be provided with interpretation free of charge not only during
trial but also during police interrogation and important meetings with their
lawyer, as well as with a written translation of documents essential to
exercise their right of defence.

·
A Directive on the right to information
in criminal proceedings followed in 2012, and must be implemented by 2 June
2014.[4] Suspects who are arrested should always be provided with a written Letter of Rights in simple everyday
language, with information on their rights. It will be translated if
needed.

·
A Directive on the right of access to a
lawyer and the right to communicate upon deprivation of liberty was adopted
in October 2013.[5]
This measure is at the core of the Procedural Rights Agenda. Anyone who is a
suspect will be guaranteed the right to see a lawyer from the earliest stages
of proceedings until their conclusion. Moreover, anyone deprived of liberty has
the opportunity to communicate with their family and, if arrested in another EU
country, with the consulate.

These Directives are landmarks for
strengthening the procedural rights of EU citizens. The novelties of the Lisbon
Treaty in the area of criminal law, including qualified majority voting in
Council and the European Parliament acting as a co-legislator, have led to
these pioneering instruments, which were produced in a collaborative effort by
the institutions.

In addition, a Green Paper on the
application of EU criminal justice legislation on detention was
published in June 2011, exploring the links between detention
and mutual trust in the EU. Detention conditions can have a direct impact on
the smooth functioning of mutual recognition of judicial decisions, as
substandard detention conditions could lead a judge to refuse surrendering a
requested person e.g. in European Arrest Warrant proceedings.[6] The
replies and an analysis of these replies have been published on the
Commission’s website. The conclusion is that while pre-trial detention and the
promotion of alternatives to it are important issues, raised by Member States and civil society, proper and timely implementation of existing EU
legislation is the priority.[7]

This Communication introduces a package
of five legal measures to make progress on the Procedural Rights Agenda and to further
strengthen the foundation for the European area of criminal justice. This
package follows up on the successful recent adoption of the three procedural
rights Directives.

It consists of three proposals for
Directives on:

(1) strengthening certain aspects of the
presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in
criminal proceedings,

(2) special safeguards for children suspected
or accused in criminal proceedings, and

(3) provisional legal aid for
suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid in European
arrest warrant proceedings.

Since the measures taken must be
proportionate to the aim of EU action, there are also two Commission
Recommendations:

(4) procedural safeguards for vulnerable
persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, and

(5) the right to legal aid for suspects or
accused persons in criminal proceedings.

1.           The rationale for action at EU level

·
The common basis: the EU Charter and the ECHR

The EU has a strong tradition of developing
and promoting fundamental rights. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union (EU Charter) and the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) form the basis for protecting the
rights of suspects or accused persons in criminal justice systems in the European
Union. The Treaty makes the EU Charter legally binding[8] and provides that the European Union
will accede to the ECHR.[9]
All Member States are signatories to the ECHR. The right to an effective
remedy, to a fair trial, to be presumed innocent and a right of defence,
provided for in Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter and in Article 6 of the ECHR,
need to be upheld in the EU’s area of justice. This means that there is a
substantial legal framework recognised in the Member States for the rights
covered in the package.

A shift of focus: complementing security
with procedural rights and mutual trust as a condition for mutual recognition

In the decade before the entry into force
of the Lisbon Treaty, EU legislation concentrated on making it easier to fight
crime, resulting in an impressive number of instruments for judicial
cooperation and mutual recognition aimed at prosecuting offenders. The best-known
is the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, which allows requested
persons to be transferred expeditiously between Member States. The aim is primarily
to ensure that the free movement of citizens across EU borders does not hamper
cross-border law enforcement.

These EU instruments
allow national judicial authorities to mutually, easily and promptly recognise
investigation measures and punitive decisions against defendants across the European
Union. They assume that the request should be recognised and executed because
each Member State has a system of justice which guarantees fair trial rights to
a relatively similar degree.

The system of mutual recognition can only
operate satisfactorily if Member States trust each other’s criminal justice
systems. However, the protection of the procedural rights of suspects and
accused persons still varies significantly between the Member States. This
situation gives rise to gaps to achieve the mutual trust needed between EU
Member States. To fill those gaps the European Union must ensure that all
Member States uphold a common minimum level of procedural rights, and that
these rights can be enforced through EU law.

This is why the Lisbon Treaty allows action
at EU level on the rights of individuals in criminal procedure in Article
82(2)(b) TFEU. It is also spelled out in the mandate that the European Council gave
to the Commission for the period 2010-2014: ‘...a lot of progress has been
made in the area of judicial and police cooperation on measures that facilitate
prosecution. It is now time to take action to improve the balance between these
measures and the protection of procedural rights of the individual. Efforts
should be deployed to strengthen procedural guarantees and the respect of the
rule of law in criminal proceedings, no matter where citizens decide to travel,
study, work or live in the European Union.’[10]

·
Citizens’ trust in a level playing field in procedural
rights

The need to protect the fair trial rights
of suspects or accused persons has a clear cross-border dimension. Around 14.1
million EU citizens reside permanently outside their home country,[11] 10 % of EU citizens have
lived and worked abroad at some time in their lives and 13 % have gone
abroad for education or training.[12]
As people are constantly travelling and moving across borders in the European
Union and risk being involved in criminal proceedings outside their own country,
the European Union must ensure that there is a level playing field on
procedural rights in criminal proceedings.

2.           Time for well-considered measures to make
 progress on the European Union’s Agenda on Procedural Rights

·
Why go further at EU level?

Once implemented by the Member States, the
recently adopted Directives on procedural rights will ensure that suspects or accused
persons benefit from a wide range of essential guarantees. But the Procedural Rights
Agenda needs to be strengthened.

·
Suspects or accused persons will promptly be
given information on their right to remain silent, but what happens if they
make use of this right? In some Member States, judicial authorities may consider
this silence as corroborating any evidence against the person. Fair trial
rights must be put on a solid basis and EU-wide protection of the presumption
of innocence must be ensured.

·
Those who cannot speak or understand the
language of the criminal proceedings will be provided with interpretation and
translation, but what about those who, for example, due to their young age or
mental disability are unable to properly follow and participate in the criminal
proceedings? The existing EU Directives on safeguards for suspects and accused
persons apply also to children. However, because of their inherent
vulnerability, it is widely recognised by stakeholders and Member States that
children need specific enhanced protection; for example, mandatory assistance
by a lawyer if they face the police or the criminal justice system.[13] At present, the fair trial
rights of children and other vulnerable persons are not sufficiently guaranteed
in the EU - no overarching protections exists. The Stockholm Programme explicitly
foresees that a specific measure should be adopted to provide common minimum
rules for vulnerable persons. Such minimum rules will strengthen the trust of
Member States in the criminal justice system of other Member States and will
thus help improve the mutual recognition of decision in criminal matters. Special
safeguards are needed to meet needs of children and vulnerable persons
during the criminal proceedings.

·
The Directive on the right of access to a lawyer
gives any suspect or accused person the right to a lawyer from the earliest
stages of proceedings, and e.g. when questioned by police. But what if they do
not have the means to afford a lawyer? They will need legal aid to make sure
that their right of access to a lawyer is effective.

·
Need for balanced action

The Commission is presenting a balanced
package of measures taking into account and respecting the differences between
the legal traditions and systems of the Member States, as provided for in
Article 82(2) TFEU, seeking to foster mutual trust while respecting the
principle of proportionality (Article 5 TEU). Each element has been carefully assessed
to decide if action should be taken at EU level, and if so, at what level and
in what form, including the potential costs for the Member States. The need for
caution is particularly obvious in times of fiscal consolidation, when cost implications
need to be carefully assessed. This is why, for example, in the field of legal
aid, the Commission does not in the package propose legally binding parameters
for eligibility testing for legal aid in a Directive. The costs for the Member
States to provide provisional legal aid and legal aid in European arrest warrant
proceedings will be limited.

·
A wider perspective: procedural safeguards
and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

This package will also contribute to strengthening
the legal safeguards for individuals in proceedings by the European Public
Prosecutor’s Office. The recently presented proposal for a Council Regulation[14] clarifies that a suspect has all
rights granted by EU legislation, the EU Charter and applicable national law,
and it explicitly refers to the right to legal aid and the right to be presumed
innocent. Introducing strengthened rights will reinforce the procedural safeguards
applying to proceedings led by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and will
foster public trust in the good functioning of this Office.

3.           The main elements of the proposals

3.1.        A strong foundation for
fair trial rights - the presumption of innocence

·
The presumption of innocence — a fundamental
principle of justice

That defendants are presumed innocent until
proven guilty by a court in a final judgment and that it is the prosecution
that must prove their guilt is one of the oldest and most important principles
in criminal proceedings, enshrined in all major
international and regional human rights instruments. Inspired by Article 6(2) of
the ECHR, and Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 48(1) of the EU Charter states that: ‘Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent
until proved guilty according to law’.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
has clarified the scope of the principle of the presumption of innocence over
the years. Article 6(2) ECHR encompasses three key issues:[15] the right not to be referred
to as guilty by public authorities before the final judgment,[16] that the burden of proof is on
the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt about guilt should benefit the
accused,[17]
and the right to be informed of the accusation.[18] The
presumption of innocence is an essential prerequisite for a fair trial and the
ECtHR has stated that a breach of the presumption of innocence undermines the
right to a fair trial.[19]
This particularly applies to the right not to
incriminate oneself, the right not to cooperate and the right to silence.[20]

The right to be presumed innocent
encompasses different needs and degrees of protection regarding natural persons
and legal persons, as recognised by the case law of the Court of Justice on the
right not to incriminate oneself.[21]
The proposal for a Directive takes account of these differences and therefore
only applies to natural persons.

·
The presumption of innocence as the
foundation and cement of the rights laid down in the Directives on procedural
rights

The fair trial rights referred to in the
existing EU instruments, including the right to be given information, the right
to be able to understand and follow the proceedings and the right of access to
a lawyer, are thus complementary to and inseparable from the presumption of
innocence in securing a fair trial and mutual trust.

The Stockholm Programme called on the
Commission to examine further elements of minimum procedural rights for
suspects or accused persons, and mentioned, in particular, the presumption of
innocence. The Commission proposes in a Directive to strengthen certain aspects
of the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings, aspects that are
closely linked and indispensable to make both the procedural rights and the
mutual recognition instruments
work in a climate of mutual trust. It will further foster a culture amongst
professionals limiting recourse to measures such as
pre-trial detention.

·
Strengthening certain aspects of the right to
be presumed innocent at EU level

The proposed Directive focuses on certain aspects
of the presumption of innocence flowing from ECtHR case-law and where there is
a need to set common minimum standards to ensure mutual trust. It gives a solid
basis to other procedural rights instruments which have already been adopted or
are proposed together with this Directive.

Moreover, given that the right of the
accused person to be present at trial is an essential right of defence and part
of the right to a fair trial, as interpreted by the ECtHR,[22] strengthening this right will
contribute to reinforcing the right to a fair trial and is also addressed in
the proposal.

The level of safeguards in Member States'
legislation is, in a general way, acceptable and there does not seem to be any
systemic problem in this area. However, there still exist points on which legal
safeguards should be strengthened. Moreover, breaches of the presumption of
innocence do still occur too often across the European Union.

(a)
No public reference to guilt before
conviction

A public statement made by police or
judicial authorities, suggesting that someone who has not been finally
convicted is guilty damages that person’s reputation and can influence the jury
or the court that decides the case.

Along the lines of ECtHR case-law,[23] the Directive makes it a firm
principle that, before final conviction, official decisions and statements by, for
example, police and judicial authorities must not present the suspect or
accused person as guilty. It hereby protects the reputation and privacy of those
facing criminal proceedings.

(b)
The burden of proof - any doubt about
guilt should benefit the suspect or accused person

In criminal proceedings, the burden of
proof should be on the prosecution and any doubt should benefit the suspect or
accused person, without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary when
assessing the suspect or accused's guilt. A judgment must be based on the
evidence put before it and not on allegations or assumptions. However, the
ECtHR has accepted that in specific and limited cases the burden of proof may
be shifted to the defence, and the Directive will reflect this standard, striking
a balance between the public interest in effective prosecution and the rights
of the defence. [24]

(c)
The right to remain silent - no coercion
to incriminate oneself or to cooperate

The right to remain silent, the right
to not incriminate oneself and the right not to cooperate are ‘generally
recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a
fair procedure.’[25]
They ensure that a suspect or accused person cannot be improperly forced to
produce evidence, which would breach the principle that the burden of proof is
on the prosecution.

The proposed Directive does not only uphold
these principles with respect to natural persons, but provides for a specific
remedy. Any use of evidence obtained in breach of these rights is excluded save
in exceptional cases where the use of such evidence will not prejudice the overall
fairness of the proceedings.

(d)
The right to be present at trial - a common
minimum standard and a remedy

If a suspect or accused person is
tried ‘in absentia’, i.e. is not present at the trial, the right of defence is
jeopardised: defendants are denied the opportunity to give their version of the
facts to the court, and to rebut evidence.

Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA[26] improved the protection of
such defendants in various other EU instruments on the mutual recognition of
judicial decisions in line with ECtHR standards,[27] by establishing a possible
ground for refusal in cases of judicial cooperation if certain common minimum
standards have not been met.

The proposed Directive consequently takes
the fundamental right of the accused to be present at the trial, established by
the ECtHR, and makes it a minimum EU standard applicable also to domestic criminal
proceedings. It is subject to very limited exceptions to ensure that justice is
not unduly delayed by defendants acting in bad faith. A concrete remedy in the
form of a re-trial is provided, as established by the ECtHR[28] in cases where the right to be
present at trial has been breached.

3.2.        Protection for those who
need it most - special safeguards for vulnerable persons

·
Who needs special protection, and why?

The Stockholm Programme emphasises the need
to strengthen the rights of individuals who are vulnerable in criminal
proceedings: ’it is important that special attention is shown to suspected
and accused persons who cannot understand or follow the content or the meaning
of the proceedings, owing for example to their age, mental or physical
condition.’[29]

International standards and ECtHR case-law recognise
their specific needs. Someone may be vulnerable because he or she cannot
effectively participate in criminal proceedings: ‘“effective participation” in this context
presupposes that the accused has a broad understanding of the nature of the
trial process and of what is at stake for him or her, including the
significance of any penalty which may be imposed.’[30]

Children are considered vulnerable by
definition, due to young age, unfinished
physical and psychological development and emotional immaturity.[31] Children are also at greater
risk of ill-treatment and health problems than other suspects or accused
persons; they may not be able to properly express their difficulties or health
problems. All Member States therefore regard children as requiring special
safeguards and protection in criminal proceedings.

The situation is different for adults. The
reasons why an adult may not be able to participate effectively in the
proceedings can be manifold, for example mental illness or a physical or
learning disability. There is no standard definition of who is a vulnerable
adult in criminal proceedings in the EU Member States.

·
A Directive focusing on crucial safeguards
for children

The three Procedural Rights Directives already
adopted apply to all suspects or accused persons, including children. However,
even though they provide for certain safeguards specifically for children, they
do not take sufficient account of the specific needs they may have e.g. finding
it hard or impossible to understand and follow the proceedings, increased risk
of ill-treatment because of their vulnerability.

The proposed Directive will ensure:

·
that the procedural safeguards apply to children
from the time they are suspected or accused of having committed an offence
(scope);

·
that children are assisted by their parents or
other appropriate persons when arrested, and that both children and their
parents are informed of their rights;

·
that children cannot waive the right to be
assisted by a lawyer, as there is a high risk that they would not understand
the consequence of their actions; mandatory access to a lawyer is the core
measure of the proposed Directive;

·
that their personal and family situation and needs
are properly assessed before judgment and that children receive a medical
examination if deprived of liberty; that throughout the proceedings,
questioning is carried out in circumstances that take into account the child’s age
and level of maturity and questioning by police is audio-visually recorded
unless it would not be proportionate;

·
that children cannot be tried in their absence;
to ensure that children cannot be found guilty without having had the
opportunity to rebut the grounds for such a conviction, and understand the
grounds of a possible conviction to prevent re-offending by children and to foster
social integration.

·
that judicial authorities dealing with children
receive specialised training; that the child’s privacy is protected to
facilitate reintegration into society, e.g. by ensuring that the proceedings are
in principle not open to the public;

·
that children are only deprived of liberty only as
a last resort, and that children are detained separately from adults.

It results from international standards that
children confronted with the criminal justice system should benefit from
alternative measures to imprisonment and education and should be deprived of
liberty only in exceptional circumstances. Children are in a particularly
vulnerable position when deprived of liberty given the inherent risks for their
physical, mental and social development. In order to prevent ill-treatment and
abuse in case of deprivation of liberty, certain protection measures should be
foreseen. Given those specific needs of children, the Directive contains special
rules on the specific treatment of children in case of deprivation of liberty.

The Directive will thus promote the rights
of the child, bearing in mind international guidelines and recommendations on
child-friendly justice and it forms part of the EU Agenda for the Rights of the
Child.[32]
The Directive will not affect national rules determining criminal
responsibility[33].

·
A Commission Recommendation ensuring that vulnerable
persons are recognised and their needs taken into account

Defining why people may be vulnerable in
criminal proceedings - for reasons other than young age - is not possible at
this stage; any definition may even be criticised as stigmatising them. This
results from several consultations and meetings with stakeholders and Member
States.

However, at the same time it is generally
recognised by stakeholders that some people need special safeguards in criminal
proceedings to ensure that they understand and exercise their rights. If people
do not understand the proceedings or the consequences of actions such as
confessing, either because their vulnerability is not identified or because
special safeguards are not in place, this leads to ‘inequality of arms’, which
reduces their chances of receiving a fair trial and threatens the integrity of
the judicial process. If action is not taken at EU level an uneven level of
protection would persist throughout the EU. Therefore, the only balanced
approach that would reconcile proportionality and subsidiarity considerations
and the need to enhance the level of protection of vulnerable persons is a
Commission Recommendation fostering the core rights of vulnerable persons in
criminal proceedings.

·
Setting up assessment mechanisms to ensure that
vulnerable persons are detected and recognised, and that their special needs are
met in criminal proceedings, is the core of the Recommendation. It is recommended
that an assessment is made by an independent expert, ensuring that the degree of
vulnerability is properly ascertained and the person’s specific needs are acknowledged.

·
Establishing appropriate safeguards for
vulnerable persons: the Recommendation calls on the Member States to put in
place concrete safeguards depending on the assessment, such as mandatory access
to a lawyer, assistance by an appropriate third person, audio-visual recording
of police questioning and medical assistance.

While giving Member States more flexibility
than a Directive, the Recommendation will nevertheless contribute to raising standards
on the procedural rights of vulnerable adults and to enhancing mutual trust. The
Commission will assess the extent to which Member States have taken measures to
give effect to the Recommendation four years after its publication and, if
necessary, propose legislative measures to enhance the procedural rights of
vulnerable persons.

3.3.        An effective right to access
to a lawyer - the right to legal aid

Drawing on Article 6(3)(c) ECHR, Article
47(3) of the EU Charter states that ‘Legal aid shall be made available to
those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure
effective access to justice.’

The right to legal aid is intrinsically
linked to the right of access to a lawyer. For persons who lack resources
access to a lawyer cannot be effective unless the State provides legal aid to
ensure legal assistance. Thus, for the right of access to a lawyer to be
effective, and to further strengthen mutual trust in the European Union, legal
aid needs to be available to those who need it.

A Directive focussing on certain
aspects of the right to legal aid

·
Guaranteeing legal aid for access to a lawyer
when it is most needed - ‘provisional legal aid’

At the early stages of proceedings, the
suspect or accused person is particularly vulnerable, especially if deprived of
liberty. Access to a lawyer at those stages is of paramount importance to
protect fair trial rights, including the right to not incriminate oneself, as
stated in ECHR case law. Article 6 ECHR requires that, as a rule, suspects or
accused persons are granted access to legal assistance from the moment they are
taken into police custody or pre-trial detention, and that such assistance is
assigned officially if need be. They should not have to wait for access to a
lawyer until their application for legal aid has been processed and their
eligibility assessed.

Therefore, the proposed Directive on the
right to legal aid provides for suspects or accused persons who are deprived of
liberty to have access to provisional legal aid at these early stages of the
proceedings and until the competent authority has made a final decision on the
application for legal aid.

·
Special focus on those who are subject to European
arrest warrant proceedings

The Directive on access to a lawyer
provides for a right to dual legal representation in European arrest warrant
proceedings, i.e. in both the executing and issuing Member States, in order to boost
mutual trust across the European Union. However, to make this effective, there
needs to be a guarantee of access to legal aid in European arrest warrant
proceedings.

Persons sought under a European arrest
warrant also need to be given the right to provisional legal aid when deprived
of liberty in the executing Member State, without having to wait for legal
advice until the application for legal aid has been dealt with.

A Recommendation on some further issues
on legal aid in criminal proceedings

·
Towards greater convergence in the criteria
for deciding on the right to legal aid

It follows from Article 47(3) of the EU Charter
and Article 6(3)(c) ECHR that Member States may determine whether a person has
a right to legal aid if that person has insufficient means (the ‘means test’),
and/or the interests of justice require legal aid to be granted, for example in
a complex case or because of the personal situation of the suspect, the gravity
of the offence or the severity of the potential sanction (the ‘merits test’).

The way these eligibility criteria are
combined and assessed varies greatly between the Member States. Some Member
States apply only a means test, others apply a merits test, while some combine
the two. There are also considerable differences in the way the means test and
the merits test are interpreted and understood.

Because of the great variety of legal aid
systems and the need to keep any measures proportional, especially in times of
economic and financial challenges, this issue is addressed in a Recommendation.
It provides common objective criteria to be taken into account when assessing the
eligibility for legal aid. It clarifies the framework for the assessment as
developed in ECtHR case-law and promotes convergence between the different
legal systems, with a view to strengthening mutual trust.

·
Ensuring the quality and effectiveness of
legal aid services

The ECtHR has held that the State’s
obligation to provide free legal assistance is not met merely by appointing a
publicly funded lawyer.[34]
It must ensure that the assistance provided by legal aid lawyers is practical
and effective. To this end, the Recommendation, asks Member States to set up
mechanisms to ensure high-quality legal aid services, to promote systems for
accrediting lawyers and continuous professional training for legal aid
professionals and lawyers. The implementation of this Recommendation will
improve the quality of and effectiveness of legal aid services and increase
mutual trust in other Member States’ justice systems.

To further the effect and application of
the Recommendation, the Commission will have recourse to the existing expert
group on judicial cooperation in criminal matters. The group may assist the
Commission in drawing up guidelines for its application and facilitate exchange
of best practices between the Member States. The Commission will assess the
extent to which Member States have taken measures to give effect to the
Recommendation four years after its publication and, if necessary, propose
legislative measures to enhance the right to legal aid in criminal proceedings.

4.           Conclusion

This package reflects common minimum standards
for the right to a fair trial in the European Union, making progress in the
Commission’s Procedural Rights Agenda. Combined with the full range of
instruments in place to make cross-border judicial cooperation a reality in a
climate of mutual trust, through common minimum standards, it fosters the development
of the European area of freedom, security and justice.

The new regime introduced by the Lisbon
Treaty will become fully effective soon. The Treaty’s transitional regime for justice
and home affairs - covered by the former so-called ‘third pillar’ - expires on
30 November 2014. From that date, the Commission will have enforcement powers over
the whole justice and home affairs acquis and the European Court of
Justice will have full jurisdiction for pre-Lisbon mutual recognition instruments.
This, together with the establishment of an EU-wide prosecution system to
tackle fraud against the EU’s financial interests, will change the landscape of
the European area of criminal justice.

Given the internationalisation of crime, it
should result in an increase in requests for investigations and enforcement of
decisions in criminal matters across the EU resulting from the implementation
of the many mutual recognition measures. This is all the more reason to make
progress on the European Agenda on Procedural Rights by rapidly adopting this
new package.

In the longer term, this framework of
procedural rights at EU level will be transposed into national law. Its impact
on upholding the right to a fair trial in practice will have to be carefully assessed
and any gaps identified, possibly with a view to drafting a consolidated
proposal on fair trial rights.

[1]               OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.

[2]               OJ C 291, 4.12.2009, p. 1.

[3]               Directive 2010/64/EU of 20 October 2010, OJ L
280 of 26.10.2010, p. 1–7.

[4]                      Directive
2012/13/EU of 22 May 2012, OJ L 142 of 1.6.2012, p. 1–10.

[5]               Directive 2013/48/EU of 22 October 2013, OJ L 294 of
6.11.2013, p. 1-12.

[6]               Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June
2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member
States, OJ L 190 of 18.7.2002, p. 1-18.

[7]               http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/110614_en.htm.

[8]               Article 6(1) TEU.

[9]               Article 6(3) TEU.

[10]             Recital 10, OJ C 291, 4.12.2009, p. 1.

[11]             Eurostat, Migration and migrant population statistics
(March 2013).

[12]             Eurobarometer 337/2010.

[13]             See e.g. Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of
the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice.

[14]             Proposal for a Council Regulation on the establishment
of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, COM(2013) 534 final; 17.7.2013.

[15]             Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, Applications No 10588/83, 10589/83 and 10590/83, judgment of 6 December 1988.

[16]             Minelli v. Switzerland, Application No 8660/79, judgment
of 25 March 1983.

[17]             See footnote 14.

[18]             This is addressed in Directive 2012/13/EU of 22 May
2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings.

[19]             John Murray v UK, Application 18731/91, judgment
of 26 January 1996.

[20]             Murray v. UK, see supra, Funke v.
France, Application No 10828/84, judgment of 25 February 1993, Saunders
v. UK, Application No 19187/91, judgment of 17 December 1996.

[21]             See inter alia Case C-301/04 P Commission v
SGL Carbon [2006] ECR I-5915 and Case T-112/98 Mannesmannröhren-Werke v
Commission [2001] ECR II-732.

[22]             Colozza v. Italy, Application No 9024/80, judgment of 12 February 1985.

[23]             Minelli v Switzerland, Application 8660/79,
judgment of 25 March 1983; Allenet de Ribemont v. France, Application
no. 15175/89, judgment of 10 February 1995; Pandy v. Belgium, Application 13583/02,
judgment of 21 September 2006; Garlicki v. Poland, Application 36921/07,
judgment of 14 June 2011.

[24]             Salabiaku v. France, Application 10519/83,
judgment of 7 October 1988; Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, Application 10590/83, judgment of 6 December 1988.

[25]             Heaney and McGuiness v. Ireland, Application
34720/97, judgment of 21 December 2000.

[26]             Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February
2009 amending Framework Decisions 2002/584/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA,
2008/909/JHA and 2008/947/JHA, OJ L 81,
27.3.2009, p. 24-36.

[27]             Colozza v. Italy, Application 9024/80, judgment
of 12 February 1985.

[28]             See footnote 25.

[29]             OJ C291, 4.12.2009, p.1

[30]             S.C. v. UK, Application No 60958/00, judgment of
10 November 2004.

[31]             Under Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child, which has been ratified by all EU Member States and the EU, anyone
below the age of 18 should be considered a child.

[32]             Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions, 15.2.2011, COM(2011) 60 final

[33]             This is the age when children become criminally
responsible for their actions.

[34]             ECtHR case Pavlenko v. Russia, Application No
42371/02, judgment of 4 October 2010, para. 99.