Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The prevention of juvenile delinquency. Ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of the juvenile justice system in the European Union
Date: 2006-03-15
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU policy, approximation of laws, criminal law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, juvenile court, juvenile delinquency, prevention of delinquency, social policy

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/75

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on The prevention of juvenile delin-
quency. Ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of the juvenile justice system in
the European Union

(2006/C 110/13)

On 10 February 2005, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: The prevention of juvenile delinquency. Ways of dealing with
juvenile delinquency and the role of the juvenile justice system in the European Union.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 22 February 2006. The rapporteur was
Mr Zufiaur Narvaiza.

At its 425th plenary session, held on 15 and 16 March 2006 (meeting of 15 March), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 98 votes in favour, no votes against
and one abstention:

1. Introduction

1.1
Juvenile delinquency is currently an aspect of crime
causing growing concern in European societies and has, since
the last century, been under continuous scrutiny on an interna-
It should however be pointed out that young
tional scale.
people's behaviour often has a greater impact than that of
adults, especially if it is negative, thus prompting society to
take a particularly adverse view of young offenders. It is also
useful to note that in many cases the victims of juvenile delin-
quency are young people themselves. As a result, the impor-
tance that European society attaches to juvenile delinquency
means that effective responses must be found, which will have
to be built principally on a three-fold foundation: prevention,
punitive-educational measures, and the social integration or re-
integration of minors and young offenders.

The EESC believes that shaping a common strategy to
1.2
combat juvenile delinquency should be amongst the European
Union's objectives to which most attention is given: not only
because it affects a particularly vulnerable sector of the popula-
tion (minors and young people, frequently belonging to groups
at risk of social exclusion), but also because taking preventive
action for today's young offenders means not only seeking their
social rehabilitation, but also preventing the adult crime of
tomorrow. Although there are already a number of projects
and European policies which may have an indirect impact on
preventing juvenile delinquency (the European Employment
Strategy adopted at
the Luxembourg European Council of
November 1997, the European Social Agenda adopted at the
Nice European Council
the European
Youth Pact promoting active citizenship adopted at the Brussels
European Council of March 2005, etc.), as well as a range of
and resolutions (1) which also
youth-related

in December 2000,

agreements

(1) Resolution of the Council and of the representatives of the govern-
the Member States, meeting within the Council, of
ments of
14 December 2000 on the social inclusion of young people (OJ C
374 of 28.12.2000); Resolution of the Council and of the represen-
tatives of the governments of the Member States, meeting within
the Council of 27 June 2002 regarding the framework of European
cooperation in the youth field (OJ C 168 of 13.7.2002); European
Commission White Paper on a new impetus for European youth
(COM(2001) 681 final); Communication from the Commission to
the Council on European policies concerning youth (COM(2005)
206 final).

promote the normal process of integrating this sector of the
population into society, there is a lack of instruments and
measures geared specifically to juvenile delinquency.

1.3
It is no simple task to analyse the state of affairs in EU
countries, as each country has its own definition of juvenile
delinquency, based on different factors. For some countries, the
concept covers behaviour by minors that corresponds to one of
the types described in their legislation or criminal law code. In
other countries, where the juvenile justice system is based on
an educational or welfare model, the range of acts that are
pursued under the justice system when committed by minors is
extended to include acts which,
if committed by an adult,
would only be liable to proceedings through administrative or
civil channels, or would not even lead to prosecution (2).
Furthermore, there are significant differences between punitive
systems, in that some countries have drawn up laws on punish-
ments for young offenders that
include a specific punitive
system, and others apply the same punishments to minors as
adults while providing for certain limited and reduced punish-
ments. In addition to this, there are differences between the
ages of
responsibility: although there is
greater agreement on the upper age limit (18, although it may
be raised to 21 in some enlargement countries), the lower age
limits vary significantly from age 7 to 16 (3).

juvenile criminal

1.4
Bearing in mind the limitations created by such differ-
ences, it should be pointed out that according to the compara-
juvenile delinquency
tive statistics of the EU Member States,
accounts for an average of 15 % of all crime, although it can

(2) This would apply to what are known as ‘status offences’ such as

running away from home, sleeping rough, etc.

(3) There is a closer alignment on the upper limit between EU coun-
tries, with the juvenile justice system fully applying in all cases up
to the age of 18, although there are some countries which allow for
application, to different degrees and according to the case, to young
people up to 21 (Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands
and Portugal). Differences in the minimum age of criminal responsi-
bility are more marked: 7 in Ireland; 8 in Greece and Scotland; 10
in England and Wales, and France; 12 in the Netherlands and
Portugal; 13 in Poland; 14 in Austria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary,
Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia and Spain; 15 in the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Finland, Slovakia and Sweden, and 16 in
Belgium. It should however be borne in mind that in most cases, for
those aged between 7 and 13-15, the measures provided are not
truly penal or are less rigorous than those laid down for ages
between 13-15 and 18-21, detention in centres in many cases being
completely ruled out.

C 110/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

rise to 22 % in some countries. In any event, it should be noted
that the so-called ‘unrecorded’ crime rate (the percentage or
number of offences which is not notified to the official social
the police and the courts) consists
control authorities,
mostly of crime committed by minors. This is mainly because
the offences are generally not serious and because the victims
are often minors themselves, and are less likely to contact the
relevant authorities.

i.e.

by joining youth gangs focusing on some sort of common
symbol
(ideological, musical, ethnic, sports-related, etc.), but
which are usually characterised by transgressive attitudes. They
account for a large proportion of antisocial behaviour (vand-
alism, graffiti) or actual violence and other crime.

Regardless of the picture provided by the statistics at
1.5
any given time, there is clearly a widespread perception among
European countries that juvenile delinquency is on the rise, and
that the offences concerned are becoming more serious. Under
these circumstances, the public is calling for more effective
leading many countries to stiffen their
control mechanisms,
youth legislation. This serves to underline the need for coordi-
nation and guidance measures in order to facilitate European-
level governance of
this phenomenon, and also for well-
designed information policies to help put the over-dramatised
perception of the issue, mentioned in the first point of the
opinion, into proper proportion.

1.6 Without wishing in any way to detract from the impor-
tance of examining the causes of juvenile delinquency (which
the following section addresses, albeit in summary form) or the
need for a detailed examination of prevention policies (which
are also mentioned throughout
the present document, but
which must in any case be designed to deal with the causes),
the principal aim of the present opinion is to analyse the
situation of minors who, on account of their behaviour
to the
which infringes the criminal
various juvenile justice systems and the available interven-
tion mechanisms to protect, re-educate and reintegrate
them into society, with a view to preventing recidivist
behaviour.

law, are subject

2. Causes of juvenile delinquency

2.1 Many different reasons or circumstances can prompt a
minor to commit a crime, and experts in the field have not
reached any general consensus on these. However, based on
the most widely accepted causes and focusing more closely on
those linked to economic and socio-environmental
factors
(insofar as these will be of most interest in the context of this
opinion), we can highlight the following causes:

2.1.2
Socio-economic marginalisation or poverty, which
also makes it difficult for the minor to integrate properly into
society. This marginalisation occurs more frequently among
families (unaccompanied child
young people from migrant
migrants being particularly vulnerable) and in certain ‘ghettoes’
in large cities. Such areas frequently suffer from a dehumanised
urban environment liable to trigger feelings of distress and
aggressiveness among their inhabitants.

Truancy and academic failure: at school, this already
2.1.3
leads to labelling or social stigmatisation, which often paves the
way for antisocial behaviour or delinquency.

2.1.4
Unemployment, which is at its highest among young
people and often leads to situations of frustration and despair,
creating a breeding ground for delinquent behaviour (4).

The broadcasting of violent images and attitudes by
2.1.5
certain programmes via some media, or videogames
for
minors, which helps to create a system of values among young
people in which violence is seen as acceptable behaviour.

Abuse of drugs and toxic substances which often
2.1.6
causes the addict to commit crimes in order to support his/her
addiction. Also, when suffering the effects of these substances
or withdrawal symptoms, the usual inhibitions are lowered or
removed. Excessive alcohol consumption (even if occasional)
should also be mentioned here, as it plays a major role in vand-
alism and dangerous driving.

Personality and behaviour disorders, either in associa-
2.1.7
tion with or independently of
the factor outlined in the
previous point. These usually conspire with other social or
environmental factors to make young people act impulsively or
unthinkingly, uninfluenced by socially accepted standards of
behaviour.

A broken home, or even difficulty in balancing family
2.1.1
life and work, both of which increasingly often result in a lack
of attention and an absence of constraints and control for chil-
dren. As a result, young people sometimes try to fill these gaps

(4) C.f., in relation to this factor and the poverty referred to in point
2.1.2, the Thematic Study on Policy Measures concerning Disadvantaged
Youth, currently being drawn up by the European Commission's DG
Employment and Social Affairs, and coordinated by the Institute for
Regional Innovation and Social Research (IRIS).

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/77

2.1.8
Shortcomings in the teaching and passing on of social
and civic values — such as obeying rules, solidarity, generosity,
tolerance, respect for others, critical self-awareness, empathy,
high standards of work, etc., which are being replaced in our
‘globalised’ societies by more utilitarian values like individu-
alism, competitiveness or hyper-consumption — which in
certain circumstances can generate a degree of detachment
from society.

This combination of factors occurs to varying degrees
2.2
throughout
in societies which are prosperous but
where social breakdown has lead to this kind of antisocial or
deviant behaviour.

the EU,

In order to prevent violent behaviour and tackle juvenile
2.3
delinquency, societies must devise strategies which combine
preventive measures with active intervention and punishment.
Preventive and intervention-based measures must be designed
to ensure the social integration of all minors and young people,
principally through the family, the community, peer groups,
schools, vocational training and the labour market.

Judicial and punitive measures or responses must always be
based on the principles of lawfulness, the presumption of inno-
cence, the right to defence, a scrupulously fair hearing, respect
for privacy, proportionality and flexibility. Both the judicial
procedure itself, and the choice of measure, as well as its subse-
quent implementation, should be underpinned by the principle
of the best interest of the child (5).

3. The limitations of traditional juvenile justice systems

3.1
Conventional juvenile justice systems encountered many
difficulties in responding and adjusting to the modern reality of
delinquency. European criminal justice systems for minors were
therefore very slow, inefficient and economically unviable: long
waiting periods were common, and the re-offending rates
among young offenders were very high. At the same time, the
traditional sources of informal social control (school, family,
workplace, etc.) became progressively weaker.

3.2
Some countries (particularly the Scandinavian countries)
moved away from the paternalistic ‘protection model’, which
emerged in the early part of the 20th century, and under which
young offenders were considered to be socially ill (combining
and confusing them with other unprotected minors). towards
the ‘educational’ or ‘welfare model’, a social or community model
geared towards juvenile delinquency but which, as it
fell
outside the judicial system, denied minors the requisite legal
protection.

3.2.1
Since the 1980s, various international agreements and
treaties relating to juvenile justice (United Nations Standard

(5) Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by

the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989.

Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (‘The
Beijing Rules’), 1985; United Nations Guidelines for the Preven-
tion of Juvenile Delinquency (‘The Riyadh Guidelines’), 1990;
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived
of their Liberty, 1990; and Recommendation No R (87) 20 of
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on social
reactions to juvenile delinquency) have been driving a gradual
change within juvenile justice systems in European countries,
with the introduction of the ‘responsibility model’. Of particular
importance here is the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
adopted by the UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989
and ratified by all EU Member States, for whom it is now a
mandatory provision. Articles 37 and 40 deal with the present
subject. Under the ‘responsibility model’, the legal position of
the minor is strengthened and the juvenile justice system
moves closer
justice system for adults,
bestowing the same rights and guarantees on minors. The aim
is to bring educational and judicial aspects together, applying a
protective model and measures which are clearly educational in
nature. In short, the model aims to ‘teach responsibility’.

to the criminal

3.3
This model, derived from the above-mentioned interna-
tional standards, has been progressively incorporated into the
laws of the 25 EU Member States.

3.3.1
principles:

The responsibility model

is based on the following

— Prevention before crackdown: the best way to combat juve-
nile delinquency is to prevent the emergence of young
offenders, and this requires suitable social, occupational,
economic and educational assistance programmes (among
which programmes to encourage and facilitate proper use
of free time and leisure opportunities should not be over-
looked).

— Reducing the use of the traditional

justice system to the
absolute minimum and establishing new justice systems
especially geared to juvenile delinquency,
leaving other
situations which may affect minors (suffering from aban-
donment, abuse or maladjustment, for example) to other
services (social welfare).

— Reducing punitive state intervention, at

the same time
implementing preventive strategies in the areas of child
welfare services, social policy, the labour market,
leisure
provision and municipal policy in general, and similarly
involving the community and other social groups more
actively in settling conflicts and seeking viable alternatives,
such as family, social workers, school, community, social
organisations, etc.

C 110/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

— Minimising measures or punishments that deprive young
people of their liberty, by restricting these to exceptional
cases.

increasing the risk of re-offending and eventually being caught
up in the adult criminal justice system.

— Making the disciplinary response more flexible and diverse,
with adaptable measures that can be tailored to the circum-
stances of
in line with the conditions and
progress made in treatment or in the application of the
measure, as alternatives to detention.

the minor,

— Giving young offenders the same rights and guarantees as
adults in criminal proceedings (a fair and impartial hearing).

— Putting the official social control bodies involved in the
juvenile justice system on a professional, specialist footing.
In this context, specialised training should be provided for
justice for
all
minors (police,
lawyers and
professionals who carry out the various sanctions).

those involved in the administration of

judges, public prosecutors,

4. New trends in juvenile justice

Alternatives do exist

4.1
for dealing with juvenile delin-
quency, other than traditional detention arrangements. There is
an international trend towards additional or complementary
systems which allow minors to be treated more effectively and
in a way that it is more beneficial to their personal and socio-
professional development, while not excluding detention when
unavoidable.

4.2
Good European practices in the field of juvenile justice
fall into three main areas: prevention, educational treatment in
the local community or centres, and socio-occupational integra-
tion.

Apart

from prevention, which is discussed above,
4.2.1
educational
treatment should preferably be provided using
resources or institutions belonging to the same social environ-
ment as the minors concerned, with the aim of equipping them
with educational skills or requirements the lack of which
caused them to come into conflict with the criminal law in the
first place. These minors must be subject to thorough examina-
tion by specialists in a range of fields in order to identify educa-
tional gaps and determine how to provide them with skills
which can reduce the risk of re-offending. Similarly, work
needs to be done with the families, to ensure their cooperation
and commitment in the process of educating and re-socialising
these minors.

4.2.2
Furthermore, young offenders — together with other
groups such as disabled people, ethnic minorities, the elderly,
etc. — often belong to groups which are or may become
socially excluded: their particular needs and difficulties, outlined
above, mean that
they require targeted help in achieving
personal self-sufficiency. Otherwise, they are headed for failure
and the ensuing inability to integrate into their environment,

4.2.3
These young people therefore need to be helped and
guided in the process of integration using a wide variety of
different paths (integration in social, cultural and linguistic
terms, for example). There is no single path which can guar-
antee the social integration of young offenders, and neither are
there any foolproof mechanisms to ensure that a fully-inte-
grated person may not commit antisocial acts. However, there
is broad agreement in viewing employment as a key means for
drawing young offenders into the sphere of economic and
social integration and stability.

4.3 With regard to the development of
juvenile justice
systems, and reflecting the points made in 3.2 and 3.3 above, it
should be noted that, in response to the concept of retributive
the justice system has
justice (paying for damage caused),
begun to be seen as a reparative or restorative system as a
result of shift of emphasis in criminological policy towards the
victim (victimology) and restoring a role to victims in the penal
process. Restorative justice offers a paradigm for an approach
which encompasses the victim, the perpetrator and the com-
munity in seeking solutions to the consequences of the conflict
caused by the offence. The aim is to encourage reparation for
the harm done, to reconcile the parties and strengthen a feeling
of collective security. Restorative justice seeks to safeguard the
interests of, on the one hand, the victim (with the offender
having to recognise the harm done to the victim and to try to
provide redress) and, on the other, the community (with the
aim of ensuring the rehabilitation of the offender, preventing
re-offending and cutting the costs of criminal proceedings)
together with the offender (who in this way is not drawn into
the criminal justice circuit and whose constitutional guarantees
are upheld).

For offenders,

4.4
reparation has a specific educational
impact in that it prompts them to reflect upon their own guilt
by bringing them face-to-face with victims. This may deter
them from similar behaviour in the future. It therefore repre-
sents an ideal model for the juvenile justice system since it
produces little stigmatisation, is highly educational and is less
punitive.

4.5
In short, in the last twenty years, the procedures, type of
correctional measures and sentences have undergone significant
changes in the field of juvenile justice. Non-punitive measures
are gaining ground, such as community service, compensation
and reparation, mediation with the victim or the community,
professional, practical training or special treatment for drug
addiction or for other types of addiction, such as alcoholism.
This type of measure requires supervision and constant moni-
toring of the progress and achievements of the minor. These
measures are being used more and more frequently, and often
take the form of open or semi-open detention, supervision and
constant monitoring, probation, electronic tagging, etc., or a
combination of several measures. In spite of this, deprivation of
liberty,
in a detention centre or jail, continues to be a very
commonly used method.

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/79

4.6
Conversely, the public impact of new phenomena which
have been emerging, particularly in major European cities
(organised crime, gangs of youths, vandalism in public places,
violence in sport, bullying in schools, violence against parents,
extremist groups and xenophobic behaviour, linkage between
new forms of crime and migration, drug addiction, etc.), has in
recent years led some European countries to toughen up juve-
nile criminal law, increasing the maximum sentences applicable
and bringing in various forms of custody in secure detention
centres, and even holding parents
responsible for certain
offences on the part of their children.

(particularly in the abovementioned Recommendation No. R
(87) 20 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
on Social reactions to juvenile delinquency, and, more recently,
in Recommendation Rec(2003) 20 of the Committee of Minis-
ters on New ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the
role of juvenile justice (6)), the same cannot be said of the EU
institutions, which have only touched on the matter when
dealing with other issues such as crime prevention.

4.6.1
In this context, it is worth noting the reforms to juve-
nile criminal law introduced in the Netherlands in 1995 and
France in 1996, together with the 1994 UK Criminal Justice
and Public Order Act, which increased from one to two years
the maximum sentence applicable to minors aged between 15
and 18, and introduced six to 24 month custodial sentences for
minors aged between 12 and 14. ‘Parenting orders’ were also
introduced, requiring parents of minors who have committed
crimes or played truant to attend weekly courses for up to
three months. Parents who repeatedly fail to fulfil their educa-
tional duties can be fined up to GBP 1 000.

4.6.2
The problem with measures of this sort is that they
responsibility from minors who,
remove the burden of
according to the modern responsibility-oriented approaches of
criminal law, should be the ones called upon to compensate or
repair the damage caused. Moreover,
in some circumstances,
parents (especially those with few economic resources and,
consequently, less opportunity to provide their children with
care and supervision) can find themselves being unfairly
punished if they are unable to produce evidence clearing them
of any responsibility. What parents actually need is help in
bringing up their children properly, rather than having blame
undeservedly heaped on their shoulders.

4.6.3
Some countries are seeing a return to concepts that
were considered outdated in the 1980s, such as detention in
secure centres, which are also used to provide welfare assis-
tance to unprotected minors.
In other words, a return to
mixing minors coming under the welfare system with those
coming under the juvenile justice system.

5. Current treatment within the EU

5.1
Although the Council of Europe has already specifically
addressed the issue of Juvenile Justice on various occasions

5.2
The basic texts of the European Union and of the Euro-
pean Community provide two approaches to this subject: Title
VI of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), on Provisions on
police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters; and Title XI of
the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), on
Social policy, education, vocational training and youth.

5.2.1
Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters
should be governed by Articles 29 et seq of the TEU, which set
out to provide citizens with a high level of safety within an
area of
freedom, security and justice. These provisions lay
down channels for intergovernmental cooperation in criminal
matters at police and judicial level, including aspects such as
preventing and combating crime, whether organised or not. In
this regard, on 30 April 2004 the Commission presented its
Green Paper on the approximation, mutual recognition and enforce-
ment of criminal sanctions in the European Union. The purpose of
the Commission's consultation paper is to analyse whether the
existence of different systems across the EU raises problems for
judicial cooperation between the Member States, and to identify
barriers to the implementation of the mutual recognition prin-
ciple. The document makes no reference to juvenile delin-
quency or juvenile justice systems, but there would be no
obstacle to applying the objectives — which are listed in the
introduction — such as custodial and alternative sentences,
together with mediation, to these aspects.

At this stage,

5.2.2
it is also worth mentioning the AGIS
framework programme (7) adopted by the European Commis-
sion on 22 July 2002. The programme promotes police,
customs and judicial cooperation and supports the work of
professionals in order to help implement European policy in
this field. A number of initiatives on mutual recognition of
legislation and best practice in the area of juvenile delinquency
and justice systems have been launched under the programme.

(6) Other examples could include Resolution (66) 25 on the short-term
treatment of young offenders of less than 21 years, Resolution (78)
62 on juvenile delinquency and social change, Recommendation
(88) 6 on social reactions to juvenile delinquency among young
people coming from migrant families and Recommendation (2000)
20 on role of early psychosocial intervention in the prevention of
criminality.

(7) This programme continues and extends the work of the earlier
programmes operating under Title VI: Grotius II – Criminal, Oisin II,
Stop II, Hippokrates and Falcone.

C 110/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

5.2.3
In connection with Title VI TEU, mention should also
be made of the Council Decision of 28 May 2001 setting up a
European Crime Prevention Network (8), which covers all types of
crime but focuses particularly on juvenile (9), urban and drug-
related crime.

2001 (the first to cover internal security in Member States).
According to the survey, 45 % of European citizens feel that
policy to prevent juvenile delinquency should be a joint matter
for national authorities and EU institutions.

integration is without question one of

5.2.4 With regard to social policy, education, vocational
training and youth, Article 137 TEC highlights the activities of
Community bodies in order to further
the integration of
persons excluded from the labour market and the combating of
social exclusion. Echoing the points made above, socio-occupa-
tional
the two key
elements in preventing and combating juvenile delinquency. A
large number of strategies, agendas, projects and programmes
have been adopted in this sphere by successive European Coun-
cils and by the Community institutions, some of which are
referred to in point 1.2 above. Prominent among these, on
account of its closer links with young offenders, is the Action
Programme to Combat Discrimination (10), which comes under
Objective 1 of the European Social Fund.

As pointed out earlier,

the Convention on the Rights of

6.2
the UN and the Council of
Europe have already established a number of international stan-
regarding juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice
dards
systems. However, they have little or no binding force (with the
exception of
the Child,
mentioned earlier), and simply bring together a series of
minimum rules for the entire international community. Using
these rules as a starting point, the EU — given its level of devel-
opment and greater internal homogeneity — should actively
aspire to improve upon internationally-established principles
and make them more effective within its own territory.

5.3
For its part, the European Parliament has — albeit in
outline form — scheduled various measures in the field of
protection of minors and has adopted a number of resolutions,
including the European Charter of the Rights of the Child, adopted
by the European Parliament in Resolution A3-0172/1992 of 8
July 1992. Points 8.22 and 8.23 of the Charter lay down a
series of safeguards for minors caught up in criminal proceed-
ings, together with the principles and criteria which should
govern any sanctions which may be imposed and the resources
which should be brought to bear on dealing with young offen-
ders.

6.3 Moreover, each of
the EU countries could, when
drawing up their policies for dealing with the various aspects
of juvenile delinquency — prevention, justice, protection and
integration — benefit from the experiences and best practices
of the other Member States. All the more so since there is a
growing similarity between the various causes and outward
signs of juvenile delinquency in these countries (drug addiction,
racist behaviour, sports-related violence, use of new technolo-
gies for criminal purposes, urban vandalism, etc.).

6. The utility of a European frame of reference on juvenile

justice

As pointed out above, juvenile delinquency is a concern
6.1
there is a clear
for many European citizens. Furthermore,
awareness that this is a common problem for European coun-
tries, and that it would be useful for it to be dealt with by the
EU institutions. This was reflected in the Eurobarometer of

(8) OJ L 153 of 8.6.2001.
(9) An example of the work being carried out by the European Crime
Prevention Network is A review of the knowledge on juvenile violence:
trends, policies and responses in the EU Member States, Fitzgerald,
Stevens and Hale, 2004.

autonomous

(10) An example its application to the juvenile justice system: in Spain
the NGO Fundación Diagrama (a body which manages custodial
sentences imposed by courts on young offenders in many of the
country's
operational
programme with the regional authorities targeting young people
who are serving, or have served, custodial sentences or measures
imposed by the juvenile justice system. The aim of the programme
is to mark out a personalised and comprehensive roadmap to entry
into society and employment for these young people, beginning
even before they are released from the detention centre. The
programme is achieving significant results.

co-manages

regions)

an

6.4
Similarly, factors arising from on-going European inte-
gration, such as the removal of border controls and free move-
ment of persons, give further backing to the idea of common
rules on the juvenile justice system: young people can move
freely between Community countries, not to mention border
regions, which extend for thousands of kilometres between the
25 Member States. Greater homogeneity and/or coordination
between relevant national laws and policies could prevent or
reduce some risks or new situations generated by this greater
mobility (such as,
the possibility of a young
offender living in one country being convicted for an offence
committed in another EU country).

for example,

6.5
Furthermore, since countries often use their juvenile
justice systems as a test bench for future reforms to adult crim-
inal law systems, the coordination and approximation of juve-
nile justice systems could, in turn, help to bring national crim-
inal law systems closer. As mentioned earlier, this objective is
already one of the EU's aims, and significant progress has
already been made (Eurowarrant, mutual
recognition and
implementation of sentences, etc.). In addition, in the field of

9.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110/81

juvenile delinquency legislation is relatively recent (the oldest
dating from the early 20th century), meaning that launching a
process of alignment would not arouse as much reluctance or
cause as many difficulties as it would in the adult criminal
justice systems, that have a long history in which deep-rooted
historical, cultural and legal factors have all played a part.

6.6
Similarly, it is important to recognize the effect that a
Community frame of reference could have in limiting or
preventing regressive trends in the treatment of juvenile delin-
justice system that, as
quency and the juvenile criminal
mentioned above, are apparent in certain EU Member States.

Clearly, from both the preventive/social angle and the
6.7
repressive/judicial angle, the common phenomena in this area
in EU countries underscore the need for a joint framework to
deal with this issue. Indeed, the Council of Europe has called
for this in its Recommendation Rec(2003)20, signalling ‘the
need for separate and distinct European rules on community sanctions
and measures and European prison rules for juveniles’.

7. Proposals on a European juvenile justice policy

The above points suggest the following general lines of

7.1
approach:

All the EU Member States are,

7.1.1
to varying extents,
witnessing roughly similar phenomena which also require
comparable responses: breakdown in the traditional
instru-
ments of informal social control
(family, school, work), the
emergence of ghettoes in major urban centres where a signifi-
cant proportion of the population is at risk of social exclusion,
new forms of juvenile delinquency (violence at home and at
school, youth gangs, urban vandalism), drug and alcohol abuse,
etc.

The youth justice models of the EU Member States
7.1.2
have gradually been converging since
the 1970-1980s,
following the appearance of the international legal instruments
mentioned in point 3.2.1 above. The responsibility model, gener-
ally combined with restorative or reparative justice, is spreading.
However, significant differences between Member States persist
(prominent among them the age of juvenile criminal responsi-
bility, as seen above).

7.1.3
A wide range of reasons, discussed in detail earlier in
this document — similar socio-economic and political circum-
stances between the Member States, legal traditions which are
sometimes very close and in others at least not irreconcilable,
social policies impinging upon youth crime prevention which
are already funded or supported by Community budgets —

plead in favour of progressive uniformisation of models and
systems
for prevention, protection, action and treatment
regarding juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice.

7.1.4
increased approximation, coordination and exchange:

several other

support

factors

Lastly,

the idea of

Action on juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice
7.1.4.1
is not restricted to the judicial sphere (where the differing legal
models and traditions may constitute an obstacle), but seeks to
be interdisciplinary and multi-institutional, bringing together
other branches of knowledge — such as the social and beha-
vioural sciences — and widely varying institutions, authorities
and organisations (national, regional and local administrations,
different kinds of social services, police and court structures,
non-profit organisations, private companies working through
corporate social
family associations,
economic and social players, etc.), who often operate in an
uncoordinated manner.

responsibility projects,

7.1.4.2
The information society, technological progress, the
opening up of borders and other similar factors are certainly
contributing significantly to the spread of
the phenomena
mentioned in point 7.1.1 above (11), although the simple ‘copy-
cat’ effect of such behaviour should not be overlooked either
(amplified by the broadcasting of events by the mass media): all
these changes are occurring at breakneck pace, and European
countries cannot afford to ignore them.

7.2
In the light of all the above, the EESC believes that the
following steps should be taken to frame a Community policy
on juvenile delinquency and the juvenile justice system:

Firstly, it is essential to have up-to-date, comparable
7.2.1
statistical data on the state of juvenile delinquency in the EU-
25, to provide a reliable picture of the problem, its real dimen-
sions and how to tackle it, taking into account — amongst
other variables — possible differences between young male and
female offenders.

From the quality point of view,

the Committee is
7.2.2
convinced that there should be a series of minimum standards
or guidelines between the Member States covering all aspects
from the way the police and courts deal with young people in
conflict with the criminal law right through to reeducation and
resocialisation. These standards should take the principles laid
down in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, especially
Articles 37 and 40, and the international guidelines contained
in the conventions cited in point 3.2.1 above, as a starting-
point for further detailed developments and implementation.

(11) It is worth pointing to the apparently important role played in the
disturbances in French cities in November 2005, of chat services, e-
mail, blogs, mobile phones, etc.

C 110/82

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.5.2006

7.2.3
The first step in preparing these minimum standards
would be to gain the most detailed knowledge possible of the
different situations and experiences in each of the Member
States. There could be different ways of doing this, but one
might be to gather information through surveys sent to all the
Member States, and supplemented later by meetings of groups
of experts and professionals in the field to exchange experi-
ences and best practices. These meetings could be put on a
stable footing, setting up an expert network, with member-
ship and functions tailored to the specific objective in view. It
would also be helpful for the Commission to publish a green
paper on the subject, in order to target reflection and debate
more accurately, and to reach as many institutions, organisa-
tions and individuals as possible.

7.2.4
In conjunction with the above measures, or at least as
the next step in furthering mutual knowledge and convergence
between juvenile justice models in the Member States, a Euro-
pean observatory on juvenile delinquency should be created.
This would facilitate not only the study of the issue, but would
also help to disseminate the results and provide advice and
support for the appropriate authorities and institutions in their
decision-making. In other words, it must be ensured that the
results of these research and study efforts do not remain purely
academic, but help in the adoption of practical policies and
strategies (12).

the
7.3 Without prejudice to the above, and given that
various issues which touch upon juvenile delinquency and the
juvenile justice system are dealt with individually by various
European Union policies (freedom,
justice and security;
youth; education and training; employment and social affairs),
there is a need for operational coordination between all the
services and agencies involved so that juvenile delinquency can
be addressed on an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional
basis best suited to it, as indicated several times in the present
opinion.

7.4
In view of the specific features of juvenile delinquency,
together with its inherently dynamic and changing character, it
is essential
those working with the young people
involved — judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police officers, offi-

that all

Brussels, 15 March 2006.

for professionals

cials, mediators, social workers, probation workers, etc. —
receive the most specialist, and constantly up-dated, training
possible. The Community institutions have a key role to play in
this respect, through the instruments outlined above (expert
networks, observatory, etc.) and others such as exchange
programmes
States,
networking, new distance training methods such as e-learning,
etc. Community programmes should be introduced to try to
provide these specific training needs. Moreover, any advances
made in the field of juvenile justice in the EU would boost the
status of this area of knowledge and encourage the develop-
ment of specialist research in European universities, which
must be brought into the entire process.

between Member

Similarly, given that the issue has an obvious social and
7.5
civic dimension, care should be taken not
to overlook all
directly relevant civil society organisations and professionals in
the process (‘third sector’ bodies, associations, families, NGOs,
etc.), since they can contribute to shaping and subsequently
implementing whatever programmes and strategies are intro-
duced within the EU.

7.6 With regard to the social integration and re-integration
of minors and young offenders — the third foundation
mentioned in point 1.1 — any future Community policies will
also have to take account of the role of trade union and
employers' organisations
for
dialogue when mapping out paths towards the socio-occupa-
tional
socially-excluded
minors. All the relevant players must therefore be committed,
since socio-occupational integration is one of the vital means
of re-integrating these minors into society.

integration and re-integration of

and their

channels

specific

7.7
Lastly, the EESC is aware that if all these policies are to
be carried forward, they must be matched by budget resources.
The European Commission should therefore introduce budget
lines to assist in protecting minors and preventing juvenile
delinquency, and to deal with young offenders, through either
existing projects or initiatives (such as those aimed at elimi-
nating social exclusion and supporting young people's integra-
tion into society and employment) (13), or programmes specifi-
cally designed for the purpose.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

(12) A European Parliament Proposal for a Resolution (B5-0155/2003)
for the establishment of a European juvenile delinquency moni-
toring centre was presented by a large group of MEPs as far back
as 21 February 2003,.

(13) Examples of such projects and programmes currently under way
are AGIS, Daphne II, Equal and the Action programme to combat
discrimination.