EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 20.7.2010 
SEC(2010) 908 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
  
accompanying the  
Proposal for a  
 
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on the right to information in criminal proceedings 
   
{COM(2010) 392 final} 
{SEC(2010) 907} 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
1. POLICY CONTEXT AND PROCEDURE  
To increase mutual trust, and thus improve th e operation of mutual r ecognition, in November 
2009 the European Council adopted the Roadmap on Procedural Rights1 setting out a step-by-
step approach to strengt hening the rights of suspects and accused persons: 
Measures currently 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 for Suspected or Accused Persons who are Vulnerable  
This Impact Assessment covers Measure B which aims to improve the situation of suspects by 
ensuring that they receive information about thei r rights and the case against them in criminal 
proceedings. 
The Impact Assessment is broadly empirical: stakeholders were consulted on several 
occasions, such as Justice Forum meetings in 2008 and 2009. Recent academic studies have 
also fed into the IA.  
2. THE PROBLEM  
2.1. Insufficient information in criminal proceedings  
Access to information for suspects and accused persons is a key factor in ensuring fair 
proceedings. Suspects cannot be presumed to have enough knowledge of their rights (such as the right to legal advice) at the time of arrest to enable them to make effective use of these 
rights. Provision of information on rights is the gateway to accessing all rights. An accused 
person also needs to know in detail the case agai nst him and what evidence there is in order to 
prepare his defence. 
Suspects and accused persons do not always recei ve this information. Member States have 
different systems for transmitting information; and some is not transmitted at all in some Member States. For instance, in 4 Member Stat es there is no legal obligation to inform a 
suspect of the righ t to legal advice and only in  ten Member States is a suspect informed about 
his rights by means of written notification (Letter of Rights). Law and practice vary considerably from one Member State to anot her as regards information about the case: a 
written summary may be given or the accused's la wyer may be granted acce ss to the case-file 
                                                
 
1 OJ C 295, 4.12.2009, p. 1.  
EN 3   EN and may take copies of the relevant parts. In  3 Member States there is no access to the case 
file and even in those Member States that pr ovide for such access the stage in proceedings at 
which this is granted varies significantly.  
2.1.1.  Adverse effects on criminal proceed ings and judicial cooperation  
Where suspects are not adequately informed, crim inal proceedings may be unfair and this can 
lead to unnecessary costs owing to protracted proceedings, a ppeals and aborted prosecutions 
in the Member State where the proceedings take place.  
Insufficient information can lead to problems a nd costs in other Member States where a court 
in the Member State in which the original cr iminal proceedings take place seeks cooperation 
from other Member States. EU instruments to facilitate judicial c ooperation between Member 
States (such as European Arrest Warrant – EAW)  rely on the principle of mutual recognition, 
i.e. the enforcement of a court decision in anot her Member State without any further review of 
the decision. Such quasi-automatic recognitio n requires trust between  judges and courts. 
Where this trust is wanting, mutual recognitio n will not work; protracted proceedings and 
delays in the execution of a fore ign judicial decision with associ ated costs will ensue. In a 
recent UK case allegations that a suspect had been given insufficient information in proceedings in the Member State which had issued an EAW for that person's surrender , are likely to have contributed to surrender proc eedings taking more than  a year and involving 
several appeals to higher courts  and an application to the Eu ropean Court of Human Rights 
with significant cost implications. 
2.1.2.  Existing legal standards do not  offer adequate protection  
Currently, there are no sufficiently high and ade quately enforced standards. Whilst minimum 
rights are laid down in the European Conve ntion on Human Rights (ECHR), stakeholders 
agree that the ECHR and its enforcement mech anism do not, in all cases, offer sufficient 
protection in relation to the provision of ad equate information on rights and charges in 
particular. This is due to the fact that rights to informati on under Arts 5 and 6 ECHR does not 
go far enough and applications to the European Court of Human Rights ma y take years to be 
decided and only lead to an ex post  remedy of limited effectiveness. 
2.2. Rebalancing EU justice policy and promotion of free movement of EU citizens through 
strengthening of fundamental rights 
Whilst various measures have been taken at EU level to guarantee a high level of safety for 
citizens (such as the introduction of the EAW), no measures on fair trial standards could be 
agreed in the past. By adopting the Proced ural Rights Roadmap in November 2009, the 
Council acknowledged the urgent need to take acti on to strengthen suspects' procedural rights 
in the EU. The Roadmap paves the way for EU action ensuring fundamental rights protection 
beyond that offered by the ECHR. This would also give a specific EU mean ing to the fair trial 
isafeguards enshrined in Arts 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and 
also contribute towards removing real or perceived obstacles to free movement of citizens as guaranteed by Art 21(2) TFEU. 
2.3. Current and prospective scope of the problem 
Whilst data on the number of procee dings in which lack of inform ation is complained about is 
not available, stakeholders re port that the problem of insu fficient information, whilst not 
endemic, is acute and not limited to specific Member States. Mutual trust between Member 
States' judicial authorities is e xpected to remain at the current insufficient level as it is likely 
EN 4   EN that instances of Member States' authorities failing to provide suspects or accused persons 
with information recur. As increased movement  of citizens between Member States will lead 
to a greater need for judicial cooperation and as further EU judi cial cooperation measures will 
have to be implemented and applied in the near future, the need to improve mutual trust will 
become even more urgent.  
2.4. The EU's power to act 
Under Art 82(2)(b) TFEU, minimum rules concerni ng the rights of indi viduals in criminal 
proceedings may be adopted by means of direc tives to the extent necessary to facilitate 
mutual recognition of judgments and judicial d ecisions and judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters having a cross-border dimension. As th ere are currently wide differences between 
Member States in terms of the provision of in formation, it is unlikely that Member States 
acting individually would be able  to establish a sufficiently high standard of provision of 
information across the EU; this can only be achieved by action taken at EU level. 
3. OBJECTIVES  
General: To improve judicial cooperation 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 by ensuring that suspects receive sufficient 
information on their rights
, preferably in 
writing, for them to exercise effectively their defence rights  To facilitate execution and enforcement of judicial 
decisions in criminal matters by ensuring that accused persons receive sufficiently detailed information on the 
case against them  in order to enable them adequately to 
prepare their defence or challenge pre-trial decisions  
Operational: Information provided to suspects on their 
fair trial rights should:  
• be in clear language which will be easily 
understood by the suspect  
• be provided at first c ontact with the police 
• include core rights under the ECHR and 
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 accu sed persons on the charge or 
accusation should: 
• be sufficiently detailed to allow adequate preparation of 
the defence or challenge of pre-trial decisions 
• be provided in a timely fashion and in such a way that the 
accused understands the case against him 
• be provided in such a way that it is possible to verify that 
the information has been transmitted 
EN 5   EN 4. POLICY OPTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT  
• Retention of the status quo: This option would involve taking no action  at EU level.  
• Policy options A  addressing the problem of suspect s 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 : EU-wide duty to inform suspects about their rights by means of 
Member States' choosing  
• Policy option A4 : EU-wide duty to inform suspect s under arrest 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 : EU-wide duty to inform suspect s under arrest about their rights 
by means of a Letter of Rights which incl udes standard EU-wide formulations of 
minimum rights as set out in an Annex to the Directive 
 
Policy options B  addressing the problem of accused p ersons not always receiving adequate 
information about the case  against them promptly, in detail an d in a language they understand: 
Non-legislative action: 
• Policy option B1 : Council Recommendation on good practice and training on 
informing accused persons of  the case against them. 
EU legislative action: 
• Policy option B2 : EU-wide duty to inform accused persons about the case against 
them by means of Member States' choosing  
• Policy option B3 : EU-wide duty to inform accused persons of the case against 
them including granting them (or thei r lawyer) access to  the case-file   
 
EN 6   EN 5. COMPARISON OF POLICY OPTIONS  
The tables below set out a comparison of the relativ e rating of the policy options against the specific 
and operational objectives. The options are classifi ed according to their potential to meet the 
objectives defined in part 3. Ratings for expected  effectiveness in achieving the objectives are given 
equal weight in the final sum.  
Options A5 and B3 demonstrate the highest po tential and are therefore preferred options. 
Table 5.1 - Comparison of ratings of policy options A :  
Objectives/cost Status quo  A1  A2   A3  A4   A5  
To ensure that 
suspects receive 
sufficient 
information to be 
able to exercise 
them efficiently 0 √ √√ √√√ √√√√ √√√√√ 
To provide 
information in 
clear language 
which will be 
easily understood 
by the suspect  0 √ √√ √√√ √√√√ √√√√√ 
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 √ √√ √√ √√√√ √√√√√ 
To ensure a 
means of 
verifying that the 
information has 
been transmitted 0 √ √ √√ √√√√ √√√√√ 
To improve 
Member States' 
confidence in the 
fair operation of 
the criminal 
justice systems 
throughout the 0 √ √ √√ √√√√ √√√√√ 
EN 7   EN Table 5.1 - Comparison of ratings of policy options A :  
Objectives/cost Status quo  A1  A2   A3  A4   A5  
EU 
Total score: 0 5 8 12 20 25 
Financial burden 
per MS2 - 100.000 € - 10 
million € 
(overall costs 
for EU) One-off set-up:  
0 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year: 0 € - 4.6 
million €  One-off set-up:  
0 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year:  5,000 € - 
4.6 million € One-off set-up:  
15,000 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year:  5,000 € - 
4.6 million € One-off set-up:  
5,000 € - 2.5 
million € 
Operational per 
year:  5,000 € - 
4.6 million € 
Potential costs 
savings in MS in 
which criminal 
proceedings take 
place - low low  low to medium medium  medium to high 
 
Table 5.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B :  
Objectives/cost Status quo B1  B2  B3    
To ensure that the 
accused receives 
sufficiently 
detailed 
information on 
the case to enable 
them adequately 
to prepare their 
defence or 
challenge pre-trial 
decisions  0 √√ √√√ √√√√√   
                                                 
2 Range based on model calculation for those MS most likely to incur implementation costs due to 
current practice diverging from the one envisaged in the option. Due to lack of available statistical 
data, figures on operational costs  do 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.  
EN 8   EN Table 5.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B :  
Objectives/cost Status quo B1  B2  B3    
To provide 
information in a 
timely fashion, in 
such a way that 
the accused 
understands the 
case against him 0 √ √√√ √√√√   
To ensure a 
means of 
verifying that the 
information has 
been transmitted 0 √ √√ √√√   
To improve 
Member States' 
confidence in the 
fair operation of 
the criminal 
justice systems 
throughout the 
EU 0 √ √√√ √√√√√   
Total score: 0 5 11 17   
Financial burden 
per MS3 - One-off : 0 € - 
2.6 million € 
Operational: 
270,000 € - 21 
million € One-off : 0 € - 
2.6 million € 
Operational: 
1000,000 € - 30 
million € One-off : 9,000 
€ - 2.6 million 
€ 
Operational: 
270,000 € - 21 
million €   
Potential costs 
savings in MS in 
which criminal 
proceedings take 
place - low low  medium   
                                                 
3 The caveat in footnote 2 applies. 
EN 9   EN 6. THE PREFERRED OPTION  
The preferred option is a combination of options A5 and B3 : 
Adoption of a Directive which obliges Member States to ensure  
• that suspects 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-wid e 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 suspects and accused persons are inform ed of the case against them which has to 
include granting them (or their lawyer) access to the case file free of charge. 
6.1. EU added value and proportionality of the preferred option 
The preferred option creates new, EU-wide uni form duties (use of a Letter of Rights and 
access to the case-file). This harmonising effect marks the preferred option's effectiveness in 
ensuring the provision of adequate informati on and in promoting trus t in the fairness of 
proceedings in other Member States. Whilst opti ons A5 and B3 create new duties they do so 
only in relation to the core subj ect-matter of this measure: the right to information. They do 
not create new rights unrelated to the provision of information.  
Both aspects of the preferred option are pr oportionate: although both ar e likely to require a 
number of Member States to introduce changes to their criminal proce dure laws, there is no 
other effective means of ensuring that susp ects receive comprehensive information.  
6.2. Financial impact on Member States 
The main financial impact of option A5  is one-off set-up/inception costs  incurred for the 
introduction of Letter of Rights schemes. These consist primaril y of the costs of drafting the 
Letters, translating them and training police o fficers and, if necessary, prosecutors and judges. 
These costs are likely to range from 10,000 € to 2.5 million € per Member State (model 
calculations for Malta provide a range of  10,600 € - 70,000 € and for France of 655,000 € - 
2.5 million €). It is likely that the actual cost s will tend towards the bottom of the costs ranges. 
The effect of option A5 on operational costs  per Member State depends primarily what 
information on rights is already provided to su spects and the time this takes. Budgetary 
implications on Member States already operatin g Letter of Rights schemes are likely to be 
minimal. For those that currently inform suspect s orally about their rights, the effect on per 
case costs will depend on the level of detail of the oral information currently provided.  
As for option B3  most Member States will incur negligible one-off costs  only when 
implementing the Directive, as they already allow access to the case-file. Thus, one-off costs 
for introducing access to the case file are expected only for those 3 Member States that 
currently do not provide for such  a right. These costs are likely to result mainly from training 
police officers, prosecutors and judges and will range from 9,000 € to 2.6 million € per Member State. Whilst the precise impact of this option on operational costs
 cannot be 
predicted, it is likely that even for those 3 Memb er States that will have to introduce the right, 
the impact on  operational costs will very limited.  
EN 10   EN 7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
Providing for a robust monitori ng and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the 
rights envisaged are complied with in practic e as well as in legi slation. The Commission 
envisages carrying out a specific empirical study  with emphasis on data  collection 3-5 years 
into the implementation of the proposal to ga in in-depth quantitativ e and qualitative insights 
into the effectiveness of the proposal. 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.