EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 20.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 907 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
accompanying the  
 
Proposal for a 
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
 on the right to informatio n in criminal proceedings 
   
{COM(2010) 392 final} 
{SEC(2010) 908}  
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
CONTENTS  
Section  Page 
1 Introduction 4 
2 Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 4 
3 Problem definition 8 
4 Objectives 18 
5 Policy options 18 
6 Comparison of options 30 
7 The preferred option 34 
8 Transposition, monitoring and evaluation 40 
Annexes: I The Procedural Rights Roadmap  42 
 II: Examples of Letter of Rights (UK and DE)  46 
 III: EU overview on the right to information 53 
 IV: General statistics 55 
 V: Model calculations 57 
 VI: Report of the Impact Assessment Steering Group 68 
 VII: Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 70 
 
EN 3   EN 1. INTRODUCTION  
The impact assessment is for a measure on the right  to information for su spects and accused persons1 in 
criminal proceedings. Someone who is subject to  criminal proceedings is entitled to know what his rights 
are and of what he is accused.  Member States differ in the amount of information they give to suspects and 
accused persons and the way in which information is tr ansmitted (orally, in writing or by some other means). 
This is true both  for information about rights (such as the ri ght to have legal advice or the services of an 
interpreter for those who don't underst and or speak the language of the proceedings) and information about 
the charges.  
 
If someone is arrested or required to attend a police sta tion in connection with an enquiry into a crime, they 
have certain rights, such as the right to consult a lawy er or to have an interpreter present if they are a 
foreigner who does not speak the language of the pro ceedings. Sometimes suspects or accused persons are 
not informed of these rights, so they might not be able  to avail themselves of those rights, jeopardising the 
fairness of proceedings. In this sense, provision of info rmation on the rights can be seen as a "gateway" to 
effective use of those rights. Legislation and practice on the way in which inform ation is transmitted vary 
significantly from one Member State to another.  
Instances of failure to provide information are undermin ing trust in the fairness of criminal proceedings 
conducted in other Member States. Perceptions of potential unfairness hamper cooperation in criminal 
matters between Member States which is based on mutu al recognition of judicial decisions across the EU. 
This can affect the application of mutual recognition in struments, for instance the European Arrest Warrant, 
under which a Member State is expected to surrender suspects or convicted persons, including its nationals, 
rapidly and without examination of the case file, for trial or to serve a custodial sentence in another Member State. 
The right to a fair trial is a fundamental right whic h the European Union respects as a general principle by 
reference to the European Convention on Human Righ ts (ECHR) under Article 6 (3) TEU. Whilst it is laid 
down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Europ ean Union (Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy 
and to a fair trial, Article 48 – Rights of the defence and presumption of innocence)
2 and in Article 6 of the 
ECHR, this has proved not to be sufficient to achieve the necessary level of mutual trust. 
This impact assessment accompani es the Commission's proposal for the second step (Measure B) in the 
Roadmap on Procedural Rights, on information on rights and information on charges.  
 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Policy context 
To increase mutual trust, and thus improve the oper ation of mutual recognition, in November 2009 the 
European Council adopted the Ro admap on Procedural Rights3 (Annex I, "the Roadmap") setting out a step-
by-step approach to strengthening the rights of suspects  and accused persons. This was incorporated into the 
Stockholm Programme4 the following month. The Commission adopted a proposal for the first step, the right 
to interpretation and translation, in July 2009.  
In the Roadmap, the Council requests the Commissi on to submit proposals on a number of measures to 
establish common minimum standards for fair trial rights in the EU.  
                                                 
1 A suspect is someone who is suspected of having comm itted a criminal offence but has not yet been formally 
charged. An accused person is someone who has been forma lly charged with an offence.  Their rights are different 
according to their status. However, both categ ories are entitled to certain information.  
2 Since 1 December 2009 the Charter is  legally binding and has the same legal value as the EU Treaties. 
3 2009/C 295/01  
4 'An open and secure Europe serving and pr otecting the citizen' adopted December 2009. 
EN 4   EN Each measure will deal with a distinct procedural right  or set of rights of suspec ts and accused persons which 
had been identified by Member States and stakeholders alike as needing to be strengthened by action at EU 
level. Each measure thus has to be considered as a building-block for a whole edifice. Measures may consist 
of binding legislation applying to each and every suspect in criminal proceedings in all Member States, thus 
protecting EU citizens and third-country nationals alik e both in cross-border proceedings as well as in purely 
domestic cases. Such legislation may clarify existing ri ghts or even create new ones, but only in relation to 
the respective specific issue each measure is supposed to address. The rights of suspects and defendants 
throughout the EU will therefore be stre ngthened sty-by-step as set out below: 
 
Measures envisaged in the Roadmap:  
Measure A : Translation and Interpretation 
Measure B : Information on Rights and Information about the Charges 
Measure C : Legal Advice and Legal Aid 
Measure D : Communication with Relatives, Employers and Consular Authorities 
Measure E : Special Safeguards fur Suspected or Accused Persons who are Vulnerable5  
Measure D : Green Paper on Pre-Trial Detention 
 
The measure covered by this Impact Assessment is "Measure B" which aims to improve the situation of 
suspects by ensuring that these individuals receive inform ation about their defence rights and about the case 
against them in the course of criminal proceedings: 
"Measure B: Information on Rights and Information about the Charges  
Short explanation: A person that is suspected or accused of a crime should get information on his/her basic 
rights orally or, where appropriate, in writing, e.g. by  way of a Letter of Rights. Furthermore, that person 
should also receive information promptly about the natu re and cause of the accusation against him or her. A 
person who has been charged should be entitled, at the appropriate time, to the information necessary for the 
preparation of his or her defence, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the 
criminal proceedings."  
 
2.2. Chronology of the Impact Assessment 
2.2.1. Consultation of stakeholders  
Stakeholders were consulted on several occasions. Th e Commission has regular and frequent contact with 
major stakeholders: European Criminal Bar Associa tion, Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, 
national Bar associations, European Network of Counc ils of the Judiciary, academics, NGOs such as 
JUSTICE, Amnesty International and Fair Trials Inte rnational. The Commission has been researching this 
area of criminal law for over 7 years. It issued a Green Paper on procedural safeguards in February 20036 and 
has been consulting interested parties ever since; it has thus accumulated a body of information and views on 
what experts consider would promote fairer trials and greater mutual trust between Member States.  
                                                 
5 This measure will address the righ ts of juvenile suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. 
6 Green Paper on procedural safeguards, COM (2003) 75 of 19.2.2003 
EN 5   EN A Justice Forum7 meeting was held in July 2008 to canvas vi ews on the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) 
study on mutual recognition8 (see 2.2.2 (e) below). Most participants  expressed their continuing wish to see 
legislation at EU level on procedural safeguards. There also was a 2-day experts' meeting devoted to 
procedural rights in March 2009. A Justice Forum meeting in November 2009 was devoted to Measures A 
and B of the Roadmap. Professor Spronken outlined the findings of the Letter of Rights project (see 2.2.2.(b) below).  
 
2.2.2. Studies and publications  
The IA relies on the findings of five separate studies carried out from 2007 to 2010: 
(a) An external study to gather evidence for this IA was commissioned in December 2009. The study, carried 
out by consultants Matrix Knowledge, focused on po licy options and costs of the various options. 
(b) Under the JPEN (Criminal Justice) financial pr ogramme, the Commission is funding a research project 
being carried out by the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Maastricht University ("EU-Wide Letter of 
Rights in criminal proceedings: towards best practi ce") reviewing how suspects are informed about their 
rights in criminal proceedings in the 27 Member States,  and considering the feasibility of a model 'Letter of 
Rights' to be applicable throughout the EU9. The research team submitted an interim report in September 
2009 detailing existing Letters of Rights in Member States that use them. 
(c) In 2009, researchers from Maastricht and Ghent Universities carried out a comprehensive review of 
procedural rights in the EU10 for the Commission. The study identified current practice for transmitting 
information to suspects and accused persons in all Member States.  
(d) "Effective Criminal Defence Rights in Europe", a study funded under the JPEN Programme, is a joint 
initiative of JUSTICE, the University of the West of  England, the Open Society Justice Initiative and 
Maastricht University. It is being carried out ove r a 3 year period (2007-2010) and provides empirical 
information on the extent to which procedural rights that  are indispensable for an e ffective defence, such as 
the right to information, are provided in practice in 8 EU Member States and one accession country (Turkey). 
Interim results from the study were used as part of this impact assessment11. 
(e) The "Analysis of the future of mutual recogn ition in criminal matters in the European Union",12 carried 
out by the ULB involved national experts carrying out research in their home Member State through in-depth interviews and questionnaires with practitioners, civil servants of ministries of justice responsible for 
negotiation and transposition of mutual recognition instru ments, judges, defence lawyers, liaison magistrates 
and prosecutors. The report found that defence rights had been neglected in the development of mutual 
recognition. Levels of trust betwee n Member States were not sufficient and the EU was encouraged to do 
more to redress the balance between facilitating prosecu tion and protecting the rights of suspects and accused 
persons. 
 
 
                                                 
7 The Justice Forum, an expert group convening European representatives of all actors in the justice systems, 
including judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers, was cons tituted with the aim of providing an arena in which the 
Commission could consult its stakeholders. It meets 4-5 times a year for a themed discussion. 
8 "Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union" by Gisèle 
Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen and Laura Surano (Call for tenders JLS/D3/2007/03 European Commission) – 20 November 
2008 
9 JLS/2008/JPEN/032  
10 EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings – Taru Spronken, Gert Vermeulen, Do rris de Vocht, Laurens Van 
Puyenbroeck – JLS/2008/D3/002. 
11 The research project covers nine countries: Poland, Hu ngary, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, England and 
Wales and Finland and an accession state (Turkey).  
12 "Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union" by Gisèle 
Vernimmen-Van Tiggelen and Laura Surano (Call for tenders JLS/D3/2007/03 European Commission) – 20 November 
2008 
EN 6   EN Additional sources of information used in preparing this Impact Assessment include:  
 
• The book “Suspects in Europe: Procedural Rights at th e Investigative Stage of th e Criminal Process in the 
European Union”13. It contains a detailed account of procedural  rights in 11 Member States and served as a 
basis, together with the studies, for co mparing Member States' current practice,  
• Annual reports of the ECtHR 2003-2009, 
• European Court of Human Rights, “50 Years of Activi ty - some facts and figures” and Survey of activities 
2007", 
• Council of Europe annual penal statistics, 2007, 
• Study on the Transparency of Costs of Civil Judici al Proceedings in the European Union, contract 
JLS/2006/C4/007-30-CE-0097604/00-36,  
• International comparison of publicly funded legal servi ces and justice systems, Ministry of Justice, United 
Kingdom, October 2009, 
• Explaining attitudes towards the justice system in  the UK and Europe, Ministry of Justice, United 
Kingdom, June 2008.  
 
 2.2.3. Internal consultation an d scrutiny of the Impact Assessment 
An Interservice Impact Assessment Steering Group was created involving representatives from DGT, DG 
SCIC, DG COMP, DG MARKT, DG RELEX, DG ELARG, OLAF, the Legal Service and the Secretariat-
General. An IASG meeting was he ld on 15 March 2010 At the meeting and in subsequent communication 
with individual DGs, comprehensive feedback was r eceived which has been take n into account throughout 
this report (Annex VI). 
In her hearing before the European Parliament in  January 2010, Vice-President Reding emphasised EU 
action in the area of rights for the accused as am ong her priorities for her term of office.  
This Impact Assessment was examined by the Euro pean Commission's Impact Assessment Board on 5 May 
2010. Further to the IAB's recommendations, additional info rmation, explanations a nd data was provided. At 
the Board's request, the context of the initiative for th is proposal ("Measure B") as integral part of the 
measures laid down in the Procedural Rights Roadmap is e xplained in greater detail in part 2. The fact that 
the initiative is not only meant to contribute to an impr ovement of judicial coopera tion but also aimed both at 
the strengthening of fundamental rights of individuals at EU level and promotion of free movement of EU 
citizens has now been more clearly emphasised; the general and specific objectives of this initiative as set out 
in part 4 have been refined and am ended in line with the Board's sugges tions. The Board asked for a better 
explanation of the link between insufficient or inade quate provision of information to suspects and accused 
persons and practical problems in judicial cooperati on between Member States: while no further statistical 
information could be added, the explanation of the c onnection between the specific problem of insufficient 
information and the general problem of  delays and other complications in judicial cooperation proceedings in 
part 3 was extended and an up-to-date example illustrati ng the link added. Equally, in part 7 a more rigorous 
analysis of the proportionality of both elements of th e preferred option was included and, in part 3, the 
explanation of the need for action at  EU level (subsidiarity) elaborated. Furthermore, the report now provides 
a more detailed explanation of the costs ranges set out in parts 5 and 7 using exemplary indications of costs 
ranges for selected Member States to illustrate the effect of relatively wide ranges in the size of different cost 
factors across the EU. Following the Board's recommenda tion, greater use is made of references to the 
annexes throughout the main body of the report. Furthe r, more technical changes have been made throughout 
the report and its annexes pursuant to the Board's recommendations. 
 
 
 
                                                 
13 Ed Cape, Jacqueline Hodgson, and Ties Prakken (Intersentia May 2007) 
EN 7   EN 2.3.  Compliance with standards of consultation 
 
General principles and minimum standards for consulta tion of interested parties have been followed in 
relation to this initiative. The views of all major st akeholders and Member States were sought. The Justice 
Forum November 2009 session covered the right to information.  
 
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
Summary of the problem: 
 
There is insufficient trust between judges and prosecu tors of different Member States. Divergences in 
practice and a number of high profile cases have damaged the perception of justice in certain Member States. 
In practice this means that judges ma y hesitate to agree to judicial cooperation requests from other Member 
States. The situation will become ex acerbated as more mutual recognition instruments become applicable in 
Member States, following on from the European Arr est Warrant. The effective application of mutual 
recognition requires mutual trust. The ECHR is not e nough to redress the situation for various reasons set out 
in this Impact Assessment. One aspect of the problem is  a failure on the part of Member States' authorities to 
give adequate information to suspects and accused persons , and in particular information about what rights 
they have and what they are accused  of. This information should be give n to suspects and accused persons to 
ensure that they have a fair trial. The ECHR does not  require this explicitly, but Commission research shows 
that it would make a considerable difference if info rmation was given to all suspects and accused person 
throughout the EU in a similar way. It would lead to  greater trust between judges if they knew that other 
Member States observed the same practices as they did, but not only between judges since the impact would 
be felt by all citizens. 
 
 
3.1. The general problem: insufficient mu tual trust between Member States 
Insufficient levels of mutual trust between Member States' judicial authorities affect the cooperation in 
criminal matters between them. Since the 1999 adoption of the Tampere Conclusions, Member States have agreed that mutual recognition should be the cornerstone  of judicial cooperation, that is, that judicial 
decisions taken in one Member State should be consider ed as equivalent to each ot her wherever that decision 
is taken, and so enforceable anywhere in the EU. If a judicial authority (usually a court or judge) in a 
Member State is to be expected to enforce or execute a foreign judicial decision (e.g. a custodial sentence or 
an arrest warrant) with the same effects as its own, th at authority has to trust that the fundamental rights of 
the person concerned have been, or will  be, respected in that other EU Member State. If that authority has 
any doubts about the consistent and comprehensive complia nce with fair trial rights in criminal proceedings 
in one or more other Member States, judges and pr osecutors may be unwilling to allow the surrender of 
someone or the sending of evidence for use in a trial in another Member State.  
The perception that the rights of suspects and accused  persons are not respected in every instance has a 
disproportionately detrimental effect on mutual trust and, in turn, on judicial cooperation.
14 
Evidence15 and consultation16 point to this and judges and prosecuto rs throughout the EU have argued this 
must be addressed. They stress that the difficulties in th e application of EU cooper ation measures can be felt 
in day to day practice but are not always translated  into a higher number of refusals to surrender persons 
requested under European Arrest Warrants.  
   
                                                 
14 ULB study: lack of trust: para 18 
15 ULB study, para 18. This assessment is supported by testimony of European Judicial Network members.  
16 Justice Forum July 2008. 
EN 8   EN 3.2  Rebalancing EU justice policy through further strengthening of fundamental rights  
Whilst various important measures have been taken at  European Union level to guarantee a high level of 
safety for citizens (most notably the Framework Decisions  on the European Arrest Warrant and the European 
Evidence Warrant), no measures were taken to ensure that individuals suspected or accused of having 
committed a criminal offence could benefit from a high le vel of fair trial standard s in criminal proceedings 
wherever these proceedings take place in the EU.  
The need to improve the balance between measures f acilitating prosecutions and enforcement of sentences 
and those protecting fundamental procedural rights of the individual had been identified by the Commission as early as 2003, calling for specific action on procedural rights. However, discussions on procedural rights 
within the EU had, for many years, not led to any conc rete results. This has change d with the adoption of the 
Procedural Rights Roadmap by the Council of the Eu ropean Union in November 2009 in which Member 
States resolved to take step-by-step action strengthe ning procedural rights of suspects and accused persons 
throughout the EU. Member States and stakeholders a like agree that it is necess ary to enhance citizens' 
confidence that the European Union and its Memb er States will protect and guarantee their rights. 
The Roadmap points the way for EU action and gives the Commission a mandate to act on a series of 
measures, which, taken together, will create a high standard of fundamental rights going well beyond the 
protection currently offered by Arts 5 and 6 ECHR. Ta king this course will also give a specific EU meaning 
to the fair trial safeguards enshrined in Arts 47 and 48 CFREU.   
3.3  Promoting free moveme nt of EU citizens 
Insufficient trust in Member States' legal systems and the inadequate protection of fundamental fair trial 
rights may deter EU citizens from exercising their right to move and reside freely within the territory of other 
Member States guaranteed by Art. 21(2) TFEU17. Removing obstacles to free move ment of EU citizens is an 
essential aspect of ensuring that the internal market opera tes effectively for EU citizens. Provisions of the EU 
Treaties relating to free movement are intended to fac ilitate the pursuit by EU citizens of activities of all 
kinds throughout the EU, and preclude measures which mi ght place them at a disadvantage should they wish 
to pursue an activity in the territory of another Member State.18 
Approximation of fair trial standards across the EU by implementation of the Procedural Rights Roadmap 
will address the issue of lacking trust of citizens in th e fair operation of another Member State's criminal 
justice system and thus contribute towards removing obstacles to free movement of citizens – be they real or perceived. 
 
3.4 The specific problem: insufficient info rmation in criminal proceedings and its 
consequences  
Access to information for suspects and accused persons is a key factor in ensuring fair proceedings. Suspects 
and accused persons cannot be presumed to have a deta iled-enough knowledge of their rights at the moment 
of arrest or police interview to enable them to make effective use of these rights, such as the right to legal 
advice (which may even be free, depending on the ci rcumstances). Even where suspects and accused persons 
do have a general knowledge of their basic procedural entitlements, they might find themselves in situations 
in which special rights and protections going beyond th e rights available in 'standard' situations might be 
applicable. It is therefore crucial that they should be in formed of their rights in ev ery case to ensure that they 
are indeed aware of the rights of which they could ava il themselves. In this sense, provision of information 
on rights is the gateway to accessing all rights. To prep are their defence adequately, accused persons also 
needs to know in detail the case against him  and what evidence there is. He also needs this information to 
                                                 
17 See also Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of 
citizens of the Union and their family members to move and re side freely within the territor y of the Member States (OJ 
L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77).  
18 See, inter alia , judgment of the Court in case 143/87 Stanton v INASTI , para 13 
EN 9   EN challenge pre-trial decisions (such as a decision refusi ng him bail) where necessary. Where that information 
is not given, the fairness of proceedings is jeopardised. 
Suspects and accused persons do not always receive all th is information. This applies both to nationals and 
non-nationals involved in criminal proceedings. The s ituation is worse for non-nationals who may not be as 
familiar with the legal system as nationals and may ha ve the added dimension of not speaking the language 
of the proceedings.  Member States have different systems for transmitting information on rights and on the case, and some 
information is not transmitted at all in some Member  States. Discrepancies between Member States' practice 
relating to the provision of information are borne out by the most recent academic studies on the subject. The 
study EU Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings
19 found that there was substantial divergence between 
Member States in the way suspects ar e informed about their rights and the case against them. It found, for 
instance, that in four Member States there was no legal obligation  to inform a suspect of the right  to legal 
assistance and that only in ten Member  States a suspect is informed about his rights by means of a written 
notification (Letter of Rights).20 Even amongst those ten Member States, the study noted a great variance in 
terms of the rights included in the Letter (e.g. some Lette rs of Rights did not mention the right to translation 
and interpretation).21 As far as this divergence in practice is concerned, the European Committee for the 
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatme nt or Punishment (CPT) has stressed that it is 
essential to provide a suspect who is arrested or detain ed with information about his rights, and that this 
information should generally be given in writing. In its report to the German Government on its visit to 
Germany in 200522 it urgently called for " the provision of clear oral information [to all persons detained by 
the police] at the very outset, to be supplemented at the ear liest opportunity (that is, immediately upon first 
entry into police premises) by provision of a written form setting out their [suspects'] rights in a 
straightforward manner. This form should be availabl e in an appropriate range of languages. Further, the 
persons should be asked to sign a statement attesting that they ha ve been informed of their right.23" 
Provision of clear and comprehensible information about an arrested suspect's rights at the very outset of 
detention will give the individual concerned the possib ility of making use of those rights (such as the right to 
legal advice ) and thus help prevent intimidation a nd ill-treatment by police staff in the crucial period 
immediately following arrest.24In relation to information about the case, law and practice also vary 
considerably from one Member State to another25. In some cases, a written summary is given whilst in 
others, the accused person's lawyer is granted access to the case file and may take copies of the parts he 
deems relevant. In three Member States no access to the case file is given26 and even in those Member States 
that provide for access of accused persons to the case-file , the point in criminal proceedings at which this 
access is granted varies significantly.   
3.4.1 Adverse effects on criminal proceedings  
Where suspects and accused persons are not adequately  informed of the rights they enjoy in criminal 
proceedings or of the case against them, this can render these proceedings unfair:27 a suspect might not be 
                                                 
19 EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings – Taru Spronken, Gert Vermeulen, Do rris de Vocht, Laurens Van 
Puyenbroeck – JLS/2008/D3/002, p.15. 
20 Ibid, p16. NB A Letter of Rights, which is a standard written notification of rights, drafted in simple language 
so that it is easily understood, was introduced in Germany with effect from 1 January 2010. It is not covered by this study but the IA henceforth refers to11 Member  States operating a Letter of Rights system. 
21 Ibid, p16 – supported by findings of Maastricht University study 21 September 2009.  
22 CPT Report Germany, CPT (2006) 36, adopted on 7 July  2006 as published by the Government of the Federal 
Republic of Germany on http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/2044/CPT%20Report%202006.pdf  
23 Ibid, para30. With reference to the CPT report Germany has since introduced a letter of rights in federal 
legislation. 
24 CPT, The CPT standards – "Substantive" sections of the CPT's General Reports , CPT/Inf/E (2002) 1 – Rev. 
2009, p11; CPT Report Germany, CPT (2006) 36, adopted on 7 July 2006 as published by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/2044/CPT%20Report%202006.pdf
. 
25 EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings 
26 ES, FR and EE. EU Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings. p94. 
27 See for example the following ECtHR cases: Padalov v Bulgaria (judgment of 10 August 2006, application n° 
54784/00), para 54; Talat Tunc v. Turkey  (judgment of 27 March 2007, application n°32432/96); Salduz v. Turkey 
EN 10   EN aware that he can seek independent legal advice from a lawyer before police questioning and may thus be 
prone to make statements under the psychological pressu re of detention which might be unduly incriminating 
and could be relied on at trial by the prosecution. A suspect who is convicted on the basis of his initial 
statement may appeal against his conviction and succeed in having the conviction overturned by an appellate 
court; the costs of the initial trial would thus be wast ed. Similarly, where a suspect is held in pre-trial 
detention on the order of a court but cannot inspect the case-file that the police or prosecution presented to 
the court to obtain the order, he may not know the basis of the evidence on which the court relied when 
ordering the detention. The accused might appeal agains t the order although he might have chosen not to do 
so had he known on what compelling evidence the cour t relied on. Appeals and aborted proceedings such as 
this result in unnecessary costs for the Member State in  which these criminal proceedings take place: court 
costs, costs of keeping a suspect in pre-trial detention,28 and, where applicable, costs to the Member State's 
legal aid budget. Eventually, suspects or accused persons  might lodge applications with the ECtHR based on 
lack of information in the initial stages of criminal proceedings, with the respondent Member State having to 
pay the applicant costs of domestic and ECtHR proceedi ngs if the application is successful. Such costs in 
applications relating to lack of information a bout rights or the case can vary significantly; in Padalov v 
Bulgaria costs reached 1,700 €,29 whilst in Mooren v Germany they reached 5,600 €.30 Were sufficient 
information provided to suspects and accused persons in  all instance, Member States would be likely to 
achieve costs savings resulting from court budget savings  on account of fewer appeals etc. However, owing 
to lack of relevant statistical data the magnitude of  such savings cannot be predicted with any precision. 
 
3.4.2 Adverse effects on judicial c ooperation between Member States  
Inadequate provision of information on rights or on the charges against an accused person may not only lead 
to problems and associated costs in the Member State wher e the original criminal proceedings take place, but 
also in other Member States where a court in the Memb er State in which the proceedings take place wishes 
to seek cooperation from other Member State(s) in orde r to advance the criminal proceedings or enforce a 
financial or custodial sentence. Several EU instrument s have been adopted over the course of the last decade 
to improve such cooperation, most notably the Framew ork Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW 
- in operation since 1 January 2004), the European Evid ence Warrant and the transfer of sentenced persons 
between Member States.  
All instruments aiming to facilitate judicial coopera tion between Member States rely on the principle of 
mutual recognition: a decision of a court in one Member St ate (the issuing state), such as an arrest warrant or 
a final judgment imposing a prison sentence, shall be recognised and enforced by the courts of another 
Member State (the executing state) and treated as equi valent to their own decisions, i.e. without any further 
review of the decision or any leng thy recognition proceedings. Such qu asi-automatic mutual recognition 
presupposes mutual trust between judges and courts th roughout the EU in the fairness of criminal 
proceedings and the lawfulness of the decisions to be enforced. This trust depends on adherence to 
sufficiently high fair trial standards and the availability  of effective defence rights across the EU. Where this 
trust is found to be wanting, mutual recognition will not  work; courts in one Member State asked to execute 
an arrest warrant issued by a judge in another Member  State would want to satisfy  themselves in every case 
that the proceedings on which an arrest warrant was b ased or for which arrest and surrender of a person was 
sought, were, or were likely to be, fair and compliant w ith ECHR fair trial standards. Protracted proceedings 
would be the consequence where the sought person resist ed surrender to another Member State and appealed 
against a decision recognising another Member State's arrest warrant. Mutual recognition of the foreign 
decision may even be refused where significant doubts as to the fairness of proceedings in another Member 
                                                                                                                                                                  
(judgment  of 27 November 2008, application no. 36391/02); Panovits v Cyprus  (judgment of 11 December 2008, 
application no. 4268/04); Kamasinski v Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989 A Series N° 168),  Ocalan v Turkey 
(judgment of 12 May 2005); Moiseyev v Russia (9 October 2008); Mooren v Germany (judgment of 9 July 2009, 
application no. 11356/03). 
28 These costs vary significantly by Me mber State: in England and Wales, th e costs of one day in prison average 
130 € per day; in Germany they range around 70 € per day.  
29 Padalov v Bulgaria (judgment of 10 August 2006, application n° 54784/00). 
30 Mooren v Germany (judgment of 9 July 2009, application no. 11356/03). 
EN 11   EN State remain. Thus Member State courts have alrea dy refused to execute EAWs on account of a probable 
violation of the sought person's fair trial ri ghts upon surrender to the issuing Member State.31 
But even where another Member State's court decision is eventually enforced by th e courts in the executing 
Member State, the swift operation of judicial cooperati on instruments can be hampered significantly. This is 
the case where the person sought on the basis of an EA W appeals against a decision to recognise and execute 
the EAW and, eventually, brings an application agai nst the Member State wishing to surrender him before 
ECtHR, citing a likely infringement of  his fair trial rights in the Member State seeking his surrender. In this 
respect, some Member States have indicated th at significant delays (of more than a year32) have occurred in 
EAW proceedings where an appeal against a decision to  order (or to refuse) surrender of the sought person 
had been lodged. Thus insufficient mutual trust between judicial authorities detrimentally affects the efficient 
operation of the EAW within the timelines provided in the EAW Framework Decision. Such delay translates 
into an increase in court costs, co sts for holding a sought person in extradition detention and legal aid fees. 
In this context it is crucial to emphasise that it ma y take only one high-profile case in which a suspect's or 
accused person's fair trials rights have  been breached to erode the trust of  judges in one Member State in the 
fair operation of another Member State's criminal jus tice and thus significantly hamper judicial cooperation 
between the respective Member States. This risk is exp ected to be magnified when those mutual recognition 
measures adopted at EU level si nce the EAW Framework Decision33 have been implemented and when 
Member States seek to enfo rce freezing orders, financial penalties or the transfer of convicted persons 
serving a custodial sentence to another Member State.  
Allegations of insufficient information on rights or ch arges being provided to suspects or accused persons, 
and an associated potential violation of the right to a fair trial as enshrined in the ECHR, have already 
adversely affected judicial cooperation between Member States. Whilst there is very little detailed statistical 
data available on the causes for delay in judicial coop eration proceedings, a most recent case provides ample 
illustration of the consequences such allegations of in adequate information on the charge against a suspect 
can have on intra-EU judicial cooperation. In this case,34 execution of a Portuguese EAW by UK courts for 
execution of a two-year prison sentence took more than 14 months and involved five decisions by UK courts 
and a decision by the ECtHR against the sought person who argued that his accelerated trial in Portugal had been unfair owing to failure on the part of the Portugu ese authorities to inform him about the charge. Had the 
alleged unfairness of the Portuguese proceedings, said to ha ve been caused, to a significant extent, by lack of 
information on the charge against the accused, not been the central issue of the pr oceedings in the UK, it is 
assumed that surrender would have been effected signifi cantly more swiftly than was the case.  Owing to 
limited data available on the factors influencing the le ngths of judicial cooperation proceedings in executing 
Member States, it is impossible to quantify with preci sion the financial consequen ces of inadequate provision 
of information to suspected and accused persons on judi cial cooperation proceedings in the executing state in 
terms of courts budget impact and legal aid costs.  
Insufficient information is a common fe ature of cases that are known to have attracted media attention. These 
cases, although the exception rather than the rule, are lik ely to have adverse effects on the reputation of a 
Member State's criminal justice system as it only takes one high profile case to  erode trust and thus 
jeopardise judicial cooperation. The NGO Fair Trials In ternational (FTI) has reported that out of 30 cases in 
which it was involved, in only two cases was the suspect  or accused person informed of their rights. The 
following case studies were presented by FTI and serve as examples: 
 
                                                 
31 E.g. Case AU7667, Rechtbank Amsterdam  (judgment of 4 January 2006); Lisowski v Regional Court of 
Bialystok  [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), High Court of England and Wales (judgment of 28 November 2006). 
Generally, it has to be noted, though, that the average refusal rate thoughout the EU currently stands at 4 to 8 %. 
32 Council Doc 10330/3/08 (Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the 
European Arrest Warrant – Year 2007), p11. 
33 Such as the Framework D ecisions on Financial Penalties, Confiscatio n, Freezing Orders, European Evidence 
Warrant, Transfer of Prisoners and European Supervision Order. 
34 See R (on the application of Gary Mann) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court  [2010] EWHC 48 (Admin) 
(judgment of 19 January 2010). 
EN 12   EN Case examples on information on rights  and charges in criminal proceedings: 
 
The T-Brothers  
FT and AT, nationals of Member State A, were arrested  in Member State B on drugs charges.  The brothers 
were interrogated without lawyers, forced to sign c onfessions in the language of B which they did not 
understand, and were not shown the charges against them for over a year . The brothers were unaware of their 
right to legal assistance and an interpreter . They were convicted to six years' imprisonment.  
GM 
GM national of Member State A, attended a major footba ll tournament in Member State B.  Following street 
disturbances he and 13 others were arrested. They were  tried and convicted under “emergency” powers, less 
than 48 hours after the arrests. GM has maintained  that he was elsewhere with friends during the 
disturbances, but he had no chance to call them as  alibi witnesses. Unbeknown to him, the emergency 
legislation provided for a 1 month stay of proceedings  to prepare a defence, in  cases where, for example, 
identification was in issue – as here. GM was not inform ed of this crucial right until long after the trial .  
Together with 13 other defendants he  was given only brief access to a court-appointed lawyer on the day of 
his trial, who did not tell him about the possibility to seek a stay of proceedings. He also shared an interpreter 
at trial (none was given before) with the other 13 defe ndants. GM also did not know on arrest what the 
allegations were against him or what offence he was charged with . It was only when he happened to peer 
over the shoulder of the interpreter, 20 minutes before  the end of the trial itself, that he saw the words 
“leading a riot” in his native language and realised that this was what he had been charged with. GM claims 
that as a result of these failings to provide him with timely information about his rights, or to allow time for 
those rights to be properly exercised, his trial was unfair. It is likely that this situation could have been 
prevented had GM been advised in a timely way of his rights.  
T  
T, a national of Member State C, was charged with a drug offence in Member State A. Travelling back to 
Member State A from a holiday in Country B with an acquaintance who was found with cocaine in his bags 
on arrival at the airport, T was searched but was foun d to have no drugs in her own bags. T understood very 
little about the case. T says she did not know at the trial that she was testifying as a co-accused. She thought 
she was a witness for the prosecution ag ainst her acquaintance. At the trial itself, T did not know that she 
was entitled to request the assistance of a translator or interpreter . Following her conviction, T spent four 
years in jail before being pardoned by Member State A.   
 
These cases illustrate that the provision of information on  rights and the charges in a way that ensures that 
suspects or accused persons become fully aware of thei r rights and the accusations against them is crucial to 
safeguard the fairness of criminal proceedings. Curre ntly, only some Member States inform suspects and 
accused persons both of their rights and of the case agai nst them in a manner that makes it likely that the 
person is adequately made aware of his rights and recei ves sufficiently detailed information on the charge to 
prepare and effective defence or, where necessary, challe nge pre-trial decisions. It will have to be ensured 
that across the EU suspects and accused persons ar e provided with such readily comprehensible and 
comprehensive information on their rights and the case and that a reliable mechanism is in place to allow ex 
post verification of the provision of information.  
 Only where judges throughout the EU can have the conf idence that all Member States provide suspects and 
accused persons with sufficient information about th eir rights and the charges in a verifiable and 
comprehensible fashion, will these judges be inclined to order the execution or enforcement of a judicial 
decision taken in criminal proceedings in another Member State. 
EN 13   EN  
3.5 Existing legal standards do not offer ad equate protection to suspects and accused 
persons 
Currently, there is a considerable discrepancy between  Member States' laws and practice in relation to 
providing suspects and accused persons with informati on on their rights and the case against them and there 
are no sufficiently high and adequately enforced st andards governing the provision of information to 
suspects and accused persons that apply uniformly to all Member States.  
There is no legislation at EU level laying down pr ocedural rights and guarantees for suspects and accused 
persons to complement the increasi ng numbers of EU measures providing for mutual recognition of judicial 
decisions in criminal proceedings. The Charter of F undamental Rights (CFREU) in its Arts 47 and 48 sets 
out rights that are similar to, although less specific th an, those of the ECHR and has become legally binding 
for Member States with the entry into force of the Li sbon Treaty. Arts 47 and 48 lay down the rights to an 
effective remedy and to a fair trial, the presumption of  innocence and the rights of the defence. Art 6 contains 
safeguards in case of arrest and detention and has th e same meaning and scope as Article 5 of the ECHR.35 
Member States are bound by the provisions of the Charter when acting within the scope of Union law; within 
their respective powers, EU institutions as well as Member  States must respect these rights and promote their 
application (Art 51). 
However, minimum rights and fair trial standards for all member states of the Council of Europe are laid 
down in the ECHR. Stakeholders argue that the ECHR and its enforcement mechanism do not, in all cases, 
offer sufficient protection for the su spects and accused persons in genera l and guarantee the provision of 
adequate information on rights and charges in particular. This is due to two factors: 
a) Rights to information contained in the ECHR do not go far enough  
Arts 5 and 6 of the ECHR lay down minimum procedural  rights and standards for ensuring that criminal 
proceedings are fair. Art 6(3) ECHR sets out a catalogue of rights in criminal proceedings but does not contain an express
 right to information on rights. While the ECtH R has, in its case-law, stressed the need to 
inform a suspect of his rights in order to  enable him to exercise them effectively,36 there is to date no specific 
case-law on the issue of how suspects must be informed about their defe nce rights. Pursuant to Arts 5(2) and 
6(3)(a) ECHR a person arrested or charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly  of 
the reasons for his arrest or the nature and cause of the accusation against him in a language which he 
understands. The level of detail of the information to be  given depends on the circumstances of the 
individual case and the ECtHR has refrained from layi ng down hard and fast rules. However, when 
interpreting the right to have adequate time and facil ities for the preparation of his defence pursuant to Art 
6(3)(b) ECHR, the ECtHR has repeatedly decided that the accused or his defence lawyer has to be given 
access to the case-file in order to prepare the defen ce adequately and provide equality of arms between 
defendants and prosecutors.37 Yet, as the study by Ghent and Maastri cht Universities found, there is still no 
right for suspects or defendants (or their lawyers) to have access to the case-file in four Member States.38 
b) Shortcomings in the pr ocedure for obtaining redress  
Someone whose rights have been violated by a country signatory to the ECHR may, in theory, bring a case 
before the ECtHR once he has pursued all available av enues of appeal in the state concerned. Thus, the 
system of protection granted by the ECtHR is ex-post  only. Ensuring justice in individual cases ex-post  
serves a different purpose from laying down generally applicable rules ex-ante. Moreover, the enforcement 
                                                 
35 Explanation on Article 6 of the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Official Journal, 
14.12.2007, C 303, page 19. 
36 Padalov v Bulgaria (judgment of 10 August 2006 , application n° 54784/00).para 54; Talat Tunc v. Turkey  
(judgment of 27 March 2007, application n°32432/96); Salduz v. Turkey ( judgment  of 27 November 2008, application 
no. i36391/02); Panovits v. Cyprus  (judgment of 11 December 2008, application no. 4268/04). 
37 Kamasinski v Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989 A Series N° 168),  Ocalan v Turkey (judgment of 12 
May 2005); Moiseyev v Russia (9 October 2008). 
38 T Spronken/G Vermeulen et al, EU Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings, p94. 
EN 14   EN system of the ECHR suffers from a huge back log of cases awaiting disposal at the ECtHR39.  There are 
difficulties in bringing a case, e.g. the requirement to  pursue domestic appeals and the application to the 
ECtHR can be too expensive for some applicants in th e absence of legal aid.  Finally, any remedy for the 
violation may come many years after. Therefore many people whose rights have been violated never bring an 
action at the ECtHR. Furthermore, as these rights may not  be enforceable in certain Member States' legal 
traditions where the ECHR itself is not directly ap plicable, thus making recourse to the ECtHR the only 
possibility of obtaining a remedy for a violation.  
In the light of these limitations to the current protection of the right to information currently afforded by the 
ECHR and its enforcement mechanism, it becomes apparent that any EU measure addressing the problem of 
ensuring that suspects and accused persons receive ad equate information about their rights and the case 
against them across the EU should go beyond  the current ECHR standard and create stronger rights to 
information, stating expressly by what means and at wh ich moment in criminal proceedings information has 
to be provided to a suspect or accused person. Info rmation on rights at least for those suspects who are 
deprived of their liberty should generally be provided in writing in line with CPT recommendations. It is also 
crucial that not only should the substance of the right to  information be strengthened, but also that it should 
be ensured that such higher EU standards are enforced effectively.  
 
3.6 The scope of the problem  
Member States currently do not collect data on the numb er of proceedings in which insufficient information 
is complained about or has led to judicial decisions be ing appealed and upheld or reversed by a higher court. 
Whilst the number of cases in which the ECtHR found a signatory state in breach of rights under Art 6 
ECHR have  increased steadily over the last  decade (from 234 in 2003 to 482 in 200940), this is not 
necessarily indicative of an increase in the number of  instances where criminal proceedings in Member 
States may have fallen short of the standards of Art. 6 ECHR, let alone of the number of cases in which a suspect or accused person may not have been informed  adequately about his rights or the case against him. 
The number of cases reaching the ECtHR are contingent on a variety of factors which do not all relate in 
proportion to the actual number of case s where violations of fair trial ri ghts may have occurred. Factors such 
as the availability of legal aid to bring a case to the ECtHR can skew the proportionate relationship between 
the number of cases brought before the ECtHR and the act ual number of cases where violations of fair trial 
rights occur but are not brought to the ECtHR.  
Qualitatively, however, the problem of suspects and a ccused persons not being provided with indispensable 
information on their rights or the case against them  is ongoing and the ECtHR continues to find Member 
States to be breaching the rights enshrined in Arts. 5 and 6 ECHR where suspects or accused persons in 
certain situations are not being told of their right to receive legal advice or are not given access to the case-file so as to prepare their defence adequa tely or to challenge pre-trial decisions.
41 Stakeholders have 
confirmed the seriousness of the probl em highlighted by these cases and the fact that across the EU these 
problems, whilst not endemic, can occur in most Member States. 
 
3.7 The baseline scenario: how would the problem evolve all things being equal?  
Mutual trust between Member States' judicial authoriti es is expected to remain at the current insufficient 
level as it is likely that instances of Member States' authorities failing to provide suspects or accused persons 
with information on their rights and/or the case against them will continue to occu r and be reported. While 
there is a trend among Member States to adopt legisl ation requiring law enforcement authorities to provide 
suspects or accused persons with a wr itten notification of their rights in  a language they understand and to 
grant them or their lawyer access to the case file, ther e are no indications that this trend will lead to all 
                                                 
39 120, 000 cases pending as at February 2010. 
40 European Court of Human Rights, Annual Report from 2003 to 2009  
41 E.g. in the cases of Padalov v Bulgaria (judgment of 10 August 2006 , application n° 54784/00); Panovits v. 
Cyprus  (judgment of 11 December 2008, application no. 4268/04); Mooren v Germany (judgment of 9 July 2009, 
application no. 11364/03). 
EN 15   EN Member States introducing similar obligations. Without precise and binding obligations to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights and/or the case agains t them at EU level, no further disincentives against 
Member States failing to provide adequate information to suspects and accused persons would be created to 
ensure that those instances of failu re to provide information would be  prevented. The expected further 
increase in the caseload of the ECtHR would continue to limit the effectiveness of the ECHR in improving 
the provision of information to suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings across the EU.  
 Increased movement of citizens between Member States
42 and activities of individuals or businesses in one 
Member State having an effect in ot her Member States will lead to a great er need for judicial cooperation in 
criminal proceedings between Member States (e.g. eviden ce to be gathered in other Member States, financial 
penalties to be enforced and more individuals surre ndered on the basis of an European Arrest Warrant). 
Between 2006 and 2008 the number of EAWs issued by  Member States rose from 6,750 to 13,600, the 
number of persons surrendered from 1,890 to 3,400.43 This rise in the number of EAWs is likely to continue 
over the coming years and will make the problem of insu fficient levels of mutual trust considerably more 
acute.   The need to improve mutual trust will become even more pressing with the implementation and application 
of the raft of EU judicial cooperation measures envisag ing the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in 
criminal proceedings such as those concerning the gath ering of evidence abroad or the transfer between 
Member States of convicted persons serving custodial sentences.
44 It is particularly this latter instrument the 
application of which will make promotion of mutual trust between Member States' judicial authorities by 
strengthening fair trial rights at EU level essential. These measures which were adopted at EU level over the 
last few years have been improving the effectiveness of prosecutions and enforcement of sentences across 
the EU. Yet there is a consensus among politicians, prac titioners and other stakeholder that the absence of 
measures at EU level to promote the rights of citizens as suspects in criminal proceedings in another Member 
State has created a sense of imbalance in EU justice policies which the Council is now aiming to address in 
the Roadmap.   A proposal for 'Measure A' (draft Directive on the ri ght to interpretation and translation in criminal 
proceedings) has been agreed by th e European Parliament and the Counc il in June 2010 and will be formally 
adopted later in the year. This will address the issu e of ensuring that susp ects and accused persons not 
understanding the language in which criminal proceed ings against them are conducted are provided with 
interpretation and translation of core documents in the proceedings. It will not require Member States to 
ensure that all suspects and accused persons – whether they und erstand the language of the proceedings or 
not – are suitably informed both of their rights in the proceedings and of the case against them. There is a 
limited overlap between Measure A and Measure B in th e sense that Measure A will require Member States' 
authorities to provide suspects and accused who do not understand the language of the proceedings with a 
translated copy of core documents contained in the re levant case file. In this limited sense Measure A will 
already ensure that accused persons are provided with some  information on the case against them.  
 
 
  
                                                 
42 Eurostat data confirm that the percentage of foreigners  in the overall population in the EU increased from 3.5% 
in 2000 to 6.1% in 2007:  
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/port al/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=p ortal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=welc
omeref&open=/t_popula/t_pop/t_demo_pop&language=en&product=REF_TB_population&root=REF_TB_population&scrollto=0 
43 11371/4/07 (no data from BE, DE, IT and SE), 10330/3/08 (no data from BE, BG and IT); 9734/2/09 (no data 
from BE, BG, DK, IT, MT, NL, AT, PT and UK). 
44 Framework Decisions on the European Evidence Warran t, implementation deadline: 19 January 2011, and on 
the Transfer of Prisoners, implem entation deadline 5 December 2011. 
EN 16   EN 3.8 Does the EU have the power to act? 
 
3.8.1  The legal basis 
The EU's legislative competence for a Directive laying down minimum rights in criminal proceedings is set 
out in Art 82(2)(b) TFEU. Pursuant to this provision, minimum rules concerning the rights of individuals in 
criminal proceedings may be adopted by means of di rectives to the extent necessary to facilitate mutual 
recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters 
having a cross-border dimension. The necessity for legislative action at EU level is demonstrated by the 
problems currently encountered in Member Stat es' courts in judicial cooperation litigation. 
 Art 82(2)(b) TFEU provides the legal basis for legislation applicable not only to cross-border criminal 
proceedings (i.e. proceedings with a link to another MS or a third count ry) but also to domestic cases as a 
precise, ex ante  categorisation of criminal proceedings as cross- border or domestic is impossible in relation 
to a significant number of cases. Links between domestic  proceedings to another MS or third country can 
appear at any time throughout the various stages of crim inal proceedings at which the application of specific 
provisions dealing with cross-border situations might not be possible anymore or certainly would make 
proceedings unpredictable and unmanageable. Thus, even after criminal proceedings have concluded with a 
final judgment imposing a sentence on the defendant by the courts of his Me mber State of nationality, such a 
case could still turn into a cross-bor der case necessitating judicial cooperation between Member States where 
the convicted person moves (or flees) to another Member State prior to having served his sentence in full. An 
EAW might thus have to be issued for achieving the re turn of that person (or the enforcement of a financial 
penalty be sought by the court which had imposed the penalty). Thus it is essential for the promotion of 
mutual trust to ensure that measures strengthening mi nimum fair trial rights apply to suspects and accused 
persons in all criminal proceedings throughout the EU and not  just those proceedings which show a cross-
border element at their outset. In addition, the CF REU guarantees rights to everyone suspected of being 
involved in cross border or purely national proceedings  
3.8.2 Why the EU is better placed to take action than Member States? 
The EU is establishing its own, unique system of j udicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual 
recognition throughout the EU. Such a novel system ca lls for a guarantee of uniformly high standards of 
fundamental procedural rights protection in the EU. Considering that there is wide variation between 
Member States on the content, means and timing of information on rights and on the charge provided to 
suspects and accused persons, it is unlikely that Member States acting individually would be able to establish 
a sufficiently consistent standard of provision of info rmation. Even recurring CPT reports issued to Member 
State governments calling on them to ensure that arrested  suspects are informed of their rights by means of 
accessibly drafted written notification have only led to a minority of Member States adopting a system of notification by such means. Similarly, there are no i ndications that Member States would provide for raising 
and approximation of standards of informing accused pers ons of the charge against them. Whilst a majority 
of Member States already use largely identical means of informing accused persons of the charge, there is 
still significant variance in the precise way and timing of the provision of this information which leads to a 
divergence of standards in relation to this informat ion across the EU. This illustrates that it will only be 
action taken at EU level that may allow setting a cons istent and high standard of information given to 
suspects and accused persons throughout the EU.   The ECHR already sets Europ ean-wide fair trial standards (which, in relation to a number of rights, cannot 
always be considered sufficient in the scope of prot ection) but its enforcement mechanism cannot guarantee 
a sufficient and consistent level of compliance by its signa tory states, including EU Member States. This is a 
further indication that the EU would be better placed to  take action than individual Member States since if 
the EU takes legislative action, the full panoply of en forcement mechanisms (such as the duty to transpose a 
directive into legislation in the Member State; impl ementation monitoring by the Commission; the possibility 
of infringement proceedings before the ECJ against non-compliant Member States) would be available to 
make sure that there was compliance with the new right to  information standards contained in EU legislation.  
 
EN 17   EN 4. Objectives  
Any measure(s) taken at EU level should achieve the following objectives,  which have been developed on 
the basis of the general and specific problems identified in part 3: 
 
Objectives: 
General: To improve judicial cooperation in the EU by restoring mutual trust between Member States in 
the fair operation of the criminal justice systems  
To ensure a high level of protection of fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, thus fostering 
free movement of EU citizens throughout the EU 
Specific: To facilitate execution and enforcement 
of judicial decisions in criminal matters 
across the EU by ensuring that suspected 
or accused persons in the EU receive sufficient information on their rights
, 
preferably in writing, for them to exercise their defence rights effectively.  
 To facilitate execution and enforcement of judicial 
decisions in criminal matters across the EU by 
ensuring that accused persons in the EU receive 
sufficiently detailed information on the case 
against them  in order to enable them to prepare 
their defence or challenge pre-trial decisions effectively. 
 
Operational: Information provided to suspects or 
accused persons on their fair trial rights 
should:  
• be in clear language which will 
be easily understood by the 
suspect or accused person 
• be provided at first contact with 
the police 
• include core rights under the 
ECHR and the CFREU which 
are applicable on arrest, first 
interrogation and during 
detention 
• be provided in such a way that it 
is possible to verify that the 
information has been transmitted Information provided to suspects or accused persons 
on the charge or accusation should: 
• be sufficiently detailed to allow adequate 
preparation of the defence case or challenge 
of pre-trial decisions 
• be provided in a timely fashion and in such 
a way that the suspect or accused person 
understands the case against him 
• be provided in such a way that it is possible 
to verify that the information has been 
transmitted 
 
Measure B forms part of a package of measures for improving mutual trust. Only once all the measures 
envisaged in the Roadmap are in place will it be possi ble to achieve the general objective. The following 
options are assessed against the speci fic and operational objectives above.  
5. Policy options and their impact 
The options for addressing the problem as defined in part  3 of this Impact Assessment, in line with the 
objectives as established in part 4, are set out below.  
 
 
EN 18   EN 5.1 Discarded options 
In relation to both non-legislative and legislative options, limiting the scope of the options or measures to 
criminal proceedings of a cross-border nature has be en discarded as largely unworkable in practice for the 
reasons set out above (see para 3.8.1.).  
5.2  Overview of policy options  
 
• Retention of the status quo: This option would involve taking no action  at EU level.  
 
• Other policy options: Below, two sets of policy options are presented, one set, (A), covering 
information about a suspect's  rights  and one, (B), covering information about the case against the 
suspect or accused person .  
 
A) Policy options that address the problem of suspects and accused persons not always 
receiving adequate information about rights : 
Non-legislative action: 
• Policy option A1 : EU-wide information campaign on minimum defence rights 
 
• Policy option A2 : Council Recommendation on good practice on informing suspects 
and accused persons of their rights 
 
EU legislative action: 
• Policy option A3 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform suspects and accused 
persons about their rights by means of Member States' choosing  
 
• Policy option A4 : EU-wide duty to inform arrested suspects about their rights by 
means of a Letter of Rights to be drafted by Member States, containing a  common 
minimum set of rights (ECHR rights and EU law), with Member States to add further 
rights available under their own legislation  
 
• Policy option A5 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform arrested suspects and 
accused persons about their rights by means of a Letter of Rights including standard 
EU-wide formulations of minimum rights as annexed to the Directive  
•   
 
B)  Policy options that address the problem of suspects and accused persons not always 
receiving adequate information about the case  against them promptly, in detail and in 
a language they understand:  
 
Non-legislative action: 
• Policy option B1 : Council Recommendation on good practice and training on 
informing suspects and accused persons of the case against them  
 
EU legislative action: 
• Policy option B2 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform suspects and accused 
persons about the case against them by  means of Member States' choosing  
•  
• Policy option B3 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform suspects and accused 
persons of the case against them which includes granting them (or their lawyer) 
access to the case-file   
EN 19   EN  
5.2 Description and impact analysis of policy options 
There are currently no data on the overall number of cr iminal proceedings in which suspects and defendants 
are or are not provided with adequate information for ensuring fairness of the proceedings. Options are 
therefore assessed on the basis of effectiveness in ach ieving the specific and operational objectives in largely 
qualitative terms using input from stakehol ders, and in terms of potential cost  savings and efficiency gains of 
criminal proceedings.  
The specific issue of juvenile and other vulnera ble suspects and accused persons receiving adequate 
information in relation to their circumstances will not be covered by the options presented for this measure 
but will be the subject of a separate measure ( "Measure E" of the Procedural Rights Roadmap). 
All policy options envisage equal treatment of EU and non-EU nationals; third- country nationals would 
receive the same protection as EU citizens in criminal proceedings throughout the EU. 
 
5.2.1  Retention of the status quo  
No action would be taken at EU level. By unanimously adopting the Roadmap45 at the JHA Council meeting 
on 30 November 2009, Member States made it clear that they would not support retention of the status quo. 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives The situation is expected to evolve as set out in part 3.7  above. As the ECHR does not 
contain an express right of suspects to be informed of their fair trial rights, this option would not contribute to ensuring Member States' authorities adequately inform suspects about their rights. Whilst there is a trend amongst Member States to introduce 
requirements to provide suspects with a written notification of their procedural rights 
when they are first detained  or questioned as suspects
46, there are no indications that all 
Member States will follow this trend. Similarly, even though Member States are already under a duty under Arts. 5(2) and 6(3)(a) ECHR to inform suspects and accused persons of the nature and cause of the charge against them, and, where necessary, should grant 
access to the case-file on the basis of Art.  6(3)(b) ECHR, Member States currently 
discharge their duty to inform about the charge by widely differing means. Information is often provided orally, on an ad hoc  basis. Yet, in order adequately to prepare a 
defence or, where necessary, challenge pre-tr ial decisions, the suspect or accused person 
needs detailed information on the case, especially as regards the evidence against him. 
Some Member States do not currently provide for access to the case file
47 in their 
national law. Thus the retention of the status quo would not contribute to achieving the specific objectives set out in part 4.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights There are no expected positive social impact s. On the contrary, failure to implement 
Measure B of the Roadmap would strengthen the impression of EU justice policy primarily being concerned with enhancing prosecutorial cooperation between Member 
States without sufficient regard to the effective protection of the rights of citizens as 
suspects or accused persons. This option could also foster the perception that the Charter of Fundamental Rights – and the fair trial guarantees enshrined therein – have 
no discernible impact on EU policy formulation.  
Financial and 
economic impact There are no immediate new financial burdens associated with this option. However, 
this option will not lead to a reduction in the costs to Member States' law enforcement 
                                                 
45 See Annex I. 
46 Eleven Member States now operate Letter of Rights  schemes: AT, CZ, DE, ES, IT, LV, LU, PL, SL, UK. 
47 EE, ES, FR; with effect of 1 January 2010 DE has in troduced a right of suspects to grant their lawyers access 
to the case file. Were a suspect or accused person is not re presented by a lawyer, he has a right to receive information 
from the case file, which may include the provision of photocopies of core documents.  
EN 20   EN budget and to individual suspects or accused persons incurred by appeals, aborted 
prosecutions and protracted judicial cooperation litigation in Member States where suspects have not been provided with adequate information on their rights at a decisive 
stage of criminal proceedings.  
 
5.2.2 Policy options A : Options for ensuring provision of adequate information about rights  
 
Policy Option A1 :  EU-wide information campaign on minimum defence rights  
Description:  Launch an information campaign launched ta rgeting defence lawyers, law enforcement 
frontline staff and suspects in police stations explaini ng the fair trial rights suspects and accused persons 
enjoy under the ECHR, EU directives implementing th e Roadmap and Member States' law. Campaign to 
consist of production of leaflets a nd posters setting out these rights distri buted to police stations and schools 
and through existing networks  and EU agencies including the European Judicial Network, European Judicial 
Training Network and the European Police College, a nd defence lawyers and human rights organisations 
including as the CCBE, the European Criminal Bar A ssociation and Member States' lawyers associations 
The European Commission would provide coordinati on for the campaign. However, in line with the 
voluntary nature of Member States' participation in the campaign, the Commission would not plan to carry 
out any formal monitoring activity, and Member States would not be expected to report to the Commission 
on implementation. 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives There would be no guarantee that leaflets and posters setting out the minimum rights 
would be available in an appropriate range of languages in police stations across the EU in sufficient numbers and actually be provided to suspects. Member States or 
individual authorities might refuse to participate in the campaign and could not be compelled to do so. Recent country visit reports by the Committee of the Prevention 
of Torture (CPT) indicate that only a duty  of law enforcement fro ntline personnel to 
inform suspects and accused persons of fair trial rights in writing can be expected to 
ensure that adequate information on defence rights is routinely provided to suspects. 
On the basis of this experience, option A2 has to be considered as insufficiently 
efficient  to achieve the objectives set out in part 4.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option would raise awareness of the rights enshrined in Arts. 5 and 6 ECHR and 
the fair trial guarantees in Arts. 47 and 48 CFREU and could to lead to a reduction in 
cases where there is a complaint of violation of fair trial standards.  
Financial and 
economic impact Production costs to the EU would range between 100.000 € for a poster campaign to 
2-5 million € for a leaflet campaign, which excludes the administrative costs of 
translating the material in a sufficiently high number of languages. The operational 
costs or administrative burden on Member  States in ensuring that the campaign 
material is available would generally be low to medium (stakeholders have suggested a range of between 3 and 10 million € for all Member States) . A comprehensive 
campaign would be needed to reduce appeals or aborted prosecutions where it is 
alleged that adequate information about fair trial rights was not provided.  
 
Policy option A2 :  Council Recommendation on good practice in relation to informing suspects 
and accused persons of their rights  
Description: A non-binding Council Recommendation for Member States to improve the provision of 
information on suspects' rights through provision of writte n notification of fair trial rights in a language the 
suspect understands, using standard templates. The Recommendation would identify current good practice in 
those Member States that already use Letters of  Rights to inform suspects and accused persons. The 
EN 21   EN Recommendation would envisage the commissioning by th e European Commission of a study on the effect 
of the Recommendation three years after its adoption. Given the non-binding nature of a Recommendation, it 
would not contain any reporting obligations on part of the Member States as concerns its implementation. 
Most non-government stakeholders did not consider  non-legislative options on their own as capable of 
promoting achievement of the objectives identified in part 4. 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives It is not certain that the non-binding Recommendation would be implemented fully by 
all Member States, particularly those which do not have a Letter of Rights scheme already. Despite repeated and strongly-worded exhortations by the CPT to several Member States that the provision of writte n notification of procedural rights is 
essential, especially to those suspects or accused persons in detention, only 11 
Member States have, so far, introduced  obligations to provide such written 
notification. It is uncertain whether a Recommendation would be more effective than the current robust system of CPT visits and reports, at least where arrested or detained 
suspects are concerned.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option is likely to reduce the number of violations of the right to a fair trial as 
guaranteed by the ECHR and the CFREU, but not significantly. Owing to its non-
binding nature it is unlikely to promote a culture of EU-wide fundamental rights and 
the setting of an EU standard of fair trials. Moreover, the fact of choosing a mere non-binding measure to promote fair trial rights compliance across the EU as opposed to the binding and enforceable legislative instruments used for mutual recognition of judicial decisions (such as arrest warrants and freezing orders) could exacerbate the 
perception of significant imbalance between prosecutorial and defence rights-oriented 
measures.  
Financial and 
economic impact The financial or administrative burden resulting from this option depends on the level 
of Member States' implementation of all or  some of the provisions contained in the 
Recommendation. Full implementation of the Recommendations is likely to have a 
similar financial and economic impact as option A4 (see there) with the exception that there would not be an impact on the caseload of the ECJ.  
 
Policy Option A3 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to info rm suspects and accused persons about 
their rights by means of Member States' choosing  
Description: A Directive creating a duty for Member States to ensure suspects and accused persons are 
informed of immediately relevant procedural rights arising from the ECHR and other EU legal instruments 
(the right of access to a lawyer, the right to be informed  of the charge and, where appropriate, to be provided 
access to the case-file, the right to interpretation and translation for those who do not understand the 
language of the proceedings and the right to be brought  promptly before a court if the suspected or accused 
person is arrested) in a language th ey understand. The Directive would not prescribe the means by which this 
information would be conveyed, so Member States ma y choose whether the information should be provided 
orally or in writing. The Directive would also stipulate th at an adequate record would have to be kept of the 
actual provision of the information to the suspect  to enable verification of that compliance. 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives This option would be more efficient in term s of achieving the specific objectives than 
the previous options on account of its legislat ive nature: it would create an express and 
unambiguous duty for Member States to ensu re that suspects were informed of their 
fair trial rights which all Member States would have to implement. Thus, Member 
States would have to create an express right to information which would be 
enforceable in their courts. Courts may and sometimes must make preliminary references to the ECJ to seek clarification on the scope or application of the Directive. 
EN 22   EN Furthermore, infringement proceedings under Art 258 TFEU could be brought where 
the Commission considered that a Member State had not implemented or applied the Directive adequately.  
However, the efficiency of this option is likely to be limited by leaving to Member 
States the decision on how to implement the Directive in terms of the means  chosen to 
inform suspects about their rights. Member States could choose to require only oral 
notification to be given to suspects. Yet, the CPT has repeatedly highlighted the 
problems associated with purely oral notification of rights in its reports. Thus, option 
A3 could only achieve limited efficiency in relation to the specific and core operational objectives, especially since robust verification of the provision of information - even where contemporaneous recording of an oral notification were to 
be required under Member States' implementing legislation - would not be guaranteed. 
This limited efficiency applies a fortiori to the objective of adequately informing 
foreign suspects of their rights where notification would have to be in a language the foreign suspect understands.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option would complement, but not go beyond,  the protection afforded by Arts. 5 
and 6 ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR. The creation of such a  gateway-right, key 
to enabling suspects to avail themselves in practical terms of their procedural rights, 
would not only ensure greater awareness of fair trial rights across the EU and make 
them more visible but would also contribute to fostering an EU culture of fundamental rights.  
Financial and 
economic impact The financial impact of this option on Member States will depend on the extent to 
which Member States would have to adjust their current practice to the requirements of the Directive, which, in turn, depends on the level of information on fair trial rights provided to suspects and accused persons at present.  
The impact on those Member States which cu rrently use Letters of Rights to notify 
suspects and accused persons of their rights is expected to be minimal both as regards 
one-off costs adjusting current practice to the requirements of the Directive (mainly by including further rights in their respective Letters of Rights) and operational costs per year. Similarly,those Member States which currently inform susp ects about (some of) 
their rights orally and will retain a system of purely oral notification of rights are 
likely to incur limited one-off costs for providing update on further rights oral notification of which may be necessary under the Directive. Significantly greater one-off costs are likely to be incurred by those Member States currently using exclusively 
oral notification of rights that will intr oduce an accompanying Letter of Rights to 
effect notification of rights. These costs and associated operational costs per year 
would be largely identical to the set-up and operational costs predicted for option A4 (see there). 
This option is likely to lead to a reduction in Member State expenditure for aborted 
prosecutions and appeals. The magnitude of these savings depends on the method Member States choose to comply with the directive: medium cost saving effects are likely to be yielded by those Member States among the 16 that do not  yet have a 
system of written notification in place bu t  would now be introducing mandatory 
written notification of rights. The level of  these positive cost effects would be 
significantly lower where Member States decided to require only oral provision of information on fair trial rights. Equally, expected cost savings on the part of suspects owing to decreased recourse to appeals would depend on the way the Directive was 
implemented in each Member State.  
 
Policy Option A4 : EU-wide duty to inform arrested susp ects about their rights by means of a 
Letter of Rights to be drafted by Member States, containing a common 
minimum set of rights (ECHR rights a nd EU law), with Member States to add 
further rights available under their own legislation  
EN 23   EN Description: A Directive creating a duty for Member States to en sure that suspects who are deprived of their 
liberty are informed of immediately relevant proce dural rights arising from the ECHR and other EU legal 
instruments by means of a written notification (Letter of Rights)  to be provided in a language they 
understand. Letter of Rights would have to be drafted to be comprehensible for a person with a low reading 
Member States may choose how to formulate the Letter of Rights  as long as the minimum common rights 
stipulated in the Directive are adequa tely included in the wording. The Di rective would stipulate that a copy 
of the Letter of Rights handed to the suspect would have to be signed by him or, where signature was 
refused, by an official of appropriate level confirming  that a Letter of Rights had been given to the suspect. 
Suspected and arrested persons who are not under arrest  will receive information on their procedural rights 
by means of Member States' choosing, i.e. orally or in writing. 
This option has the support of a number of Member States and most non-governmental stakeholders.  
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objective Stakeholder experience indicates that this le gislative option will achieve the specific 
objectives to a greater extent than option A3 as it envisages notification of suspects of their fair trial rights in every case by m eans of a written Letter of Rights. Greater 
efficiency is also expected in terms of the potential for robust verification of the provision of information as required by the Directive. Equally, this option is likely to 
demonstrate efficiency in relation to achieving the general objective of improving 
judicial cooperation as it would allow judges called upon to order enforcement of a judicial decision issued in another Member St ate to see the Letter of Rights used in the 
criminal proceedings in the issuing Member State with a view to satisfying themselves 
that the individual concerned had been provided with sufficient information about his 
rights to afford him a fair trial.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option would go beyond the protection offered by the fair trial guarantees 
enshrined in the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR in that it would require Member 
States in all criminal proceedings to notify suspects and accused persons under arrest of their rights in writing .  
The social impact of this option will go significantly beyond the impact of option A3 
since written notification can be expected to reduce the risk, and perceived risk, of 
abuse of police power in relation to suspects detained by the police as emphasised by the CPT in its reports. Another fundamental ri ghts aspect of having a written Letter of 
Rights in all Member States would be that they could be used not only in actual 
criminal proceedings but also as an educational tool for young persons in schools and 
other educational institutions.  
Financial and 
economic impact The main direct financial impact of this option is expected to be the one-off set-up 
costs  incurred in the drafting and translation of Letters of Rights  in Member States 
and in informing and training law enforcement  frontline personnel, prosecutors 
and judges . The size of this impact will vary between Member States that use Letters 
of Rights that would already comply with the minimum content to be stipulated by the Directive, those that already use Letters of  Rights that would only comply with some 
of the Directive's requirements and those which do not yet operate Letter of Rights 
schemes at all. Also, one-off costs will vary depending on the extent to which face to face training or simply an information upda te or circular is used to prepare law 
enforcement and judicial personnel on the change in law and practice required by the 
Directive. These non-recurring set-up costs are likely to range between 15,000 € and 
2.5 million € per Member State, depending on the number of official to be trained and the level of remuneration of internal and external training personnel in individual Member States. Thus, for example set-up costs for Malta are likely to range between 
5,200 and 30,000 € and for France between 650,000 and 2.4 million €. Owing to the 
EN 24   EN relatively wide range of training costs factored into the model calculations for this 
option48 and further statistical inaccuracies in the modelling it can be expected that the 
bottom half of the costs ranges indicated ab ove will reflect more accurately the actual 
costs to be incurred in practice.  
 On the basis of model calculations, overall  operational costs per case of this option 
are estimated to range between 5,000 € and 4.6 million € per year per Member State depending on the number of criminal proceed ings per year and levels of public sector 
remuneration. Thus, for example overall operational costs for Cyprus are likely to 
range between 5,000 and 30,000 € and for France between 1.9 million and 4.6 million €. The actual impact in terms of operational costs per case in relation to current operational costs per case will only be a fraction of this sum which, owing to lack of 
available statistical data collected by Member States, cannot be quantified with 
precision.  
In terms of indirect costs savings to Member States' law enforcement and courts 
budgets, this option is likely to yield better results than option A3 on account of improved means of verification of compliance with the duty to inform suspects 
adequately of their procedural rights
49. For those Member State that have not 
introduced Letter of Rights schemes already, these savings can be expected to be the greatest owing to a greater potential reduction in the number of appeals and aborted proceedings.  
 
Policy Option A5 : Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform arrested suspects and accused persons 
about their rights by means of a Letter of Rights including standard EU-wide 
formulations of minimum rights as annexed to the Directive  
Description:  A Directive as in option A4 but stipulating an EU-wide standard formulation of immediately 
relevant procedural rights (the right of access to a lawyer , the right to be informed of the charge and, where 
appropriate, to be provided access to the case-file, the ri ght to interpretation and translation for those who do 
not understand the language of the pr oceedings and the right to be brough t promptly before a court if the 
suspected or accused person is arrested) to be include d the Letter of Rights. Thus, suspects and accused 
persons deprived of their liberty on account of arrest  and pre-trial-detention w ould be informed of the 
minimum rights they enjoy throughout the EU by means of a uniform formulation of these rights. 
This option is favoured by a number of non-governmental  organisations and legal academics and is currently 
also the subject of a research project under the auspi ces of the Ministries of Justice of Austria, Belgium, 
Germany, Hungary and Sweden.  
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives Amongst all policy options A this option is predicted to yield greatest efficiency in 
terms of achieving the general and specific objectives. In relation to the general 
objective of promoting mutual trust between Me mber States this option is likely to be 
highly effective as prosecutors and judges across the EU would know that suspects received identical information about th eir common EU-wide minimum procedural 
rights wherever in the EU the proceedin gs were being conducted. Similarly, 
verification of the actual provision of accurate information on the minimum fair trial 
rights applicable throughout the EU in an easily understood form would be facilitated to the greatest possible extent by use of a uniform Letter of Rights.  
As the Directive would provide that  Member States must only use a single  Letter of 
Right to inform suspects and accused persons of their rights which would, where 
applicable, contain both the standard EU-wide formulation of minimum rights and 
                                                 
48 See Annex V, A(1.). 
49 This was assumed by the German Government when ch anging the legislation governing access to the case file 
with effect from 1 January 2010: Explanatory memorandum to the Bill, BT-Drs 16/1164, p14. 
EN 25   EN further national rights, the risk of confusing suspects by using more than one Letter of 
Rights to inform them of their rights (such as separate EU and national ones) would be averted.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights Like option A4, this option would go beyond the current level of rights guaranteed in 
Arts 5 and 6 ECHR. To a greater extent than for options A3 and A4, the introduction of a standard EU-wide Letter of Rights containing information on core minimum 
procedural safeguards across the EU would promote an EU fundamental rights culture 
and the setting of an EU standard of fair trial rights.  
The remote risk of rights erosion which this option may pose where Member States' 
respective national laws provide for a more comprehensive set of procedural rights 
than those annexed to the Directive would be countered by the insertion of a non-
regression clause in the Directive. It appears unlikely that Member States would 
actually water down procedural rights going beyond those currently enshrined in the ECHR simply because they would not be  reflected in the EU-wide standard 
formulation of the notification of ECHR and EU rights set out in an Annex to the 
Directive.  
Financial and 
economic impact50 Member States' one-off set-up costs of introducing Letters of Rights would be lower 
than those predicted for option A4 as they would incur reduced costs for drafting and 
translating their respective Letters of Rights: As the Commission would draft and translate the EU-wide standard formulatio n for minimum rights to be included in 
Member States' Letters of Rights in all 23 official Member State languages in the 
course of the preparation of the proposal for a Directive, Member States would not 
incur these costs. However, they would still incur the costs of translating the Letter of 
Rights into other languages than Member States' 23 official languages but could benefit from coordination among themselves for these translations. Thus, even the costs for translation the standard formul ation of minimum rights in these other 
languages might only be incurred once per la nguage where Member States cooperate 
on translation.  
Operational costs for Member States of this  option are expected to be identical to 
those calculated for option A4 (see there and in part 7.2). 
The administrative costs to the Commission for drafting and translating the standard 
Letter of Rights in Member States' official  languages in the course of the process of 
preparing a proposal for a Dir ective are likely to be equivalent of 50 hours' working 
time of a Commission official plus 200 hours working time for translation services for 
the initial translation into all Member State official languages . One-off training and 
per-case operational costs of this option incu rred by Member States and indirect cost 
savings would be largely identical to those estimated for option A4.  
 
5.2.3 Policy options B:  Options for ensuring adequate inform ation about the nature and cause of the 
charge or accusation  promptly, in detail and in a language they understand  
 
Policy option B1 :  Council Recommendation on good practice and training on informing suspects 
and accused persons of the case against them  
Description: Council Recommendation setting out good practice relating to the provision of suspects and 
accused persons (or their lawyer) with information on the case against. Member States are urged to provide 
access to the case-file held by the police, prosecution or the court. Where granting access would prejudice 
the due course of the criminal proceedings, informa tion on the case should be provided by other suitable 
means, preferably in written form. Member States w ould also be urged to provide further training to law 
                                                 
50 See in detail part 7.2 and Annex V. 
EN 26   EN enforcement personnel, prosecutors and judges wher e necessary. The Recommendation would envisage the 
commissioning by the European Commission of a stud y on the effect of the Recommendation three years 
after its adoption. Taking into account of th e non-binding nature of a Recommendation, the 
Recommendation would not contain any reporting obliga tions on part of the Member States as concerns 
implementation of the Recommendation. 
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives Stakeholders regard access to the case-file as the best possible means of providing 
comprehensive information on the state of investigations or proceedings, particularly in terms of providing an exhaustive overview of the available evidence against the accused person. Yet, while those Member States which do not grant accused persons 
access to the case file might  choose to introduce such a right on the basis of a 
Recommendation, this non-binding instrument would not compel  Member States to 
provide for such a right. This would limit the efficiency of this option in relation to achieving the specific objective of ensuring that Member States provide sufficiently 
detailed information on the case against accused persons so as to enable them 
adequately to prepare their defence or ch allenge pre-trial decisions: Member States 
would be free to retain the status quo or only provide for giving accused persons less comprehensive information than they would receive were they afforded access to the 
case-file. Worse, this option would not prevent regression in standards by the high 
number of Member States that currently al low accused persons, or their lawyers, full 
access to the case-file.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option presents the same potential for detrimental impact in terms of the 
perceived imbalance of EU justice policies described for options A2 and A3: whilst 
measures that assist the prosecution, such as the EAW and mutual recognition of financial penalties and freezing orders are contained in legislative instruments, there are no similar legislative measures at EU leve l to strengthen the rights of suspects and 
accused persons subject to these mutual recognition measures.  
Financial and 
economic impact The financial impact of this option on Member States would depend on the extent to 
which Member States implemented the Recommendation which, in turn, would be 
contingent on each Member State's current le vel of conformity with the core content 
of the Recommendation. Thus, as 23 Member States already state that they inform 
accused persons of the case against them by allowing them to inspect the case-file, the 
financial impact of implementation of the Recommendation would be low and might 
simply consist of the costs of providing law enforcement personnel and judges with an 
updating circular on the Recommendation. The financial impact for Member States that do not provide a right of access to the case-file will be identical to that expected for the preferred option B3 and is set out in detail in part 7.2.  Indirect costs savings 
resulting from a reduction of the number of appeals and failed prosecutions in 
proceedings in which accused persons were not provided with adequate information 
on the charge or accusation against them are likely to be minimal.  
 
Policy Option B2 :  Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform  suspects and accused persons about the 
case against them by means of Member States' choosing  
Description:  A Directive creating a duty on Member States to ensure that suspects and accused persons  are 
informed promptly and in detail of the nature and cause of the charge or accusation against them in a language they understand by means of Member States' choosing. The Directive would not prescribe the exact 
means  by which the information had to be provided or wh ether the information should be provided orally, in 
writing or by other means.  
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in This option would effectively consist of a transposition of the existing duty on 
EN 27   EN meeting objectives Member States to inform arrested persons and those charged with a criminal offence 
of the nature and cause of the charge against them under Arts. 5(2) and 6(3)(a) ECHR into EU law. Whilst implementation of the Directive would make this existing right to 
information under the ECHR enforceable in Member States' courts and allow 
infringement proceedings to be brought in the ECJ against Member States failing to 
implement the Directive or misapplying it in practice, the Directive in this option would still leave the decision to Member States as to how to inform accused persons 
of their rights. Therefore, in terms of substa ntive content, this option would add little 
to the protection of suspects' right to information already enshrined in the ECHR with its shortcomings described in part 3. Thus it would not give accused persons an enforceable right to require Member States' authorities to provide them with 
information going beyond  oral information or the information contained in written 
case summaries or pre-trial decisions as alr eady provided under current obligations in 
most Member States. Member States would not be required to provide for the most 
comprehensive means of giving informing on the case by allowing access to the case-file. 
Therefore, this option is likely to yield only limited efficiency in terms of achieving 
the specific objectives set out in part 3; in particular, since this option would allow 
information on the case to be provided in a wide variety of ways (e.g. by the provision of an oral case summary, a formal indictment or Anklageschrift in writing or by  
granting the suspect or his lawyer access to th e case-file at an early stage in a criminal 
investigation), this option is unlikely to facilitate meaningful verification of compliance.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights By enshrining an express right to information at EU level, this option, while not going 
beyond the rights in Arts 5 and 6 ECHR, would contribute to fostering a culture of fundamental rights protection at EU level.  However, as this right would not go beyond 
existing obligations under the ECHR, it would not set a specific and high EU standard 
of fair trial rights tailored to the requirem ents of the advanced judicial cooperation 
system in the EU.  
Financial and 
economic impact The financial impact of this option on Member States will depend on the extent to 
which Member States would have to adjust their current practice to the requirements 
of the Directive, which, in turn, depends on the level of information on the case provided to accused persons at present. The impact  on those Member States which 
currently provide detailed oral or written information or provide information by 
granting accused persons access to the case-file is expected to be minimal both as 
regards one-off costs and operational costs pe r year. It would be sufficient to inform 
law enforcement personnel and judges of the new right to information being created in Member States' law on the basis of the Directive and it would be identical to the 
existing obligation under the ECHR of which law enforcement personnel, prosecutors 
and judges will already be apprised. 
Significant one-off costs  are likely to be incurred by th ose three Member States where 
provision of information on the case currently does not include granting accused persons access to the case-file if these Member States chose to implement the duty to 
provide information on the charge by allo wing accused persons to inspect the case-
file.  These costs and associated operationa l costs per year would be largely identical 
to the set-up and operational costs predicted for option B3 (see there and in part 7.2). 
Generally, overall operational costs ( not: the isolated impact of this option on these 
costs) of this option will vary considerable between Member States depending on the 
means they employ for informing accused persons of the case against them. Thus, these overall operational costs may exceed the operational costs predicted for option B3, especially where Member States draw up written case summaries to be given to an 
accused persons to explain the case against him: drawing up such a summary may take 
more time of higher paid officials (police officers or even prosecutors) than the time 
estimated to take for an accused person to be given the opportunity to inspect the case-
EN 28   EN file held by the prosecution or a court.  
Depending on the way Member States choose to implement the Directive, this option 
is likely to yield at best a marginal reduction in terms of court and legal aid budgets 
both in the Member State in which criminal proceedings take and those Member 
States where judicial cooperation might be sought in terms of a reduced number of appeals and aborted prosecutions on ground s of inadequate provision of information 
on the case. However, this option is likely to lead to a marginal increase in the 
caseload of the ECJ (particularly due to preliminary references by Member States' 
courts seeking clarification on the extent of the duty to inform suspects of their case).  
 
Policy Option B3 :  Creation of an EU-wide duty to inform suspects and accused persons of the 
case against them which includes granting them (or their lawyer) access to the 
case-file  
Description:  A Directive requiring Member States to ensure that suspects and accused persons are provided 
promptly with information on the case against them. In order to allow the accused person to receive adequate 
information on the case particularly in terms of the ava ilable evidence, the Directive envisages that, as a rule 
provision of information on the case has to include granting suspects or accused persons (or their lawyer) 
access to the case-file held by prosecuti on authorities or the court. Such access to the case-file will, as a rule, 
have to be granted once the investigation of the crim inal offence is concluded,  whether the suspected or 
accused person is in pre-trial detention or not. Access to specified documents contained in the case-file may 
be excluded by a competent judicial authority where acce ss to these documents may lead to a serious risk to 
the life of another person or may seriously harm the internal security of the Member State in which the 
proceedings take place. Where a suspected or accused person is arrested at any stage of the criminal 
proceedings, access will have to be granted to those docum ents contained in the case-file which are relevant 
for the determination of the lawfulness of the arrest  or pre-trial detention. Suspects and accused persons 
would have to be informed of this right. For t hose that do not understand th e language in which the 
proceedings are conducted, the proposal for a Direc tive on the right to translation and interpretation 
(Measure A), currently under negotiati on, should ensure that key documen ts in the case file are translated 
into a language the accused person understands. Where access to the case -file has been provided to the 
accused person, an adequate record of this, signed by him, would be kept. Access to the case-file would be 
granted free of charge.  
Expected Impact 
Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives This option is expected to achieve a significantly higher degree of efficiency in 
relation to the specific and core operational objectives than options B1 and B2 as this 
option would lead to the creation of an express obligation on Member States' 
authorities (and a corresponding right of suspects and accused persons) to provide suspects and accused persons with what stak eholders generally consider to be the 
optimal means of providing comprehensive information on the case. While other 
means of informing suspects and accused persons of the case against them (e.g. by 
provision of a written case summary) carry the risk of being unduly one-sided or subjective, inspection of the case-file can be expected to yield a comprehensive and 
thus generally more balanced overview  of the case and the available evidence.  
Social impact and 
fundamental rights This option would lead to the creation of a uniform right applicable throughout the EU 
which would go beyond the rights expressly set out in the ECHR and would make it directly enforceable in Member States' cour t where this right has not been previously 
available. It would make the right to information on the case visible and contribute to 
the creation of an EU standard of fair trial and thus give meaning to the right to a fair trial as set out in Art. 47 CFREU.  
EN 29   EN Financial and 
economic impact51 The overall financial impact of this option depends on the extent to which Member 
States would be required to change their cu rrent laws and practice and is likely to be 
insignificant in relation to the 24 Member States that already provide access to the 
case-file. These costs would be incurred in providing law enforcement personnel and 
judges with an updating circular or other information on the Directive, especially where the Directive requires a Member State to change the timing or other technicalities relating to the process of granting accused persons access to the case-
file. 
The financial impact on those Member Stat es that do not yet provide access to the 
case-file will be higher on account of potentia l one-off training costs and a limited 
increase in operational costs per case: where training will be provided to police 
officers, judges and prosecutors it would be likely to result in one-off costs of between 
9,000 € and 2.6 million € per Member State depending on the size of the police force and number of judicial personnel to be trained.
52 Thus, for example, one-off training 
costs for Estonia are likely to range between 9,500 and 35,600  € and for Spain 
between 585,000 and 2.19 million € . 
Operational costs consist of the working time  costs of police officers, prosecutors or 
judges having to decide whether or not to deny or limit access to the case-file and of 
clerical staff arranging for su spects or their lawyers to be given access to the file. 
Indicatively, these costs are likely to range from 5 to 20 € per case depending on the level of clerical, police and judicial salaries, which is equivalent to a range of 270,000 € to 21 million € per Member State per year.
53 Thus, for example overall operational 
costs for Estonia are likely to range between 277,000 and 588,184 €  and for Spain 
between 7.8 million and 21 million €.  It must be stressed that these costs do not take 
into account either the current level of operational costs for informing suspected and 
accused persons of the case against them or the savings to be made when information 
no longer need to be transmitted using the methods currently in practice, and may be further offset to a limited extent by indirect costs savings resulting from a reduction in the number of appeals and failed prosecutions in criminal proceedings in which 
accused persons were not provided with adequate information on the case.
54  
These potential costs saving effects  cannot be quantified with any statistical precision 
but are expected to exceed those in option  B2. In relation to the economic impact on 
individuals and businesses, it is likely that in those Member States which would have to introduce the right of access to the case file, this option could create a greater 
burden on defence lawyers taking the time to inspect the file. However, this increase 
in time spent inspecting a file may be offset by time saved in the preparation of the defence case on the basis of more complete information as gathered from the case-file. 
 
6 Comparison of policy options 
Table 6.1 sets out a comparison of the relative rating of  the six policy options as described in part 5.2.2  
against the specific and operational objectives as defined in part 4. Table 6.2 provides the relative rating for 
policy options B as described in part  5.2.3. The policy options are classi fied according to their potential to 
meet the objectives defined in part 4, with five checkmarks ( 33333 ) indicating highest relative potential. 
Ratings for expected effectiveness in  achieving the objectives are given equal weight in the final sum.  
 
                                                 
51 A detailed assessment of the magnitude of this option is provided in part 7.2. 
52 See Annex V, Tables 4 and 5. 
53 See Annex V, Table 6. 
54 This was assumed by the German Government when ch anging the legislation governing access to the case file 
with effect from 1 January 2010: Explanatory memorandum to the Bill, BT-Drs 16/1164, p14. 
EN 30   EN As regards policy options A, option A5 demonstrat es the highest potential for meeting the objectives. It  is 
therefore preferred option A . 
As regards policy options B, option B3 is expected to  yield greatest efficiency in relation to achieving the 
policy objectives and is therefore the preferred option B .  
Table 6.1 - Comparison of ratings of policy options A  (Information on fair trial rights)  
Objectives/cost Status quo Policy 
option A1  Policy 
option A2  Policy 
option A3  Policy 
option A4  Policy 
option A5  
To ensure that 
suspected or accused persons 
in the EU 
receive sufficient information on their fair trial rights for them 
to be able to 
exercise them efficiently 0 3 33 333 3333 33333 
To provide 
information in 
clear language 
which will be easily understood by 
the suspect or 
accused person
 0 3 33 333 3333 33333 
To provide 
information at first contact with the police and include core 
rights under the 
ECHR and the CFREU which are applicable on 
arrest, first 
interrogation and during detention
 0 3 33 33 3333 33333 
To ensure a 
means of 
verifying that the information has been transmitted 0 3 3 33 3333 33333 
To improve 
Member States' confidence in 
the fair 0 3 3 33 3333 33333 
EN 31   EN Table 6.1 - Comparison of ratings of policy options A  (Information on fair trial rights)  
Objectives/cost Status quo Policy 
option A1  Policy 
option A2  Policy 
option A3  Policy 
option A4  Policy 
option A5  
operation of the 
criminal justice 
systems 
throughout the EU 
Total score: 0 5 8 12 20 25 
Financial burden per Member State
55 - 100.000 € - 10 
million € 
(overall costs 
for EU) One-off set-
up:56 0 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year:57 0 € - 4.6 
million €  One-off set-
up:58 0 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year:59 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € One-off set-
up:60 15,000 € - 
2.5 million € 
Operational per 
year:61 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € One-off set-up:  
5,000 € - 2.5 
million €62 
Operational per 
year:63 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € 
Potential costs 
savings in Member State in which criminal 
proceedings 
take place - low low  low to medium medium  medium to high 
 
Table 6.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B  (Information on the case)  
Objectives/cost Status quo Policy 
option B1  Policy 
option B2  Policy 
option B3    
                                                 
55 Range based on model calculation for those Member Stat es most likely to incur implementation costs due to 
current practice diverging from the one envisaged in the option.  
56 This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 
57 Due to lack of available statistical data, this figure does not take into account the current  level of operational 
costs so that the added  financial burden of implementation of the option cannot be calculated with precision 
but can expected to be a fraction of the indicative figure presented here.  
58 This figure depends on the whether Member States w ill introduce comprehensive written notification of rights 
(Letter of Rights) or consider that comprehensive oral information about the rights should be ensured. One-off costs (mainly consisting of training costs) depend on this choice and could be nil where Member States already 
inform suspects and accused persons of their rights orally and would only have to include further rights in the 
oral notification without any ensuing training costs.  
59 The caveat in footnote 57 applies 
60 This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 
61 Due to lack of available statistical data, this figure does not take into account the current  level of operational 
costs so that the added  financial burden of implementation of the option cannot be calculated with precision 
but can expected to be a fraction of the indicative figure presented here.  
62 One-off costs to be incurred by Member States fo r training police officers,  judges and prosecutors. 
63 See footnote 57.  
EN 32   EN Table 6.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B  (Information on the case)  
Objectives/cost Status quo Policy 
option B1  Policy 
option B2  Policy 
option B3    
To ensure that 
suspected or accused persons 
receive 
sufficiently detailed information on the case in order to enable them 
adequately to 
prepare their defence or challenge pre-trial decisions  0 33 333 33333   
To provide 
information in a timely fashion and in such a 
way that the 
suspect or accused person understands the 
case against him
 0 3 333 3333   
To ensure a 
means of verifying that the information 
has been 
transmitted 0 3 33 333   
To improve 
Member States' confidence in the fair operation of the 
criminal justice 
systems throughout the EU 0 3 333 33333   
Total score: 0 5 11 17   
Financial 
burden per Member State - One-off :64 0 € - 
2.6 million € 
Operational:65 
270,000 € - 21 One-off : 66  0 € 
- 2.6 million € 
Operational: 
100,000 € - 30 One-off :67 
9,000 € - 2.6 
million € 
Operational:   
                                                 
64 This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 
EN 33   EN Table 6.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B  (Information on the case)  
Objectives/cost Status quo Policy 
option B1  Policy 
option B2  Policy 
option B3    
million € million € 270,000 € - 21 
million € 
Potential costs 
savings in 
Member State 
in which criminal proceedings take place - low low  medium   
 
7 The preferred option  
This part sets out the preferred opti on and its expected impacts in greater  detail. The preferred option is a 
combination of options A5 and B3  and can be summarised as follows: 
The preferred option: A5 + B3 
Adoption of a Directive by the Council and the Par liament which obliges Member States to ensure  
• that suspected and accused persons under arrest are informed of their rights in the criminal 
proceedings by means of a Letter of Rights in a language they understand as drawn up by 
Member States containing a standard EU-wide formulation of the minimum fair trial rights 
as set out in an Annex to the Directive and, where available, further rights pursuant to 
Member States' respective laws, and 
 
• that suspected and accused persons are inform ed of the case against them which has to 
include granting them (or their lawye r) access to the case file free of charge. 
 
 
7.1  EU added value and proportionality of the preferred option 
The preferred option would guarantee that susp ects and accused persons receive adequate and 
comprehensible information about immediately releva nt minimum procedural rights applicable throughout 
the EU and are given comprehensiv e and generally unfiltered informati on about the case against them by 
being able to inspect the case-file at an early point  in criminal proceedings. Those suspected and accused 
persons which have been deprived of their liberty by the police (by means of arrest and pre-trial-detention) 
are provided information on their immediately relevant procedural rights by means of a Letter of Rights. 
Through a legislative act based on Art. 82(2)(b) TFEU, the EU would create obligations on Member States' 
                                                                                                                                                                  
65 Due to lack of available statistical data, this figure does not take into account the current  level of operational 
costs so that the added  financial burden of implementation of the option cannot be calculated with precision 
but can expected to be a fraction of the indicative figure presented here.  
66 This figure depends on the means Member States choose to inform suspects and defend ants of the case against 
them. One-off costs (mainly consisting of training costs) depend on this choice. 
67 Mainly training costs depending on number of official receiving training and level of remuneration of trainers. 
EN 34   EN authorities (and corresponding rights for suspects and accused persons) which go beyond the rights enshrined 
in the ECHR and, upon implementati on, would be enforceable in Member States' courts. This embedding of 
the new rights in Member States' respective legal orders, the right of Member State courts to seek binding 
clarification on scope and interpretation of the ri ghts from the European Court of Justice and the 
Commission's power to launch infringement proceeding against Member States not implementing or misapplying the Directive would create strong incentives for Member States to comply with their obligations 
arising from the Directive and contribute to making the new twofold right to information practical and 
effective. . Along with Measure A a nd all subsequent measures envisaged  in the Roadmap, the preferred 
option would contribute to the creation of a genuine, EU-w ide standard of fair trials and to confidence in 
criminal proceedings and to better judicial cooperation based on mutual recognition and mutual trust. It has 
to be recalled that this cannot be achieved by an indi vidual measure such as the present one but that it is a 
step-by-step project incrementally leading to high  overall standards of fundamental procedural rights 
protection. This step-by-step approach is illustrated particularly compellingly by preferred option A5: the 
EU-wide standard formulation of minimum procedural  rights will initially comprise only the relevant rights 
laid down in Arts 5 and 6 ECHR as interpreted by th e ECtHR. Plain-language reference to the rights to 
translation and interpretation created by the proposed Directive on the rights to translation and interpretation 
in criminal proceedings ("Measure A") which is curre ntly debated by the European Parliament and the 
Council, will be added to the standard formulations once that Directive has come into  force. Further rights to 
be strengthened by Measures C to E of the Procedural  Rights Roadmap in the coming years will be added to 
the EU-wide standard formulation once these measures have been adopt ed. Thus, the EU-wide standard 
Letter of Rights will become a more potent instrument  to ensure individuals access to a high level of 
procedural rights as the measures of the Roadmap are impl emented. This incremental approach also clarifies 
that the preferred option will not create new substantive rights  by stealth.  Where options A5 and B3 create 
new duties on Member States (and corresponding rights of i ndividuals) they do so only in relation to the core 
subject-matter of this measure: the right to information.  They do not, however, create new rights unrelated to 
the provision of information; such ri ghts are likely to be created by th e other measures of the Procedural 
Rights Roadmap, but, again, each measure w ould only create new rights in its field.  
Both elements of the preferred option are proportionate in  relation to their effect as none of the alternative 
options display an equal level of effectiveness in furt hering the objectives identifie d in part 4. Whilst both 
elements of the preferred option are likely to requir e a number of Member States to introduce changes to 
their criminal procedure laws in or der to implement the Directive, th ere does not appear to be another 
equally effective means of ensuring that suspects and accused persons receive comprehensive, accurate and 
understandable information on their rights and the case ag ainst them. Both elements of the preferred option 
create new, EU-wide uniform duties on the part of Memb er States (use of a Letter of Rights and grant of 
access to the case-file to effect proper provision of info rmation on rights and charges). It is precisely this 
harmonising effect of the preferred option that mark s its effectiveness both in ensuring that suspects and 
accused persons receive adequate information in crimin al proceedings across the EU and in promoting trust 
of judges in the fairness of such pr oceedings in Member States other than their own: options A5 and B3 will 
give judges the greatest certainty that adequate pr ocedures are in place for the provision of adequate 
information to suspects and accused persons. They w ill know what minimum procedural rights a suspects 
would be (or would have been) informed of upon arre st and that an accused person would generally be 
allowed to inspect the case-file to acquaint himself w ith exact nature of the charge and the supporting 
evidence. Judges could have no similar confidence were options other than the preferred ones chosen. Thus, 
in the light of the limited effectiveness of all alternativ e options, options A5 and B3 do not go beyond what is 
necessary in order to achieve the objectives set out in pa rt 4. Options A5 and B3 also appear most cost-
effective in that they are expected to generate similar if not fewer costs to Member States than next effective 
options A4 and B2.  
It also needs to be emphasised that the effect of op tions A5 and B4 would not be limited to those Member 
States only that currently do not use Letters of Ri ghts already or grant accused persons access to the case-
file. Even amongst those Member States which alread y have Letters of Rights and provide access to case-
files the preferred option will have a harmonising effect , particularly in terms of the actual content of 
Member States' Letters of Rights and the riming at which the Letter has to be provided and access to the 
case-file given.  
 
EN 35   EN 7.2 Potential magnitude of economic and financial impact 
Assessing the likely financial and economic impact of  the preferred option with  a degree of quantitative 
precision has proved to be difficult. This  is largely due to the lack of detailed data relating to current police 
and court practice of informing suspects and accused pe rsons of their rights and the case against them. Thus, 
no exact figures could be developed to calculate curr ent overall operational costs for providing suspects and 
accused persons with information in order to have a basis for assessing the financial impact  of the preferred 
option. Model calculations for one-off costs and overall ope rational costs for the options (as set out in detail 
in Annex V) relied on extrapolations based on wide  ranges of cost factors reflecting the significant 
differences in remuneration levels between Member Stat es. Taking account of this, the financial impact of 
the preferred option on Member States is expressed in costs ranges. The level of these ranges is determined 
by a number of factors, most importantly the number of criminal proceedings per year and the number of police officers, prosecutors and criminal court judges.  Significant divergence between Member States in 
terms of these numbers explains the wide range of estimated predicted costs for individual Member States. As generally rather wide ranges of base cost factors were used throughout the model calculations it is likely 
that the actual costs per Member State affected would be  reflected best by the lower half of the costs range 
calculated for each of the Member States in Annex V.  
Member States' potential savings owing to a reduction in the number of appeals or delay in judicial 
cooperation proceedings cannot be estimat ed with any statistical precision due to lack of Member State data 
on costs per case. Thus, only indicative qualitative exp ectations in non-numerical terms could be provided 
based on stakeholder judgement.  
Core elements of 
preferred option 
and resulting 
necessary action Financial or economic impact 
Creation of an EU-
wide duty to 
inform suspects 
and accused 
persons about their 
rights by means of 
a Letter of Rights 
including EU-wide 
standard 
formulations of 
minimum rights to 
be included in the 
Letter of Rights   
 Impact on Member States: 
One-off set-up costs:  The main financial impact of the comprehensive introduction of an 
obligation to provide suspects and accused persons with Letters of Rights containing a mandatory EU-wide standard fo rmulation of minimum rights are one-off set-up/inception 
costs incurred for the introduction of Letter of Rights schemes in Member States. These 
consist primarily of the costs of  drafting the Letters in each Member State, for translating 
them into an appropriately wide range of languages and for training police officers and, where considered necessary, prosecutors and judges.  
• Drawing up and translating national Letters of Rights:
Drafting and translation into 
Member States' 23 official languages of the EU-wide standard formulation o f 
minimum rights to be contained in each national Letter of Rights will be effected by 
the European Commission as part of the legislative process of adopting the Directive. 
Member States would thus only have to bear the costs of translating the mandatory standard formulation into languages other than the 23 official languages of Member States. On the basis of German and UK experi ence it is assumed that translation into 
a further 23 languages would be necessary. It  is expected that Member States would 
cooperate in this translation exercise so th at these costs of translating the standard 
formulation into further languages would only be incurred once and shared by Member States. Depending on the level of remuneration for translation services, the 
one-off costs of this translation are likely to range between 600 and 5,800 €.
68 
• Member States individually would be free to  include in their Letters of Rights those 
procedural rights enshrined in national legislation which go further than the EU-wide 
minimum rights. Thus, Member States might incur drafting and translation costs. Those 11 Member States that already use Letters of Rights to inform suspects and 
accused persons of their rights are unlikely to have to incur these costs as they can 
                                                 
68 See Annex V, A.1.(2). 
EN 36   EN use their current formulations and transl ations alongside the EU-wide standard 
formulation for minimum rights where applicable. Drafting costs are likely to vary considerably between Member States on acco unt of differing levels of civil service 
salaries where the drafting and translation would be provided in-house by civil 
servants (as was the case in Germany and Austria where the Ministries of Justice 
drafted the Letters and used Foreign Affairs Ministry staff for th e translation) and on 
the levels of remuneration of legal experts/ professional lawyers and translators where 
drafting and translation would be procured externally. Model calculations indicate a 
range of drafting costs for information on additional national rights of between 5,000 and 50,000 €.
69 Translation costs depend on the length of a the draft to be translated, 
the level of remuneration for translation services and the number of languages into 
which Letters of Rights would have to be translated, which, in turn, would be 
determined on the basis of law enforcement frontline experience in each Member State (e.g. translation into 46 languages was considered necessary in Germany, but into 42 only in the UK). Model calculations envisaging translation of a 2 page additional formulation of national rights going beyond the standard EU-wide 
minimum rights as set out in the Directive into 46 languages yield an indicative costs 
range of approximately 400 to 4,600 € per Member State.
 70 Thus, set-up costs are 
likely to vary between 5,400 and 54,600 € per Member State.  
Informing and training police officers, prosecutors and judges: In Member States that already 
operate Letter of Rights schemes, law enforcem ent frontline staff, prosecutors and judges are 
likely to be informed of necessary amendments to Letters of Rights by inclusion of the changes in regular circulars, written updates, st aff meeting presentations so that costs incurred 
would be insignificant. Where Member States introduce Letter of Rights schemes for the first 
time, training costs can be expected. Depending on the level of remuneration of training 
personnel in Member States and the number of officials to be trained model calculations indicate a potential costs impact of between 5,000 € and 2.4 million € per Member State.
71
The following exemplary calculations provide an indication of these one-off costs for a small 
Member State  and a large one: Malta: 5,200 € - 20,000 €; France: 650,000 € - 2.4 million 
€. As not all of a Member States' police officer will require or be given full training on 
the effect of the Directive, it is likely that  the actual costs figure will verge towards the 
bottom end of the costs ranges indicated above. 
Impact on operational costs pr year: The effect of the preferred option on operational costs 
per Member State depends primarily on the level of information on rights already provided by police officers, judges and prosecutors to suspects and accused persons and the time this provision of information currently takes. In relation to those Member States already using 
Letters of Rights it is unlikely that changes to these Letters of Rights necessitated by the 
Directive (use of the standard EU-wide form ulation of minimum rights) would lead to a 
significant increase in the time spent by law enforcement frontline staff providing oral explanation on the rights set out in the Letter of Rights. Thus, budgetary implications of the 
Directive on the Member States operating Letter  of Rights schemes already are likely to be 
minimal.  
For those Member States that currently inform  suspects and accused persons orally about 
their rights, the effect on per case costs will depend on the comprehensiveness and level o
f 
detail of the oral information currently provided to suspects and accused persons: where 
Member States already inform suspects orally and in sufficient detail about all the rights 
required under the Directive, stakeholders indicated that the introduction of Letters of Rights as envisaged by the Directive may actually redu ce operational costs per case as the provision 
of a readily comprehensible written notification of suspects' rights in a Letter of Rights may 
reduce the need for very lengthy oral explanations of these rights in a number of cases. 
                                                                                                                                                                  
69 See model calculation in Annex V, A.1.(1). 
70 See model calculation in Annex V, A.1.(2).  
71 See Annex V, Tables 1 and 2. 
72 See Annex V, Table 3. 
EN 37   EN However, where police officers, prosecutors or judges in a Member State currently  provide 
suspects and accused persons with very limited oral information about their rights only (e.g. by not informing about all the rights of which the Directive would require notification), it is 
likely that the Directive will lead to an incr ease in the time police officers, prosecutors or 
judges would spend on explaining fair trial rights when they issue the Letter of Rights 
envisaged in the Directive.  
As Member States do not collect reliable statis tical data about the content and level of detail 
of information on fair trial rights law enfo rcement staff, prosecuto rs or judges currently 
provide to suspects and accused persons, the prec ise budgetary effect of the Directive in terms 
of increased operational costs per case cannot be quantified. However, it is possible to indicate the overall  operational costs per year per Memb er State of informing suspects and 
accused persons of their rights by means of the Le tter of Rights as envisaged by the Directive. 
These are not the added costs for informing suspects and accused persons of  their rights 
which may be incurred by complying with the Directive, but the overall costs of providing 
this information. Thus, the added costs incurred by Member States in implementing the 
Directive are likely to be fraction of these costs only. These overall costs for informing 
suspects and accused persons of their rights (inc luding interpretation costs for suspects who 
do not understand the language of proceedings) can be expected to range from 5,000 € per year for Member States with a very small num ber of criminal proceedings per year and low 
public sector pay levels to 4.6 million € for Member States with a very high number o
f 
criminal proceedings per year and high public sector pay levels.72  
Operational costs for the physical distribution of the Letters of Rights to those authorities 
having to use them are expected to be low; generally, it can be expected that Letters of Rights would centrally be made available online fo r printing out in Intranet-networked police 
stations or courts (this is the case in Germany and the UK). 
The following exemplary calculations provide an  indication of the overall operational costs 
for a small Member State and a large one: 
Cyprus: 5,000 € - 30,000 €; France: 1.9 million € 
- 4.6 million € . 
Aggregate costs of option A5 for those 16 Member States most affected:  minimum: 11
million €, maximum: 50.1 million €; of these one-off costs: minimum: 1.7 million €; 
maximum 7.5 million €. 
 
Creation of an EU-
wide duty to 
inform suspects 
and accused 
persons of the case 
against them which 
includes granting 
them (or their 
lawyer) access to 
the case-file i  
 
 
 
 Impact on Member States: 
One-off inception costs : currently suspects and accused persons in 23 Member States are 
provided with information on the case against them which includes the possibility o f 
inspecting the case file, so most Member States may  incur one-off costs on a negligible scale 
only when implementing the Directive. Thus, one-off costs for introducing a right to inspect 
the case file are expected only for those three M ember States that currently do not provide for 
such a right in their national laws. These costs are likely to result mainly from informing and 
training police officers, prosecutors and judges:  these costs will depend on the level o f 
remuneration of external trainers or the administrative costs of internal trainers and the 
number of officials to be trained. Model calculations indicate a cost range of between 9,000 € and 2.6 million € per Member State. However, the Member States affected may chose to provide for more limited training than envisaged in the model calculation, thus reducing the financial impact of the Directive in terms of one-off costs.
73 The following exemplary 
calculations provide an indication of these one-o ff costs for two of the three most affected 
Member States: Estonia : 9,500 € - 35,600 €; Spain: 585,000 € - 2.19 million € . As not all 
of a Member States' police officer will requi re or be given full training on the effect o f 
the Directive, it is likely that the actual co sts figure will verge towards the bottom end o f 
the costs ranges indicated above. Operational costs per year: Those Member States that do 
not yet provide for access to the case-file for susp ects and accused persons (or their lawyer) to 
                                                 
73 See Annex V, Tables 4 and 5. 
EN 38   EN inform them about the case against them will incur operational costs per case for providing 
such access. These consist prim arily of the costs of police o fficers, judges or prosecutors 
deciding whether or not exceptionally to refuse or limit inspection of the case-file and o f 
police officers or clerical court staff providing for the case-file to be inspected by the suspect 
or accused persons or to be collected by the lawyer for inspection. Model calculations for the Member States that would have to introduce a right of access to the case-file indicate a range 
of overall operational costs per year between 270,000 € to 21 million € per Member State 
depending on the number of proceedings and the level of public sector pay in the Member 
States concerned.
74 These costs are likely to be offset to some extent by savings resulting
from less time spent by officials informing suspects and accused persons of the case against them by other means currently us ed. As there is no data available on time currently spent by 
law enforcement personnel, prosecutors or judges in informing suspects and accused persons 
of the case against them, the level of the likely offset cannot be predicted with precision. The following exemplary calculations provide an indi cation of the overall operational costs for 
two of the three most affect ed Member States: Estonia
: 277,000 € - 588,184 €; Spain: 7.81 
million € - 21 million €. Due to  high top-end salary figures for clerical staff involved in 
the process of effecting access to the case-file and imprecision of other costs factors used in the model calculation, it is more likely th an not that the actual overall operational costs 
per Member State of this option verge to wards the bottom-end of the costs range 
indicated above.  
Aggregate costs of option B3 for the three Member States most affected
:  minimum: 14
million €, maximum: 41 million €; of these one-off costs: minimum: 1.2 million €; 
maximum: 4.6 million € 
Impact on legal profession: 
In relation to the economic impact on individuals and businesses, it is likely that in those 
Member States which would have to introduce th e right of access to the case file, this option 
is likely to create a greater burden on defence lawyers taking the time to inspect the file. 
However, this increase in time spent on inspecting a file may be offset by time saved in the 
preparation of the defence case on the basis of more complete information gathered from the case-file. 
Aggregate effects of 
both elements 
 
 
 
 
 Impact on Member States: 
Potential for costs savings at Member State level : Where suspects and accused persons are 
informed sufficiently and in a timely manner both  about their rights and the case against them 
by means which allow verification of the provision of the required information, stakeholders 
expect fewer instances of appeals being lodged by accused persons on the ground that they 
were provided with insufficient or even no information about their rights. Compliance with 
the information requirements could be verified at an early stage of proceedings so as to ensure 
compliance with both information requirements. This may lead to a limited reduction in Member States' police and courts budget. 
Impact on EU bodies and budget: 
Introducing two new rights for suspects and accused persons at the level of EU law can be 
expected to lead to a limited increase in the case-load of the ECJ: particularly in the first 
decade following the lapse of the deadline fo r implementing the Directive in Member States' 
laws, Member States' courts are likely to seek cl arification of the scope of these rights and the 
potential consequences of their 
breach by making preliminary references under Art. 267 
TFEU. This can have a low to medium impact on the ECJ's budget.  
Impact on international organisations: 
Implementation of the Directive may result in a limited reduction in the number o f 
applications to the ECtHR where a breach of a su spect or accused person's right to a fair trial 
                                                                                                                                                                  
74 See Annex V, Table 6. 
EN 39   EN on grounds of insufficient information on rights and the case is claimed. 
 
8.  Transposition, monitoring and evaluation   
The timeframe for transposition of the Directive by Member States will be two years from its entry into 
force. As the Directive creates only a comparatively lim ited number of Member State obligations which, to 
some extent, mirror existing ECHR obligations or already exist in a number of Member States already, it is 
expected that a two-year deadline would provide Member States with sufficient time to effect necessary 
changes to their respective national laws and practice.  Potential risks to implementation in time will be 
identified in an Implementation Plan accompanying the proposal for the Directive which setting out relevant 
measures by the Commission aimed at countering these risks.  
Providing for a robust monitoring and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the rights envisaged in 
the Directive are complied with in practice as well as in legislation.The Directive will stipulate that Member 
States' should report on the effective implementation of  legislative or non-legislative measures based on the 
nature of the proposed changes. Indicators to evaluate  the implementation of the proposal against the policy 
objectives are to be found in Annex VII. Data provi ded by Eurostat, Eurobarometer and the Council of 
Europe will enable the formation of a useful baseline for monitoring the situation. Besides quantitative data 
provided by Member States, other possible sources of  qualitative information on legislative and practical 
compliance will be gathered from the Justice Forum, the CPT75, the ECtHR, the European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary and national and European Bar Associations. If the anticipated review of the 
mandate of the Fundamental Rights Agency extends that mandate to former third pillar areas, it could play a 
role in collecting data, carrying out studies and comp iling reports on the rights covered in the Directive. 
Member States should be encouraged to collect relevant da ta to assist in this pro cess as there is currently a 
lack of reliable empirical data. 
The Commission envisages carrying out a specific empiri cal study with an emphasis on data collection 3-5 
years into the implementation of the proposal to gain  in-depth quantitative and qualitative insights into the 
effectiveness of the proposal. The data would enable  the Commission to evaluate the actual compliance in 
Member States more robustly than using the means h itherto available. Once al l Roadmap Measures are in 
place, it will be essential to evaluate each Measure in context as well as the efficiency of the Roadmap as a 
whole. 
                                                 
75 At the experts meeting on 26-27 March 2009 , the CPT offered to assist in monitoring and evaluating the 
implementation of procedural safeguards instruments in the context of CPT visits to Council of Europe 
Member States.   
EN 40   EN  
ANNEXES 
I The Procedural Rights Roadmap  42 
II: Examples of Letter of Rights (UK and DE)  46 
III: EU overview on the right to information 53 
IV: General statistics 55 
V: Model calculations 57 
VI: Report of the Impact Assessment Steering Group 68 
VII: Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 70 
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
EN 41   EN  
   
COUNCIL OF
THE EUROPEAN UNION Brussels, 24 November 2009 
 
 
  15434/09 
     
  DROIPEN 149 
COPEN 220 
LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS 
Subject: RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCI L on a Roadmap for strengthening 
procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings
Resolution of the Council 
of 
on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of  
suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Whereas: 
(1) In the European Union, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
Freedoms (the "Convention") constitutes the comm on basis for the protection of the rights of 
suspected or accused persons in criminal proceed ings, which for the purposes of this Resolution 
includes the pre-trial and trial stages.  
(2) Furthermore, the Convention, as interpreted by th e European Court of Human Rights, is an important 
foundation for Member States to have trust in each ot her’s criminal justice systems and to strengthen 
such trust. At the same time, there is room for fu rther action on the part of the European Union to 
ensure full implementation and respect of Conventi on standards, and, where appropriate, to ensure 
consistent application of the applicable st andards and to raise existing standards.  
(3) The European Union has successf ully established an area of freedom of movement and residence, 
which citizens benefit from by increasingly travellin g, studying and working in countries other than 
that of their residence. However, the removal of internal borders and the increasing exercise of the 
rights to freedom of movement and residence have, as an inevitable consequence, led to an increase 
in the number of people becoming involved in crimin al proceedings in a Member State other than 
that of their residence. In those situations, the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons are 
particularly important in order to safeguard the right to a fair trial. 

EN 42   EN (4) Indeed, whilst various measures have been taken at  European Union level to guarantee a high level 
of safety for citizens, there is an equal need to address specific problems that can arise when a person 
is suspected or accused in criminal proceedings. 
(5) This calls for specific action on procedural rights,  in order to ensure the fairness of the criminal 
proceedings. Such action, which can comprise legi slation as well as other measures, will enhance 
citizens' confidence that the European Union and its Member States will protect and guarantee their 
rights. 
(6) The 1999 Tampere European Council concluded that, in the context of implementing the principle of 
mutual recognition, work should also be launc hed on those aspects of procedural law on which 
common minimum standards are considered necessary in order to facilitate the application of the 
principle of mutual recognition, respecting the fu ndamental legal principles of Member States 
(Conclusion 37). 
(7) Also, the 2004 Hague Programme states that fu rther realisation of mutual recognition as the 
cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the deve lopment of equivalent standards of procedural 
rights in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in Member States 
and with due respect for their legal traditions (point III 3.3.1.). 
(8) Mutual recognition presupposes that the compet ent authorities of the Member States trust the 
criminal justice systems of the other Member St ates. For the purpose of enhancing mutual trust 
within the European Union, it is important th at, complementary to the Convention, there exist 
European Union standards for the protection of procedural rights which are properly implemented 
and applied in the Member States.  
(9) Recent studies show that there is wide support among experts for European Union action on 
procedural rights, through legislation and other me asures, and that there is a need for enhanced 
mutual trust between the judicial authorities in the Member States76. These sentiments are echoed by 
the European Parliament77. In its Communication for the Stockholm programme78, the European 
Commission observes that strengthening the rights of defence is vital in order to maintain mutual 
trust between the Member States and public  confidence in the European Union. 
(10) Discussions on procedural rights within the contex t of the European Union over the last few years 
have not led to any concrete results. However, 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 strengthe n procedural guarantees and the respect of the rule 
of law in criminal proceedings, no matter where citizen s decide to travel, study, work or live in the 
European Union.  
(11) Bearing in mind the importance and complexity of  these issues, it seems appropriate to address them 
in a step-by-step approach, whilst ensuring overa ll consistency. By addressing future actions, one 
area at a time, focused attention can be paid to each individual measure, so as to enable problems to 
be identified and addressed in a way that  will give added value to each measure. 
(12) In view of the non-exhaustive nature of the cat alogue of measures laid down in the Annex to this 
Resolution, the Council should also consider the possibility of addressing the question of protection 
of procedural rights other than those listed in that catalogue. 
(13) Any new EU legislative acts in this field should be consistent with the minimum standards set out by 
the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, 
                                                 
76 See inter alia  the " Analysis of the future of mutual recognition in criminal matters in the European Union ", 
report of 20 November 2008 by the Université Libre de Bruxelles .  
77 See e.g. the " European Parliament recommend ation of 7 May 2009 to the Co uncil on development of an EU 
criminal justice area ", 2009/2012(INI), point 1 a). 
78 " An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen ", COM (2009) 262/4 (point 4.2.2.). 
EN 43   EN HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: 
1. Action should be taken at the level of the Eu ropean Union in order to strengthen the rights 
of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings. Such action can comprise legislation as well as other measures.  
2. The Council endorses the "Roadmap for strengtheni ng procedural rights of suspected or accused 
persons in criminal proceedings" (hereinafter referre d to as "the Roadmap"), set out in the Annex to 
this Resolution, as the basis for future action. Th e rights included in this Roadmap, which could be 
complemented by other rights, are considered to  be fundamental procedural rights and action in 
respect of these rights should be given priority at this stage.  
3. The Commission is invited to submit proposals re garding the measures set out in the Roadmap, and 
to consider presenting the Green Pa per mentioned under point F.  
4. The Council will examine all proposals presented in the context of the Roadmap and pledges to deal 
with them as matters of priority.  
5. The Council will act in full cooperation with th e European Parliament, in accordance with the 
applicable rules, and will duly collaborate with the Council of Europe 
 
Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected 
or accused persons in criminal proceedings 
 
The order of the rights indicated in this Roadmap is indicative. It is emphasised that the explanations 
provided below merely serve to give an indication of the proposed action, and do  not aim to regulate the 
precise scope and content of the measures concerned in advance. 
 
Measure A: Translation and Interpretation  
Short explanation: 
The suspected or accused person must be able to u nderstand what is happening and to make him/herself 
understood. A suspected or accused person who does not sp eak or understand the language that is used in the 
proceedings will need an interpreter and translation of essential procedural documents. Particular attention 
should also be paid to the needs of suspected  or accused persons with hearing impediments. 
 Measure B: Information on Rights and Information about the Charges
 
Short explanation: 
A person that is suspected or accused of a crime shoul d get information on his/her basic rights orally or, 
where appropriate, in writing, e.g. by way of a Letter of  Rights. Furthermore, that person should also receive 
information promptly about the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. A person who has 
been charged should be entitled, at the appropriate time,  to the information necessary for the preparation of 
his or her defence, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal 
proceedings. 
 
Measure C: Legal Advice and Legal Aid  
Short explanation : 
The right to legal advice (throug h a legal counsel) for the suspected or accused person in criminal 
proceedings at the earliest appropriate stage of such proceedings is fundamental in order to safeguard the 
fairness of the proceedings; the right to legal aid should  ensure effective access to the aforementioned right 
to legal advice. 
EN 44   EN  
Measure D: Communication with Relatives, Employers and Consular Authorities  
Short explanation : 
A suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or he r liberty shall be promptly informed of the right to 
have at least one person, such as a relative or employ er, informed of the deprivation of liberty, it being 
understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings. In addition, a suspected 
or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty in  a State other than his or her own shall be informed 
of the right to have the competent consular au thorities informed of the deprivation of liberty. 
 
Measure E: Special Safeguards for Suspect ed or Accused Persons who are Vulnerable  
Short explanation : 
In order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, it is important that special attention is shown to 
suspected or 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. 
 
Measure F: A Green Paper on Pre-Trial Detention  
Short explanation : 
The time that a person can spend in detention before being tried in court and during the court proceedings 
varies considerably between the Member States. Ex cessively long periods of pre-trial detention are 
detrimental for the individual, can prejudice the judi cial cooperation between the Member States and do not 
represent the values for which the Euro pean Union stands. Appropriate me asures in this context should be 
examined in a Green Paper.  
  
EN 45   EN Annex II – Examples of Letters of Rights 
 
a.  Germany (English version):79 
 
Information for provisionally arrested persons  
 
(provisional arrest pursuant to sections 127 and 127b of the German Code of Criminal Procedure) 
  
Office and file number: ________________________________________
 
 
Surname, first name of the accused: ________________________________________  
 Date and place of birth of the accused: ________________________________________
 
 
 
 
You have been provisionally arrested. You have the following rights:  
 1.  Without delay, at the latest on the day after your arrest, you must be brought before a judge 
who has to question you and decide on the continuation of your deprivation of liberty, unless 
you are released earlier. 
 2. You can make a statement about the charges against you or refrain from making statements 
about the case. 
 3. You can apply for individual items of evidence to be taken in your defence. 
 
4. You can consult a defence counsel of you own choosing at any time, even before any 
questioning has taken place. 
 5. You can request to be examined by a male or a female doctor of your choice. 
 
6. You can notify a relative or another person you trust of the arrest, provided that such 
notification does not conflict with the purpose of the investigation. 
 
                                                 
79
 http://www.bmj.de/enid/2388cb7d879ab1247684347347e0c27e,0/Fachinformationen/Belehrungsform
ulare_1mi.htmli 
EN 46   EN If you are a foreign national, you can also reques t that the competent consulate of your home 
country be notified. You can have communications sent to the consulate.  
 
If you do not have a sufficient command of German, you can request the assistance of an 
interpreter during the proceedings. The interpreter will be provided for you free of charge.  
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I have received the preceding information (one page) today. 
(…) In addition, I have been informed of my rights orally.  
(…) I have understood the information. 
 
 --------------------------------------     ----------------------------------------- (place, date, time)      (signature of the arrested person)
 
 
(  ) The person concerned has 
refused to sign  
 
 -------------------------------------     ------------------------------------------ (surname, rank of official)     (signature of official) 
 
Belehrung von vorläufig festgenommenen Personen nach §§ 127, 127b StPO – Englisch
EN 47   EN b. England and Wales:80 
 
 
The following rights and entitlements ar e guaranteed to you under the law in 
England and Wales and comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.  
 
You will find more details  about these rights inside  
 
Remember your rights:   
1. Tell the police if you want a solicitor to help you while you are at the police 
station. It is free.  
 
2. Tell the police if you want someone to be told that you are at the police station. It 
is free.  
 
3. Tell the police if you want to look at their rule-book called the Codes of Practice.  
 
 
More information for people arrested by the police  
Please keep this informati on and read it as soon as possible. It will help you to make decisions 
while you are at the police station.  
 
1. Getting a solicitor to help you  
• A solicitor can help and advi se you about the law.  
• If you want a solicitor, tell  the police custody officer. The po lice will help you get in touch 
with a solicitor for you.  
• The police must let you talk to a solicitor at any time, day or night, when you are at a 
police station. It is free.  
• If you do not know of a solicitor in the ar ea or you cannot get in  touch with your own 
solicitor, you can sp eak to the duty so licitor. It is free. The po lice will help you contact 
him or her for you. The duty solicitor is nothing to do with the police.  
• You are entitled to a private consultation with  your Solicitor on the te lephone or they may 
decide to come and see you at the Police Station.  
• Usually, the police are not allowed to ask you questions until you have had the chance to 
talk to a solicitor. When th e police ask you questions you can ask for a solicitor to be in 
the room with you.  
                                                
 
80 http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/pow ers-pace-codes/rights-entitle ments-foreign-lang.html 
EN 48   EN • If you ask to speak to a solicitor it does not make it look like you have done anything 
wrong.  
• If a solicitor does not turn up,  or you need to talk  to a solicitor again,  ask the police to 
contact him or her again.  
• If you tell the police that you don’t want to speak to a solicitor but then you change your 
mind, tell the police custody officer. The police will then help you contact a solicitor for 
you.  
If you are asked questions about a suspected offen ce, you do not have to say anything. However, it 
may harm your defence if you do not mention when  questioned something which you later rely on 
in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.  
 
2. Telling someone that you ar e at the police station  
• You can ask the police to contact someone to inform them that you are at the police 
station. It is free. They will contact someone for you as soon as they can.  
 
3. Looking at the Codes of Practice  
• The Codes of Practice is a book that tells you what the police can and cannot do while you 
are at the police station.  
• The police will let you read the Codes of Pract ice but you cannot read it for so long that it 
holds up the police finding out if you have broken the law.  
• If you want to read the Codes of Pr actice, tell the polic e custody officer.  
 
Getting details of your time  at the police station  
• Everything that happens to you when you are at  the police station is  put on paper and is 
called the custody record.  
• When you leave the police sta tion, you, your solicitor or your a ppropriate adult can ask for 
a copy of the custody record. The police have to give you a copy of the custody record as 
soon as they can.  
• You can ask the police for a copy of the cust ody record up to 12 months after you leave the 
police station.  
 
How you should be cared for  
These are short notes about what you can ex pect while you are kept at the police station. To find out 
more, ask to see the book called the Codes of Practi ce. Inside its back cove r you will find a list of 
where to find more information about each of th ese things. Ask the police custody officer if you 
have any questions.  
 
Keeping in touch  
As well as talking to a solicitor and having a person told about your arrest you will usually be 
allowed to make one phone call.  Ask the police if you would like to make a phone call. You can 
EN 49   EN also ask for a pen and paper. You may be able to have visitors but the custody officer can refuse to 
allow that.  
 
Your Cell  
If possible you should be kept in a cell on your own. It s hould be clean, warm and lit. Your bedding 
should be clean and in good order. You must be  allowed to use a toil et and have a wash.  
 
Clothes  
If your own clothes are taken from  you, then the police must provide you with an alternative form 
of clothing.  
 
Food and drink  
You must be offered 3 meals a day with drinks . You can also have drinks between meals.  
 
Exercise  
If possible you should be allowed out side each day for fresh air.  
 
If you are unwell  
Ask to see a doctor if you feel ill or need medici ne. The police will call a doctor for you and it is 
free. You can ask to see another doctor but you may have to pay for this. You may be allowed to 
take your own medicine but the po lice will have to check with a doctor first. A nurse may see you 
first, but they will send for a doctor if you need one.  
 
How long can you be detained?  
You can normally be detained for up to 24 hours w ithout being charged. This can be longer but only 
if a Police Superintendent allo ws it to happen. Afte r 36 hours only a court can allow more time 
without you being charged. Every so often a senior po lice officer has to look into your case to see if 
you should still be kept here. This is called a review. You have the ri ght to have your say about this 
decision, unless you are not in a fit state.  
 
When the police question you  
• The room should be clean, warm and lit.  
• You should not have to stand up.  • The police officers should tell you their name and their rank.  • You should have a break at normal meal times and a break for a drink after about two hours.  
• You should be allowed at least 8 hour s rest in any 24 hours you are in custody .  
 
People who need help  
EN 50   EN • If you are under 17, or you have learning problems or a mental problem then you should have 
someone with you when the police do certain th ings. This person is called your “appropriate 
adult”.  
• Your appropriate adult must be with you when the police tell you about your righ ts and tell you 
why you are being kept at the po lice station. He or she must al so be with you when the police 
read the police caution to you. He or she must also be with you if  you are interviewed.  
• The police might also need to do one of the thi ngs listed below while you are at the police station. 
Your appropriate adult should be with you for the whole time if the police do any of these 
things:  
• Interview you or ask you to sign a written statement or police notes.  
• Review your case.  • Remove more than your outer clothes.  • Carry out anything about an identification parade.  • Charge you with an offence.  
 You can speak to your solicitor without your appr opriate adult in the room if you want to.  
 
Getting an interpreter to help you  
If you do not speak or understand English the po lice will arrange for so meone who speaks your 
language to help you.  
 
If you are deaf or have difficu lty speaking the police will arrange for a Br itish Sign Language / 
English interpreter to help you.  
 When the police ask you questions the interpreter will make a record of the questions and your 
answers in your own language. You will be able to check this be fore you sign it as an accurate 
record.  
If you make a statement to the poli ce, the interpreter will make a c opy of that statement in your own 
language for you to check and sign as correct.  
 
People who are not British  
If you are not British, you can tell the police th at you want to contact your High Commission, 
Embassy or Consulate to tell them  where you are and why you are in the police st ation. They can 
also visit you in priv ate or arrange for a solicitor to see you.  
 
Special Times: Getting a solicitor to help you  
There are some special times when the police can ask you questions before you have talked to a 
solicitor. Information about these sp ecial times is given in the Codes of Practice. This is the book 
that that sets out what the police can and cannot  do while you are at the police station. If you want 
to look up the details, they are in paragraph 6.6 of Code C of the Codes of Practice.  
EN 51   EN There is one special time when the police will not  let you speak to the solicitor that you have 
chosen. When this happens the poli ce must let you talk to another solic itor. If you want  to look up 
the details, it is in Annex B of Code C of the Codes of Practice.  
 
Telling someone that you ar e at the police station  
There are some special times when the police w ill not allow you to contact anyone. Information 
about these special times is given in the Codes of Pr actice. If you want to look up the details, it is in 
Annex B of Code C of th e Codes of Practice.  
 
Breath tests  
If you are under arrest because of a drink drive of fence, you have the right to speak to a solicitor. 
That right does not mean you can refuse to give th e police samples of breath, blood or urine even if 
you have not yet spoken  to the solicitor.  
 
Independent Custody Visitors  
There are members of the community who are allo wed access to police stations unannounced. They 
are known as independent custody visitors and work on a voluntary basis to make sure that detained 
people are being treated properly and have access to rights. You do not have a right to see an 
independent custody Visitor and can not request that an independent custody visitor vi sit you. If an 
independent custody visitor does visit you while you are in custody they will be acting independently of the police to ch eck that your welfare and rights have been protected. However, 
you do not have to speak to them if you do not wish to.  
EN 52   EN ANNEX III:  
CURRENT SITUATION IN MEMBER STATES IN RELATION TO THE PROVISION OF INFORMATION ON 
FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS  
 
Key: 
O : Oral provision of information 
W: provision of information in writing by other means than Letter of Rights81 
LR: Letter of Rights82 
N/A: Right not applied in practice 
NO: No Right  
                                                 
81 There are several options by which information can be provided in writing but not amounting to a Letter of 
Rights, such as posters in police stations or the simple provision of suspects and accused persons with a copy 
of the legal provisions governing their right. 
82 While there is no official definition of a Letter of Righ ts, in the study on EU Procedural Rights in Criminal 
Proceedings (2009) the LR is defined as ‘written info rmation of the suspect’s procedural rights in a 
standardised form’ (p.34); it is possible to narrow the scope of this definition of LR to (1) easy and accessible 
document and understandable information on rights, (2) in a standardised form, (3) that is given to the suspect 
in the initial contacts with investigating authorities.  The latter definition was provided directly by Taru 
Spronken and will be used in ‘EU-wide Letter of Right s in criminal proceedings: towards best practice’, 
Maastricht University, 2010 Country  Right to access 
evidence  Right to remain 
silent  Right to call 
expert/witness  Right to 
translation  Right to 
interpretationRight to 
legal 
assistance
Austria  O + LR  O + LR  O + LR  NO O + LR  O + W  
Belgium  N/A N/A N/A O O W 
Bulgaria  O+W  O +W  O +W  NO N/A W 
Cyprus  O O O O O O 
Czech 
Republic  LR LR LR LR LR O + W  
Denmark  N/A O N/A N/A N/A O 
EstoniaE  N/A O+W  O +W  N/A N/A O 
Finland  N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A O 
France  N/A NO N/A NO N/A O 
EN 53   EN Germany  O LR W+LR  N/A LR O+LR  
Greece  O O N/A O O O 
Hungary  W O O O +W  O + W  O 
Ireland  O O O W O W 
Italy LR O O N/A N/A O 
Latvia  LR O NO NO O W 
Lithuania  O + W  O + W  O+W  O +W  O + W  O 
Luxembou
rg N/A N/A N/A N/A O + W + LR  LR 
Malta  N/A O + W  N/A NO N/A N/A 
The 
Netherland
s N/A O+LR  W N/A N/A N/A 
Poland  LR LR LR LR LR O +W  
Portugal  O O NO NO O W 
Roumania  O O+W  O  O O O 
Slovakia  LR O O LR LR LR 
Slovenia  O O O O O O 
Spain  N/A O O O LR LR 
Sweden  O O O + W  O O +LR  O 
United 
Kingdom 
(England 
and 
Wales)  N/A O + LR O N/A LR O + LR 
EN 54   EN ANNEX IV 
 General statistical information on the num ber of criminal proceedings in the EU 
 
  2006 2007 2008 
AT 238111 247021 240554 
BE* 49884 51243 51127 
BL 34840 33577 38313 
CY 1441 1903 1903 
CZ 69445 75728 75728 
DK 75202 73078  
EE 51834 50375 50977 
FI* 116979 116789 113462 
FR   744832 
DE   872573 
HL 247626 247252 240042 
HU 425941 426914 408407 
IE*   94215 
IT 1207088 1216655 1195300 
LV* 51073 50490 48611 
LT* 75751 74914 72060 
LU 10441 10539 10356 
MT* 9015 9026 8783 
NL 134400 127600 127400 
PL   12899 
PT   431919 
RO* 481003 477278 460842 
SK  110802 104758 
SI 14545 15710 15329 
EN 55   EN *data are not available 
NB:  1. Evidence on the number of criminal proceedings across Member State was collected directly from national statistics 
institutes, where available. Data are not available for six countries (Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania ). 
 
2. where national statistics on number of criminal proceedings are not available, we  have relied on extrapolation; we have 
calculated the annual percentage of criminal proceedings within  the overall population in those countries for which figures are  
available and calculated a European average using this percenta ges; we then used this average to calculate the number of 
criminal proceedings in the countries for which data are no t available. By multiplying the average found by the overall 
population in each remaining Member State (B elgium, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithua nia and Romania), we found the annual 
number of criminal proceedings in the Member States for which official statistics are not available. SP  944962 995064 
SE   119244 
E&W 1779300 1732500 1640000 
EU 27 5073918  6094356  8174698  
EN 56   EN  
ANNEX V – MODEL CALCULATIONS OF COST IMPACTS  
 
A. Model calculations for the provision of information on rights by means of a Letter of Rights (option 
A4), containing at least EU-wide standard formulations of minimum rights (option A5)  
 1. One-off set-up costs 
(1) Drafting of Letters of Rights: 
Where Member States have to develop country-specific Letters of Rights , the costs would have to be borne 
by each of them. In the past, Letters of Rights (LR)  have predominantly been developed internally by 
Member States' government departments (such as Minist ries of Justice). This has been the case in Germany 
and in Austria (where the LR was the result of collabora tion between the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry 
of Internal Affairs). In the UK the Letter of Right has been developed by a team of external  legal experts 
under a research programme. Stakeholders indicated that this required the work of 5 legal experts, working 
for 5 days.  
Pay levels for external legal experts vary significa ntly across Member States. Legal experts cost their 
contribution on the base of a large variety of units and in particular on the base of the expertise they need to 
provide, which depends on the particular field. Moreove r, the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe 
(CCBE) confirmed that, depending on whether the Ministry  of Justice would rely on academics or lawyers in 
legal firms, costs would vary widely. In the UK, the da ily rate for a legal expert is €1,000. In the other 
Member States, we assume that the cost of a lega l expert does not diverge much from lawyers' fees.  
Estimates of daily lawyers’ fees are provided below:  
- Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Re public, Poland, Lithuania: €400 - €800 
- Estonia, Portugal, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Belgium: €800 - €2,000 
- Spain, France, Germany, Austria, La tvia, the Netherlands: €2,000 - €2,800 
- Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Finland: €2,800 - €4,000 
 
The daily rate of a legal expert therefore ranges be tween €400 and €4,000. It is important to note that the 
figures provided refer to the daily fees of lawyers in civil proceedings, while the daily fee of criminal 
lawyers might be different.  
 
On the basis of the above assumptions the cost of the development of an exclusively country-specific Letters 
of Rights, across the EU, if outsourced to a team of legal experts would be:  
Min: €400 x 5 persons x 5 days = €10,000 Max: €4,000 x 5 persons x 5 days = €100,000 
In conclusion, the cost of developing an exclus ively country-specific Letter of Rights depends on 
whether the project is subcontracted externally or conducted internally at the Ministry of Justice. 
Therefore it ranges between 10,000 € and €100,000.  
 
Where, pursuant to preferred option A5, an EU-wide standard formulation of minimum rights  set out in 
an Annex to the Directive would have to be drafted, such d
rafting would be effected by the European 
Commission as part of the legislative process of adopting the Directive.  
Member States individually would have to include in their Letters of Rights those procedural rights enshrined in 
national legislation which go further than the EU-wide minimum rights. Thus, Member States would incur 
drafting costs in relation to these rights.  These costs would be much lower than the one predicted above in 
relation to the drafting of an exclusively country-specific Letter of Rights. It is expected that the inclusion of 
EN 57   EN further national procedural rights in a Letter of Ri ghts containing the EU-wide standard formulation of 
minimum rights would require the work of maximu m 5 persons for 2.5 working days. Therefore, the costs of 
including further national rights per Member State  would be: 
Min: €400 x 5 persons x 2.5 days = €5,000 
Max: €4,000 x 5 persons x 2.5 days = €50,000   
(2) Translation:
 
On top of drafting costs, Member States would incu r translation costs both under option A4 and A5. For 
option A4, Member States would have to translate their respective national Letters of Rights into an adequate 
number of languages themselves. Under option A5, the European Commission would provide the translation 
into the 23 official Member States languages for the EU -wide standard formulation of minimum rights in the 
course of the legislative process leading to the adoption of the Directive. Member States would thus only 
have to bear the costs of translating the mandatory standard formulation into languages other than the 23 
official languages of Member States.  
The cost of translation differs widely between Member  States as well. It also varies depending on the unit 
used to measures this cost. Examples of the cost  of translation across the EU are set out below: 
- Austria: the law establishes that the translation of  1 page costs € 15.20 (1000 characters, spaces not 
counted) plus €2 for writing, and €3.20 per document certification fee 
 
- Spain: 0,07-0,09 (word) or 0,79-1,20 (line) 
 
- Finland: €50 - €80 per page 
 
- Germany: Non technical texts - 1,25 € per line; Difficult technical texts or with problems of 
readability - 1,85 €; Extremely difficult texts - 4 € 
 
The costs of translating a page vary from €8.50 to € 50 across the EU on average. This reflects the country-
specific examples provided above. Therefore, the cost of  translating a one page document in the 23 official 
European languages is: 
Min: €8.50 x 23 languages = €195.50 Max: €50 x 23 languages = €1,150   
The new German Letter of Rights has been translated in 46 languages. Therefore, considering this and also 
considering that the length of current member States Le tters of Rights varies between  1 and 7 pages, the cost 
of translating an exclusively country-specific Letter of Rights into 46 languages would range between €391 
and €16,100. However, where Member States would have to provide translation for Therefore, considering 
that the mandatory EU-wide standard formulation of minimum rights would take up around 3 to 5 pages, the 
cost of translating this EU-wide standard formulati on into 23 extra (non-EU official) languages would range 
between €585 and €5,750 . This cost is likely to be incurred on ly once, if the Member States agree to 
cooperate in this translation exercise and pool resources.  
Member States to incur the costs for translating further national procedural rights  going beyond the 
mandatory minimum rights as these will have to include d in a Member State's Letter of Rights alongside the 
mandatory EU-wide minimum rights. It is expected that  information on such additional rights would take 
one to two pages. Translation of these one or two pag es in 46 languages is likely to cost each Member State 
between €391 and €4,600 .  
   
EN 58   EN (3) Training of police officers, prosecutors and judges:  
Generally, training on the provision of information to accu sed and suspected persons is likely to be part of 
the normal recurring police training. Where additional training needs to be provided training costs are 
incurred which primarily results from costs for training staff. In Germany, persons providing training (be 
they external legal experts or ju dges/prosecutors/civil servants providin g the training outside their working 
time) would receive between €20 and €75 per hour of training . In this framework, it is assumed that each 
training package would involve 15 police officers for 2 hours  maximum in Member States that do not have 
the letter of rights.  
The need of training police officers and judges depends on whether a LR has alread y been introduced. In the 
table below, the countries with the star are those with  the LR, in which officials would require no formal 
training. The other Member States, however, would need to update their poli ce officers and judges on the 
practices to be used, if the LR and the new legisla tion were introduced. Below we present figures about the 
cost of training of police officers in these Member St ates, based on the data and the assumptions discussed 
above. These estimates are based on the assumption that the training would be face to face; the provision of 
this training through e-learning or in smaller modules within the police stations could reduce the costs by a 
large amount.  
Table 1 Training cost of police officers (about the provision of information about the rights) 
 Training cost (per 
hour) Cost of training package 
(2h in countries with no 
LR) Police 
officers  Total cost of training  
  Min Max Min Max  Min  Max  
AT*        
BE  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  38718  €     103,248   €     387,180  
BG  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  n/a  n/a   n/a  
CY  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  5139  €       13,704   €       51,390  
CZ*        
DK  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  10620  €       28,320   €     106,200  
EE  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  3247  €         8,659   €       32,470  
FI  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  8156  €       21,749   €       81,560  
FR  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  238478  €     635,941   €   2,384,780  
DE*        
HL  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  51152  €     136,405   €     511,520  
HU  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  26334  €       70,224   €     263,340  
IE        
IT*        
LV*        
LT  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  11173  €       29,795   €     111,730  
EN 59   EN  Training cost (per 
hour) Cost of training package 
(2h in countries with no 
LR) Police 
officers  Total cost of training  
  Min Max Min Max  Min  Max  
LU*        
MT  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  1933  €         5,155   €       19,330  
NL  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  35923  €       95,795   €     359,230  
PL*        
PT  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  51779  €     138,077   €     517,790  
RO  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  45391  €     121,043   €     453,910  
SK*        
SI  €     20   €     75   €    40   €     150  7971  €       21,256   €       79,710  
ES*        
SE*        
E&W*        
EU 27     1472300  €   1,429,371   €   5,360,140  
*countries with Letter of Rights for which we ha ve assumed there is no need of training  
 
Equally, prosecutors and criminal court judges in Member States not yet using Letters of Rights may receive 
formal training on the Directive and its effects. Hourly rates for training are likely to be largely identical to 
training costs for police office set out above. It is assu med that judges would be trained for 2 hours, in 
countries that do not have the letter of rights, in groups of 15:  
Table 2 Training cost of criminal judges and pr osecutors (about information about the rights)  
  Cost of training (per 
hour) Cost of training package 
(2h in countries with no 
LR, 15 judges) Number of 
criminal 
judges and 
prosecutors Total cost of judges 
training 
 Min Max Min Max  Min Max  
AT*          
BE  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  1574  €     4,196   €     15,735 
BG  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  2469  €     6,583   €     24,685 
CY  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  158  €        421   €      1,580 
CZ*           
DK  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  740  €     1,972   €      7,395 
EN 60   EN EE  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  311  €        828   €      3,105 
FI  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  765  €     2,039   €      7,645 
FR  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  5600  €   14,933   €     56,000 
DE*           
HL  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  2109  €     5,623   €     21,085 
HU  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  3162  €     8,432   €     31,620 
IE        
IT*        
LV*        
LT  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  1220  €     3,253   €     12,200 
LU*        
MT  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  23  €          61   €         230 
NL  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  1711  €     4,563   €     17,110 
PL*           
PT  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  2241  €     5,976   €     22,410 
RO  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  4984  €   13,291   €     49,840 
SK*           
SI  €    20.00   €    75.00   €   40.00   €   150.00  681  €     1,816   €      6,810 
ES*           
SE*        
E&W*        
EU 27     74834  €   73,987   €   277,450  
*countries with Letter of Rights for which we have assumed there is no need of training 
 
In conclusion, the overall cost of training police offi cers and criminal judges and prosecutors, in the Member 
States that have not introduced the Letter of Rights yet, would range between €5,200 and 20,000 (in Malta) 
and 650,000 and €2.4 million (in France), if we consider the different cost of training and the different 
number of police officers, judges and prosecutors across Member States.   
    
EN 61   EN 2. Operational costs 
(1) Costs of oral explanation of the rights 
The oral provision of information about the rights and a bout the charges requires more  time than the simple 
distribution of the Letter of Rights to the accused and su spected person. It is estimated that police officers 
spend 10 minutes explaining to a national accused person its rights, and 20 minutes to a non-national , 
considering that this requires the help of an interpreter.   
On the base of the hourly gross salaries of police offi cers, a model calculation of the range of costs of the 
oral provision of information was prepared. In this cont ext it will have to be borne in mind that the hourly 
wage of a police officer varies widely across Europe ; the model calculation is based on the following salary 
figures: 
- In the North Rhine-Westphalia Land of Germany, a police officer's monthly salary ranges between 
€2,785 and €3,554 with a notional hourly salary ranging between €15 and €2083.  
- In the UK, the maximum annual wage of a constable is £36,519 (€41,000)84 and the maximum 
annual wage of a sergeant is £41,040 (€46,000); h ourly wages thus range between €22 and €25.  
- In Italy, salaries of National Police officers range between €16,894 and €25,029 annually; implying 
an approximate hourly salary range of between €8 and €15 
 
Therefore, for the model calculation of the costs of the oral provision of information a notional hourly salary 
range of between €8 (min) and €25 (max) was used.  In the calculation a distinction is also being made 
between the oral provision of information about thei r rights to nationals (who are assumed to understand the 
language of proceedings) and to non-nationals (who are assumed not to understand the language of 
proceedings); the cost of provision of information to non- nationals includes also the interpretation cost . 
It is estimated that it would take an interpreter 20 minutes  to translate the information about the rights.  
The model calculation covers only those member States which do not already use Letters of Rights to notify 
suspects and accused persons of their rights. 
According to this estimates, the overall cost of oral explanation of the rights (including both explanation to 
national and non-nationals, see table below) ranges between €5,000 and 30,000 (in Cyprus) and €1.9 
million and 4.6 million (in France).  
 
  
                                                 
83 Hourly wage in North Rhine-Westphalia, http://www.polizei-nrw.de/beruf/berufsangebot/Besoldung   
84 http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm#constables   
 
EN 62   EN  
Table 3 Oral explanation of the rights 
 Criminal 
proceedings 
(2008) Criminal 
Proceedings 
involving non-
nationals 
(2008)_ Cost of Interpretation 
(per hour) Hourly wage of police 
officers Cost of oral provision of information to 
nationals Cost of oral provision of 
information to non-nationals 
   Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 
AT*           
BE 51127 21933  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       38,925   €      121,640   €      85,906   €      584,893   
BG 38313 728  €     5.90   €      5.90   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       50,113   €      156,604   €       3,373   €         7,498   
CY 1903 1012  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €         1,187   €         3,711   €       3,965   €       26,997   
CZ*           
DK 73078 13154  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       79,899   €      249,683   €      51,520   €      350,774   
EE 50977 20850  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       40,170   €      125,531   €      81,661   €      555,989   
FI 113462 9417  €   80.00   €  100.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      138,726   €      433,520   €    276,243   €      392,390  
FR 744832 144497  €   15.00   €    20.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      800,446   €   2,501,394   € 1,107,813   €   2,167,461  
DE*           
HL 240042 19395  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      294,195   €      919,361   €      75,965   €      517,21 0  
HU 408407 15111  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      524,395   €   1,638,733   €      59,185   €      402,962   
IE 94215 13473  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      107,656   €      336,426   €      52,768   €      359,273   
IT*           
 
EN 63   EN  Criminal 
proceedings 
(2008) Criminal 
Proceedings 
involving non-
nationals 
(2008)_ Cost of Interpretation 
(per hour) Hourly wage of police 
officers Cost of oral provision of information to 
nationals Cost of oral provision of 
information to non-nationals 
   Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max 
LV*           
LT 72060 721  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       95,120   €      297,249   €       2,822   €       19,216  
LU* 10356 7601  €   43.50   €    43.50   €    8.00   €   25.00   €         3,673   €       11,478   €    130,492   €      173,567  
MT 8783 331  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       11,269   €       35,215   €       1,297   €         8,830  
NL 127400 37073  €   20.23   €    46.29   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      120,435   €      376,361   €    348,861   €      880,988  
PL*           
PT 431919 88543  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      457,834   €   1,430,732   €    346,795   €   2,361,157  
RO 460842 3687  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €      609,540   €   1,904,814   €      14,440   €       98,313  
SK* 104758 2095  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00     €       1,309   €       19,206  
SI 15329 1610  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €       18,293   €       57,164   €       6,304   €       42,921  
ES*           
SE*           
E&W           
EU 27 8174698 1662210  €     3.75   €    55.00   €    8.00   €   25.00   €   3,391,877   € 27,135,369   € 6,776,432   € 17,335,990  
 
EN 64   EN B. Model calculations for the provision of information on th e case by means of granting access to the case-file (option B3)  
 
1. One-off costs 
(1) Training of police offic ers, prosecutors and judges: 
In the case in which legislation is passed on the provision of information about the access to file, police officers, prosecuto rs and judges in those Member States that 
do not provide currently provide this right (Estonia, France, , Spai n), would have to be trained. The training cost per hour is  likely to be the same as predicted above 
(Annex V, A.1.(3)). It is assumed that the training would take 2 hours and it would be delivered  to group of 15 officials: 
 
Table  4 Training cost of police officers (a bout provision of access to the case-file) 
 Training cost (per hour) Cost of training package (2h , 15 police 
officers) Number of 
police officers Total cost of poli ce officers training 
  Min Max Min Max  Min  Max  
EE  €   20.00   €  75.00  €  40.00  €  150.00 3247  €         8,659  €            32,470  
FR  €   20.00   €  75.00  €  40.00  €  150.00 238478  €      635,941  €        2,384,780  
ES  €   20.00   €  75.00  €  40.00  €  150.00 214935  €      573,160  €        2,149,350  
EU 27  €   20.00   €  75.00  €  40.00  €  150.00 456660 €     1,217,760 €         4,566,600 
 
Table 5 Training cost of prosecutors and judges  (about provision of a ccess to the case-file) 
 Training cost (per hour) Cost of training package (2h, 15 
judges) Number of 
criminal judges 
and 
prosecutors Total cost of judges' and prosecutors' training 
 Min Max Min Max  Min Max  
EE  €    20.00   €    75.00  €   40.00  €   150.00 311 € 828.00 € 3,105.00 
 
EN 65   EN  Training cost (per hour) Cost of training package (2h, 15 
judges) Number of 
criminal judges 
and 
prosecutors Total cost of judges' and prosecutors' training 
 Min Max Min Max  Min Max  
FR  €    20.00   €    75.00  €   40.00  €   150.00 5600 € 14,933.33 € 56,000.00 
ES  €    20.00   €    75.00  €   40.00  €   150.00 4193 € 11,180.00 € 41,925.00 
EU 27  €    20.00   €    75.00  €   40.00  €   150.00 10103 € 26,941.33 € 101,030.00 
 
Overall, the cost of training police officers and judges and prosecutors, about right to acces s to the file, ranges between €9,500 and 35,600 in Estonia and €651,000 
and 2.1 million in France .  
 
EN 66   EN 2. Operational costs  
For calculating the overall operation costs it is assumed that a judge  or a prosecutor would have to decide whether the accused  person or its lawy er should be granted 
access to the case-file; this would, on average, require not mo re than 15 minutes of the judge’s or prosecutor’s time for each criminal proceeding. Clerical staff 
would then need to arrange actual access to the file to the accused or to its lawyer; th is is likely to take no more than 30 mi nutes on average for every criminal case. 
 
Table 6 Provision of access to the file 
  Criminal judges salary 
(per hour)85 Clerical staff 
salary (per hour) Cost of criminal 
judges (15 minutes) Cost of clerical 
staff (30 minutes) Criminal 
proceedings Total cost of provision of access to file  
 Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max  Min Max  
EE*  €  11.76  € 16.15   €   5.00  € 15.00  €  2.94  €    4.04  €  2.50   € 7.50 50977  €      277,332.26  €      588,184.55  
FR*  €  16.94  € 49.87   €   5.00  € 15.00  €  4.23  €  12.47  €  2.50   € 7.50 744832  €    5,016,413.54  €  14,871,648.28  
ES*  €  21.42  € 54.69   €   5.00  € 15.00  €  5.35  €  13.67  €  2.50   € 7.50 995064  €    7,815,218.29  €  21,067,107.96  
EU 27 € 16.71 € 40.24  €   5.00  € 15.00 € 4.18 € 10.06  €  2.50   € 7.50 1790873 € 13,108,964.09 € 32,049,758.29 
                                                 
85 From CEPEJ Evaluation of Judicial system report, 3rd report - edition 2008, in each of the four member states, 
http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp   ; data report on the gross salary of first instance (min) and supreme court (max) judges; it does not 
however distinguish between criminal and civil judges 
 
EN 67   EN Annex VI 
 
Report of the Interservice Steering Group 
15 March 2010  
ISG was attended by DG COMP, DG MARKT, DG RELEX, DG ELARG, DGT and OLAF (apologies 
from SCIC). Within JLS, A1, D1 and D2 were represented.  
The Legal Service and the Sec Gen did not att end but their views were canvassed bilaterally 
afterwards and are inclu ded in this report.  
The meeting was positive in that colleagues present agreed that there was a need for this measure.  
Participants (DGT/DG ELARG) were interested in how  Measure B fits together with Measure A. They 
had heard about the concurrent proposals on Measure A and wanted to be briefed on that 
The following comments  were made: 
- third country nationals could be told via the Letter of Rights that there is a risk of expulsion if they are 
found guilty of a criminal offence (JLS D2); 
- the text should be developed to show why there is need to cover domestic procedures as well as 
cross border ones since al the examples of case studies relate to cross border cases (DG COMP); 
- a table is needed to show all the options, plus pros and cons (JLS D2); 
- what would the implications be in terms of the need  for more translators, more interpreters and more 
training for those professionals? Could the EU bu dget be used for any of this? Training via the 
European Masters? (DGT); 
- this could be quite expensive for some of the newer MS (DG ELARG); 
- this would be very helpful for judges to know t hat procedures are followed correctly (END, judge from 
Slovakia from OLAF). Support for the "preferred option". 
 Advice from A1: 
1) Need more costings
 from the contractors, Matrix, to answ er the questions "Where is the impact 
going to be felt and to what extent?". 
I) Baseline scenario needs to take into account the implementation of Measure A (i.e. the position 
when MS have better translation and interpretation facilities in place). 
3) Matrix have provided a lot of information but it is rather random - some is useful some is not. More 
time is need to sift the information and to set out w hat is useful (Matrix cann ot be criticised because 
the timeframe meant that they were requir ed to put forward a lot of information). 
4) Need to distinguish between enforceability  and verification .  
5) Add a section on the "preferred option" - this is not strictly necessary, but  since we have one here, 
and can defend it, better to clarify. 
 Comments from the Sec Gen 
The main issue is the very limited amount of economic  data to quantify the impact of the proposal and 
to compare the options on this basis. The Impact Assessment Board (IAB) is insists on that. Sec Gen 
suggests looking at what was done for "Measure A" and at the IAB's opinion. Also need to estimate 
the savings that can be achieved, both in terms of costs and administr ative burden, by having a Letter 
of Rights and also by saving on costs of appeal s on the ground that insufficient information was 
provided to the suspect or defendant. 
 
Comments from the Legal Service 
 
EN 68   EN The Legal Service comments centred on the contents of  the preferred options (binding character of a 
directive, minimum rights to be included when granting access to the file).. 
 
Additional comments and information from OLAF 
No figures and/or statistics available but a seco nded national expert in OLAF (judge from Slovakia) 
has the following comments: 
 
1.  In the EJN criminal law section meetings it ha ppens often, that colleagues complain about the lack 
of mutual trust: e. g.  the implementation of the EA W or a possible creation of a JIT (joint investigation 
team).  
The EJN Internet Forum created by the Spanish presidency could be sounded out (and used as a 
base for disseminating information) an d also the Secretariat of the EJN could facilitate to receive more 
concrete and structured information.   
 
2. Lack of trust affected two big cases which OLAF  transmitted for coordination to EUROJUST on the 
bases of Art. 26 (3), (4) of the EUROJUST Decision 2002: one bilateral case in the field of direct 
expenditures - Europe Aid (FR, GR) and one multilatera l case in the field of customs – VAT fraud 
concerning goods of Chinese origin (HU, AU, SK, FR, IT). In both cases, lack on mutual trust was 
clear and affected the openness to exchange informati on with investigative and judicial authorities of 
the other MS.  
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX VII – Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 
 
Main policy objectives 
 Potential indicators for preferred option Sources of 
information 
To facilitate execution and enforcement of 
judicial decisions in criminal matters 
across the EU by ensuring that suspected 
or accused persons in the EU receive 
sufficient information on their rights and 
the case against them   
 • Number of refusals by Member State judicial 
authorities to execute another Member States' judicial decision on fair trial grounds 
 
• Number of cases (accompanied by summary 
explanation) in which time-frames for the 
enforcement of another membr States' judicial 
decision as envisaged in EU legislation on judicial 
cooperation has been exceeded. 
 
• Member States' judges impression of compliance 
with fair trial standards of proceedings in other 
Member States 
 Member States' 
governments 
 
also: Eurojust
 
 
 
Judges' associations (e.g. 
European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary) 
 
To ensure that suspects or accused persons 
in the EU receive sufficient information on 
their rights , preferably in writing, for them 
to exercise their rights to a fair trial • Legislation passed by Member State to implement 
Directive by providing for  
 an unambiguous duty to inform suspects of 
their rights by means of a Letter of Rights 
 an adequate means for verification of 
sufficient provision of information 
 adequate remedies for fa ilure to be informed 
sufficiently of rights 
 
• Number of successful and unsuccessful  
applications to the ECtHR where lack of 
information on rights is alleged 
 
• Number of successful appeals against a final 
judgment or pre-trial decision on ground of failure 
to provide information on rights Member States' 
governments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
also: Judges' associations 
(e.g. European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary)  
• be in clear 
language which 
will be easily 
understood by 
the suspect or 
accused person • Availability of Letters of Rights  
 in accessible language 
 in a suitable range of foreign languages 
 in a version for minors and persons with 
learning disabilities 
 
 
• Number of informal complaints in relation to 
insufficiently comprehensib le Letters of Rights or 
lack of interpretation of additional oral explanation 
of the rights 
 Member States' 
governments, verification 
by foreigners' support 
groups and childrens' rights 
organisations (e.g. by use of 
'user panels') 
 
Lawyers' associations (e.g. 
Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe) and  
foreigners/children's groups  Information provided 
to suspects or accused 
persons on their fair 
trial rights should:  
 
• be provided at or 
before first 
contact with the 
police • Number of Letters of Rights handed out to suspects 
and accused persons in comparison to overall 
number of criminal proceedings 
 Member States' 
governments (e.g. national 
statistics agencies) 
 
 
EN 70   EN • Availability of  suitable guidance and/or training 
for police officers on how best to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights 
 
• include core 
rights under the 
ECHR and the 
CFREU which 
are applicable on 
arrest, first 
interrogation and 
during detention • Availability of  suitable guidance and/or training 
for police officers on how best to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights 
 
• Experience of defence lawyers in relation to 
adequate provision of info rmation on rights in day-
to-day practice 
 Member States' 
governments 
 
Lawyers' associations (e.g. 
Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe) 
• be relevant, 
practical and 
effective Availability of specific guidance for police officers, 
prosecutors and judges on the provision of additional  
oral explanation of rights  (particularly where suspects 
do not speak the language of proceedings, are minors 
or show signs of having learning disabilities) Member States' 
governments 
• be provided in 
such a way that it 
is possible to 
verify that the 
information has 
been transmitted Experience of defence lawyers and judges with the 
sufficiency of verification mechanisms in place Lawyers' and judges' 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars and Law Societies of 
Europe; European Network 
of Councils for the 
Judiciary) 
 
To ensure that accused persons in the EU 
receive sufficiently detailed information on 
the case against them  in order to enable 
them adequately to prepare their defence 
or challenge pre-trial decisions  • Legislation passed by Member State to implement 
Directive by providing for  
 a duty to inform suspects of the case against 
them by granting access to the case-file or, 
where access is exceptionally refused, by 
other suitable means 
 an adequate means for verification of 
sufficient provision of information 
 adequate remedies for fa ilure to be informed 
sufficiently of the case  
 
• Number of instances where access to the case-file 
was exceptionally refused or limited so not as to 
hamper ongoing investigations  
 
• Number of successful and unsuccessful  
applications to the ECtHR where lack of 
information on the case is alleged 
 
• Number of successful appeals against a final 
judgment or pre-trial decision on ground of failure to provide information on rights Member States' 
governments 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
also
: Judges' associations 
(e.g. European Network of 
Councils for the Judiciary)  
• be sufficiently 
detailed to allow 
adequate 
preparation of the 
defence case or 
challenge of pre-
trial decisions Experience of defence lawyers and judges in relation 
to adequate provision of information on rights in day-
to-day practice Lawyers' and judges' 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars and Law Societies of 
Europe; European Network 
of Councils for the 
Judiciary) Information 
provided to suspects 
or accused persons 
on the case against 
them should: 
 
• be provided in a • Provision of adequate guidance and/or training of Member States' 
 
EN 71   EN timely fashion and 
in such a way that 
the suspect or 
accused person 
understands the 
case against him officials, prosecutors and judges 
 on instances in which refusal of access to the 
case-file would be  justified and on 
alternative means to provide information in 
these cases  
 on best ensuring that people who do not 
understand the language of proceedings 
receive adequate translation of key 
documents on the basis of the Directive on 
the right to translation and interpretation in 
criminal proceedings 
 
• Number of informal complaints in relation to 
insufficient access to the case-file 
 governments 
 
 
 
 
 
Lawyers' associations (e.g. 
Council of Bars and Law 
Societies of Europe) and  
foreigners/children's groups 
• be provided in 
such a way that it 
is possible to 
verify that the 
information has 
been transmitted Experience of defence lawyers and judges in relation 
to adequate robustness of verification mechanisms in 
place Lawyers' and judges' 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars and Law Societies of 
Europe; European Network 
of Councils for the 
Judiciary)