COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 908}
Date: 2010-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: criminal procedure, fundamental rights, human rights, judicial cooperation, mutual recognition principle, rights of the defence

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 information in criminal proceedings 

{COM(2010) 392 final} 
{SEC(2010) 908} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

CONTENTS 

Section 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Introduction 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 

Problem definition 

Objectives 

Policy options 

Comparison of options 

The preferred option 

Transposition, monitoring and evaluation 

Annexes: 

I The Procedural Rights Roadmap  

II: Examples of Letter of Rights (UK and DE)  

III: EU overview on the right to information 

IV: General statistics 

V: Model calculations 

VI: Report of the Impact Assessment Steering Group 

VII: Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 

Page 

4 

4 

8 

18 

18 

30 

34 

40 

42 

46 

53 

55 

57 

68 

70 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  impact  assessment  is  for  a  measure  on  the  right  to  information  for  suspects  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 transmitted (orally, in writing or by some other means). 
This is true both for information about rights (such as the right to have legal advice or the services of an 
interpreter for those who don't understand or speak the language of the proceedings) and information about 
the charges.  

If someone is arrested or required to attend a police station in connection with an enquiry into a crime, they 
have  certain  rights,  such  as  the  right  to  consult  a  lawyer  or  to  have  an  interpreter  present  if  they  are  a 
foreigner who does not speak the language of the proceedings. 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 information on the rights can be seen as a "gateway" to 
effective  use  of  those  rights.  Legislation  and practice  on  the  way  in  which  information  is  transmitted  vary 
significantly from one Member State to another.  

Instances  of  failure  to  provide  information  are  undermining  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 mutual recognition of judicial decisions across the EU. 
This can affect the application of mutual recognition instruments, 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 which the European Union respects as a general principle by 
reference to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) under Article 6 (3) TEU. Whilst it is laid 
down in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 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  accompanies  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  operation  of  mutual  recognition,  in  November  2009  the 
European Council adopted the Roadmap 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  Commission  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 committed a criminal offence but has not yet been formally 
charged.  An  accused  person  is  someone  who  has  been  formally  charged  with  an  offence.  Their  rights  are  different 
according to their status. However, both categories are entitled to certain information.  
2 
3 
4 

Since 1 December 2009 the Charter is legally binding and has the same legal value as the EU Treaties. 
2009/C 295/01 
'An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizen' adopted December 2009. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Each measure will deal with a distinct procedural right or set of rights of suspects 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 alike both in cross-border proceedings as well as in purely 
domestic cases. Such legislation may clarify existing rights 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 strengthened 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 information 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 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." 

2.2. 

Chronology of the Impact Assessment 

2.2.1.  Consultation of stakeholders 

Stakeholders  were  consulted  on  several  occasions.  The  Commission  has  regular  and  frequent  contact  with 
major  stakeholders:  European  Criminal  Bar  Association,  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe, 
national  Bar  associations,  European  Network  of  Councils  of  the  Judiciary,  academics,  NGOs  such  as 
JUSTICE,  Amnesty  International  and  Fair  Trials  International.  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 
6 

This measure will address the rights of juvenile suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings. 
Green Paper on procedural safeguards, COM (2003) 75 of 19.2.2003 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
A Justice Forum7 meeting was held in July 2008 to canvas views 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 policy options and costs of the various options. 

(b) Under the JPEN (Criminal Justice) financial programme, 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  practice")  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  over  a  3  year  period  (2007-2010)  and  provides  empirical 
information on the extent to which procedural rights that are indispensable for an effective 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 recognition 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 instruments, 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  between  Member  States  were  not  sufficient  and  the  EU  was  encouraged  to  do 
more to redress the balance between facilitating prosecution 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  constituted  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. 

JLS/2008/JPEN/032  
EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings – Taru Spronken, Gert Vermeulen, Dorris de Vocht, Laurens Van 

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 
10 
Puyenbroeck – JLS/2008/D3/002. 
11 
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 

The research project covers nine countries: Poland, Hungary, Belgium, France, Italy, Germany, England and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Additional sources of information used in preparing this Impact Assessment include:  

• The book “Suspects in Europe: Procedural Rights at the Investigative Stage of the 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 comparing Member States' current practice,  

• Annual reports of the ECtHR 2003-2009, 
• European Court of Human Rights, “50 Years of Activity - some facts and figures” and Survey of activities 

2007", 

• Council of Europe annual penal statistics, 2007, 
• Study  on  the  Transparency  of  Costs  of  Civil  Judicial  Proceedings  in  the  European  Union,  contract 

JLS/2006/C4/007-30-CE-0097604/00-36,  

• International comparison of publicly funded legal services 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 and 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 held on 15 March 2010 At the meeting and in subsequent communication 
with individual DGs, comprehensive feedback was received which has been taken 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 among her priorities for her term of office.  

This Impact Assessment was examined by the European Commission's Impact Assessment Board on 5 May 
2010. Further to the IAB's recommendations, additional information, explanations and data was provided. At 
the  Board's  request,  the  context  of  the  initiative  for  this  proposal  ("Measure  B")  as  integral  part  of  the 
measures laid down in the Procedural Rights Roadmap is explained in greater detail in part 2. The fact that 
the initiative is not only meant to contribute to an improvement of judicial cooperation 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 amended in line with the Board's suggestions. The Board asked for a better 
explanation of the link between insufficient or inadequate provision of information to suspects and accused 
persons and practical problems in judicial cooperation between Member States: while no  further statistical 
information could be added, the explanation of the connection 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 illustrating the link added. Equally, in part 7 a more rigorous 
analysis  of  the  proportionality  of  both  elements  of  the  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  recommendation,  greater  use  is  made  of  references  to  the 
annexes throughout the main body of the report. Further, 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 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.3.   Compliance with standards of consultation 

General  principles  and  minimum  standards  for  consultation  of  interested  parties  have  been  followed  in 
relation to this initiative. The views of all major stakeholders 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  prosecutors  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 may hesitate to agree to judicial cooperation requests from other Member 
States. The situation will become exacerbated as more mutual recognition instruments become applicable in 
Member  States,  following  on  from  the  European  Arrest  Warrant.  The  effective  application  of  mutual 
recognition requires mutual trust. The ECHR is not enough 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 given 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  information  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 mutual 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 considered as equivalent to each other 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, that 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 compliance with fair trial rights in criminal proceedings 
in  one  or  more  other  Member  States,  judges  and  prosecutors  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 prosecutors throughout the EU have argued this 
must be addressed. They stress that the difficulties in the application of EU cooperation 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 
15 
16 

ULB study: lack of trust: para 18 
ULB study, para 18. This assessment is supported by testimony of European Judicial Network members.  
Justice Forum July 2008. 

EN 

7 

   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 level of fair trial standards in criminal proceedings 
wherever these proceedings take place in the EU.  

The need to improve the balance between measures facilitating 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 concrete results. This has changed with the adoption of the 
Procedural  Rights  Roadmap  by  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  in  November  2009  in  which  Member 
States resolved to take step-by-step action strengthening procedural rights of suspects and accused persons 
throughout  the  EU.  Member  States  and  stakeholders  alike  agree  that  it  is  necessary  to  enhance  citizens' 
confidence that the European Union and its Member 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. Taking 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 movement 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 movement of EU citizens is an 
essential aspect of ensuring that the internal market operates effectively for EU citizens. Provisions of the EU 
Treaties  relating  to  free  movement  are  intended  to  facilitate  the  pursuit  by  EU  citizens  of  activities  of  all 
kinds throughout the EU, and preclude measures which might 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  the  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. 

The  specific  problem:  insufficient  information  in  criminal  proceedings  and  its 

3.4 
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 detailed-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 circumstances). 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  the  rights  available  in  'standard'  situations  might  be 
applicable. It is therefore crucial that they should be informed of their rights in every case to ensure that they 
are indeed aware of the rights of which they could avail themselves. In this sense, provision of information 
on  rights  is  the  gateway  to  accessing  all  rights.  To  prepare  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 reside freely within the territory 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 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
challenge pre-trial decisions (such as a decision refusing 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 this information. This applies both to nationals and 
non-nationals involved in criminal proceedings. The situation is worse for non-nationals who may not be as 
familiar with the legal system as nationals and may have 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 Proceedings19 found that there was substantial divergence between 
Member States in the way suspects are 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 Letters 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  Treatment  or  Punishment  (CPT)  has  stressed  that  it  is 
essential  to  provide  a  suspect  who  is  arrested  or  detained  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 earliest 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 available in an appropriate range of languages. Further, the 
persons  should  be  asked  to  sign  a  statement  attesting  that  they  have  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 possibility of making use of those rights (such as the right to 
legal  advice  )  and  thus  help  prevent  intimidation  and  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 

EU procedural rights in criminal proceedings – Taru Spronken, Gert Vermeulen, Dorris de Vocht, Laurens Van 

19 
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 
22 
Republic of Germany on http://www.bmj.bund.de/files/-/2044/CPT%20Report%202006.pdf 
23 
legislation. 
24 

Ibid, p16 – supported by findings of Maastricht University study 21 September 2009.  
CPT Report Germany, CPT (2006) 36, adopted on 7 July 2006 as published by the Government of the Federal 

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 

Ibid,  para30.  With  reference  to  the  CPT  report  Germany  has  since  introduced  a  letter  of  rights  in  federal 

EN 

9 

   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 pressure 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  wasted.  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 against the order although he might have chosen not to do 
so had he known on what compelling evidence the court 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  proceedings  if  the  application  is  successful.  Such  costs  in 
applications  relating  to  lack  of  information  about  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 cooperation 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 where the original criminal proceedings take place, but 
also in other Member States where a court in the Member State in which the proceedings take place wishes 
to seek cooperation from other Member State(s) in order to advance the criminal proceedings or enforce a 
financial or custodial sentence. Several EU instruments have been adopted over the course of the last decade 
to improve such cooperation, most notably the Framework Decisions on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW 
- in operation since 1 January 2004), the European Evidence Warrant and the transfer of sentenced persons 
between Member States.  

All  instruments  aiming  to  facilitate  judicial  cooperation  between  Member  States  rely  on  the  principle  of 
mutual recognition: a decision of a court in one Member State (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 equivalent to their own decisions, i.e. without any further 
review  of  the  decision  or  any  lengthy  recognition  proceedings.  Such  quasi-automatic  mutual  recognition 
presupposes  mutual  trust  between  judges  and  courts  throughout  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 based or for which arrest and surrender of a person was 
sought, were, or were likely to be, fair and compliant with ECHR fair trial standards. Protracted proceedings 
would be the consequence where the sought person resisted 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 Member State: in England and Wales, the costs of one day in prison average 
130 € per day; in Germany they range around 70 € per day.  
Padalov v Bulgaria (judgment of 10 August 2006, application n° 54784/00). 
Mooren v Germany (judgment of 9 July 2009, application no. 11356/03). 

10 

   EN 

29 
30 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
State  remain.  Thus  Member  State  courts  have  already  refused  to  execute  EAWs  on  account  of  a  probable 
violation of the sought person's fair trial rights upon surrender to the issuing Member State.31 

But even where another Member State's court decision is eventually enforced by the courts in the executing 
Member State, the swift operation of judicial cooperation instruments can be hampered significantly. This is 
the case where the person sought on the basis of an EAW appeals against a decision to recognise and execute 
the EAW and, eventually, brings an application against 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 that 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, costs for holding a sought person in extradition detention and legal aid fees. 

In this context it is crucial to emphasise that it may 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 justice and thus significantly hamper judicial cooperation 
between the respective Member States. This risk is expected to be magnified when those mutual recognition 
measures  adopted  at  EU  level  since  the  EAW  Framework  Decision33  have  been  implemented  and  when 
Member  States  seek  to  enforce  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 charges 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 cooperation proceedings, a most recent case provides ample 
illustration of the consequences such allegations of inadequate 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 Portuguese authorities to inform him about the charge. Had the 
alleged unfairness of the Portuguese proceedings, said to have been caused, to a significant extent, by lack of 
information on the charge against the accused, not been the central issue of the proceedings in the UK, it is 
assumed  that  surrender  would  have  been  effected  significantly  more  swiftly  than  was  the  case.    Owing  to 
limited data available on the factors influencing the lengths of judicial cooperation proceedings in executing 
Member States, it is impossible to quantify with precision the financial consequences of inadequate provision 
of information to suspected and accused persons on judicial cooperation proceedings in the executing state in 
terms of courts budget impact and legal aid costs.  

Insufficient information is a common feature of cases that are known to have attracted media attention. These 
cases, although the exception rather than the rule, are likely 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 International (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 
European Arrest Warrant – Year 2007), p11. 
33 
Warrant, Transfer of Prisoners and European Supervision Order. 
34 

Council Doc 10330/3/08 (Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the 

Such as the Framework Decisions on Financial Penalties, Confiscation, Freezing Orders, European Evidence 

See R (on the application of Gary Mann) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court [2010] EWHC 48 (Admin) 
(judgment of 19 January 2010). 

EN 

11 

   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  confessions  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 football 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  informed  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  defendants.  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 found 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 against 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 their rights and the accusations against them is crucial to 
safeguard  the  fairness  of  criminal  proceedings.  Currently,  only  some  Member  States  inform  suspects  and 
accused persons both of their rights and of the case against them in a  manner that  makes it likely that the 
person is adequately made aware of his rights and receives sufficiently detailed information on the charge to 
prepare and effective defence or, where necessary, challenge pre-trial decisions. It will have to be ensured 
that  across  the  EU  suspects  and  accused  persons  are  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 confidence that all Member States provide suspects and 
accused  persons  with  sufficient  information  about  their  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 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
3.5 

Existing  legal  standards  do  not  offer  adequate  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 information on their rights and the case against them and there 
are  no  sufficiently  high  and  adequately  enforced  standards  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 procedural rights and guarantees for suspects and accused 
persons to complement the increasing numbers of EU measures providing for mutual recognition of judicial 
decisions in criminal proceedings. The Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFREU) in its Arts 47 and 48 sets 
out rights that are similar to, although less specific than, those of the ECHR and has become legally binding 
for Member States with the entry into force of the Lisbon 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 the 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  suspects  and  accused  persons  in  general  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 ECtHR 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 defence 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  laying  down  hard  and  fast  rules.  However,  when 
interpreting the right to have adequate time and facilities 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  defence  adequately  and  provide  equality  of  arms  between 
defendants and prosecutors.37 Yet, as the study by Ghent and Maastricht 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 procedure 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  avenues  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 

Explanation on Article 6 of the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Official Journal, 

35 
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 
May 2005); Moiseyev v Russia (9 October 2008). 
38 

Kamasinski  v  Austria (judgment  of  19  December  1989  A  Series  N°  168),  Ocalan  v  Turkey  (judgment  of  12 

T Spronken/G Vermeulen et al, EU Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings, p94. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
system  of  the  ECHR  suffers  from  a  huge  backlog  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 the 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  applicable,  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  adequate  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 which moment in criminal proceedings information has 
to  be  provided  to  a  suspect  or  accused  person.  Information  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 number of proceedings in which insufficient information 
is complained about or has led to judicial decisions being 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 cases where violations of fair trial rights 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 actual number of cases where violations of fair trial 
rights occur but are not brought to the ECtHR.  

Qualitatively, however, the problem of suspects and accused 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  adequately  or  to  challenge  pre-trial  decisions.41  Stakeholders  have 
confirmed  the  seriousness  of  the  problem  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  authorities  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 occur and be reported. While 
there is a trend among Member States to adopt legislation requiring law enforcement authorities to provide 
suspects or accused persons with a written notification of their rights in a language they understand and to 
grant  them  or  their  lawyer  access  to  the  case  file,  there  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 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Member States introducing similar obligations. Without precise and binding obligations to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights and/or the case against 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  failure  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 States42 and activities of individuals or businesses in one 
Member State having an effect in other Member States will lead to a greater need for judicial cooperation in 
criminal proceedings between Member States (e.g. evidence to be gathered in other Member States, financial 
penalties  to  be  enforced  and  more  individuals  surrendered  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  insufficient  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  envisaging  the  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  in 
criminal  proceedings  such  as  those  concerning  the  gathering  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, practitioners 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  right  to  interpretation  and  translation  in  criminal 
proceedings) has been agreed by the European Parliament and the Council in June 2010 and will be formally 
adopted  later  in  the  year.  This  will  address  the  issue  of  ensuring  that  suspects  and  accused  persons  not 
understanding  the  language  in  which  criminal  proceedings  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 understand 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 the 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 relevant case file. In this limited sense Measure A will 
already ensure that accused persons are provided with some information on the case against them.  

Eurostat data confirm that the percentage of foreigners in the overall population in the EU increased from 3.5% 

42 
in 2000 to 6.1% in 2007: 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_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 
from BE, BG, DK, IT, MT, NL, AT, PT and UK). 
44 
the Transfer of Prisoners, implementation deadline 5 December 2011. 

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 

Framework Decisions on the European Evidence Warrant, implementation deadline: 19 January 2011, and on 

EN 

15 

   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  directives  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 States' 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 country) 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 criminal 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 Member State of nationality, such a 
case could still turn into a cross-border 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 return 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 minimum 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  CFREU  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  judicial  cooperation  based  on  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition  throughout  the  EU.  Such  a  novel  system  calls  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 information. 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 indications that Member States would provide for raising 
and approximation of standards of informing accused persons 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  information  across  the  EU.  This  illustrates  that  it  will  only  be 
action  taken  at  EU  level  that  may  allow  setting  a  consistent  and  high  standard  of  information  given  to 
suspects and accused persons throughout the EU.  

The ECHR already sets European-wide fair trial standards (which, in relation to a number of rights, cannot 
always be considered sufficient in the scope of protection) but its enforcement mechanism cannot guarantee 
a sufficient and consistent level of compliance by its signatory 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 enforcement mechanisms (such as the duty to transpose a 
directive into legislation in the Member State; implementation 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 

16 

   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 
to 
in  writing,  for 
exercise their defence rights effectively.  

them 

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. 

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 

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 

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 possible  to  achieve  the  general  objective.  The  following 
options are assessed against the specific 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 

17 

   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 been 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 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
5.2 

Description and impact analysis of policy options 

There are currently no data on the overall number of criminal 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 achieving the specific and operational objectives in largely 
qualitative terms using input from stakeholders, and in terms of potential cost savings and efficiency gains of 
criminal proceedings.  

The  specific  issue  of  juvenile  and  other  vulnerable  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 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

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 suspects46, 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-trial 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  file47  in  their 
national law. Thus the retention of the status quo would not contribute to achieving the 
specific objectives set out in part 4. 

There  are  no  expected  positive  social  impacts.  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 introduced a right of suspects to grant their lawyers access 
to the case file. Were a suspect or accused person is not represented 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 

19 

   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  targeting  defence  lawyers,  law  enforcement 
frontline  staff  and  suspects  in  police  stations  explaining  the  fair  trial  rights  suspects  and  accused  persons 
enjoy  under  the  ECHR,  EU  directives  implementing  the  Roadmap  and  Member  States'  law.  Campaign  to 
consist of production of leaflets and posters setting out these rights distributed 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,  and  defence  lawyers  and  human  rights  organisations 
including  as  the  CCBE,  the  European  Criminal  Bar  Association  and  Member  States'  lawyers  associations 
The  European  Commission  would  provide  coordination  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 frontline 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 written 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 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
Recommendation would envisage the commissioning by the 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 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

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  written  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. 

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  inform  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 they understand. The Directive would not prescribe the means by which this 
information would be conveyed, so Member States may choose whether the information should be provided 
orally or in writing. The Directive would also stipulate that 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 terms of achieving the specific objectives than 
the previous options on account of its legislative nature: it would create an express and 
unambiguous duty for Member States to ensure 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 

21 

   EN 

 
Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

Financial and 
economic impact 

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. 

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.  

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  currently  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 suspects 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  introduce  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  but    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  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 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
Description: A Directive creating a duty for Member States to ensure that suspects who are deprived of their 
liberty  are  informed  of  immediately  relevant  procedural  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 adequately included in the wording. The Directive 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 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

Financial and 
economic impact 

Stakeholder experience  indicates that this  legislative 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  means  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 State 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. 

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 rights 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. 

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  update  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 

23 

   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 above 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 proceedings 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  rights49.  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 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)  to  be  included  the  Letter  of  Rights.  Thus,  suspects  and  accused 
persons  deprived  of  their  liberty  on  account  of  arrest  and  pre-trial-detention  would  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  auspices  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 Member States this option is likely to be 
highly  effective  as  prosecutors  and  judges  across  the  EU  would  know  that  suspects 
received  identical  information  about  their  common  EU-wide  minimum  procedural 
rights  wherever  in  the  EU  the  proceedings  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 
49 

See Annex V, A(1.). 
This was assumed by the German Government when changing 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 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

Financial and 
economic impact50 

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. 

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.  

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  formulation  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  formulation  of  minimum  rights  in  these  other 
languages might only be incurred once per language 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 Directive 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 incurred 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 information 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,  information  on  the  case  should  be  provided  by  other  suitable 
means,  preferably  in  written  form.  Member  States  would  also  be  urged  to  provide  further  training  to  law 

50 

See in detail part 7.2 and Annex V. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
enforcement personnel, prosecutors and judges where necessary. The Recommendation would envisage the 
commissioning  by  the  European  Commission  of  a  study  on  the  effect  of  the  Recommendation  three  years 
after 
the 
Recommendation  would  not  contain  any  reporting  obligations  on  part  of  the  Member  States  as  concerns 
implementation of the Recommendation. 

the  non-binding  nature  of  a  Recommendation, 

its  adoption.  Taking 

into  account  of 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

Financial and 
economic impact 

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  challenge  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 allow accused persons, or their lawyers, full 
access to the case-file. 

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 level to strengthen the rights of suspects and 
accused persons subject to these mutual recognition measures. 

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 level 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 whether 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 

26 

   EN 

 
meeting objectives 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

Financial and 
economic impact 

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 substantive 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 already 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 the case-file at an early stage in a criminal 
investigation),  this  option  is  unlikely  to  facilitate  meaningful  verification  of 
compliance. 

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  requirements  of  the  advanced  judicial  cooperation 
system in the EU. 

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 per 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 those 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  allowing  accused  persons  to  inspect  the  case-
file.  These costs and associated operational 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 

27 

   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  grounds  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 available 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 prosecution authorities or the court. Such access to the case-file will, as a rule, 
have  to  be  granted  once  the  investigation  of  the  criminal  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 access 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 documents 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  those  that  do  not  understand  the  language  in  which  the 
proceedings  are  conducted,  the  proposal  for  a  Directive  on  the  right  to  translation  and  interpretation 
(Measure  A),  currently  under  negotiation,  should  ensure  that  key  documents  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 

Social impact and 
fundamental rights 

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  stakeholders  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. 

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' court 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 

28 

   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 current 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  States  that  do  not  yet  provide  access  to  the 
case-file  will  be  higher  on  account  of  potential  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  suspects  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 
53 Thus, for example overall operational 
€ to 21 million € per Member State per year.
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 classified according to their potential to 
meet the objectives defined in part 4, with five checkmarks ((cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)) indicating highest relative potential. 
Ratings for expected effectiveness in achieving the objectives are given equal weight in the final sum.  

51 
52 
53 
54 

A detailed assessment of the magnitude of this option is provided in part 7.2. 
See Annex V, Tables 4 and 5. 
See Annex V, Table 6. 
This was assumed by the German Government when changing 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 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As regards policy options A, option A5 demonstrates 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 

To provide 
information in 
clear language 
which will be 
easily 
understood by 
the suspect or 
accused person 

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 

To ensure a 
means of 
verifying that 
the information 
has been 
transmitted 

To improve 
Member States' 
confidence in 
the fair 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)  (cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)  (cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)  (cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)  (cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)  (cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

EN 

30 

   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: 

Financial 
burden per 
Member State55 

Potential costs 
savings in 
Member State 
in which 
criminal 
proceedings 
take place 

0 

- 

5 

8 

12 

20 

25 

100.000 € - 10 
million € 
(overall costs 
for EU) 

One-off set-
up:56 0 € - 2.5 
million € 

One-off set-
up:58 0 € - 2.5 
million € 

One-off set-
up:60 15,000 € - 
2.5 million € 

One-off set-up: 
5,000 € - 2.5 
million € 62 

Operational per 
year:57 0 € - 4.6 
million €  

Operational per 
year:59 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € 

Operational per 
year:61 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € 

Operational per 
year:63 5,000 € 
- 4.6 million € 

- 

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 

56 
57 

58 

59 
60 
61 

62 
63 

Range based on model calculation for those Member States most likely to incur implementation costs due to 
current practice diverging from the one envisaged in the option.  
This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 
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.  
This figure depends on the whether Member States will 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.  
The caveat in footnote 57 applies 
This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 
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.  
One-off costs to be incurred by Member States for training police officers, judges and prosecutors. 
See footnote 57.  

EN 

31 

   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  

To provide 
information in a 
timely fashion 
and in such a 
way that the 
suspect or 
accused person 
understands the 
case against him 

To ensure a 
means of 
verifying that 
the information 
has been 
transmitted 

To improve 
Member States' 
confidence in 
the fair 
operation of the 
criminal justice 
systems 
throughout the 
EU 

Total score: 

Financial 
burden per 
Member State 

0 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

0 

- 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

5 

11 

17 

One-off:64 0 € - 
2.6 million € 

66

One-off: 
  0 € 
- 2.6 million € 

Operational:65 
270,000 € - 21 

Operational: 
100,000 € - 30 

One-off:67 
9,000 € - 2.6 
million € 

Operational: 

64 

This assumes full implementation of the Recommendation. 

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  

million € 

million € 

270,000 € - 21 
million € 

Potential  costs 
in 
savings 
Member  State 
in 
which 
criminal 
proceedings 
take place 

- 

low 

low  

medium 

7 

The preferred option 

This part sets out the preferred option 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 Parliament 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  informed  of  the  case  against  them  which  has  to 
include granting them (or their lawyer) 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  suspects  and  accused  persons  receive  adequate  and 
comprehensible  information  about  immediately  relevant  minimum  procedural  rights  applicable  throughout 
the  EU  and  are  given  comprehensive  and  generally  unfiltered  information  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 

66 

67 

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.  
This figure depends on the means Member States choose to inform suspects and defendants of the case against 
them. One-off costs (mainly consisting of training costs) depend on this choice. 
Mainly training costs depending on number of official receiving training and level of remuneration of trainers. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
authorities (and corresponding rights for suspects and accused persons) which go beyond the rights enshrined 
in the ECHR and, upon implementation, 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  rights  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  and  all  subsequent  measures  envisaged  in  the  Roadmap,  the  preferred 
option  would  contribute  to  the  creation  of  a  genuine,  EU-wide  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 individual 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  the  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  currently  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  adopted.  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 implemented. 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 individuals) 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  rights  are  likely  to  be  created  by  the  other  measures  of  the  Procedural 
Rights Roadmap, but, again, each measure would 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 furthering the objectives identified in part 4. Whilst both 
elements  of  the  preferred  option  are  likely  to  require  a  number  of  Member  States  to  introduce  changes  to 
their  criminal  procedure  laws  in  order  to  implement  the  Directive,  there  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 against them. Both elements of the preferred option 
create  new,  EU-wide  uniform  duties  on  the  part  of  Member  States  (use  of  a  Letter  of  Rights  and  grant  of 
access  to  the  case-file  to  effect  proper  provision  of  information  on  rights  and  charges).  It  is  precisely  this 
harmonising  effect  of  the  preferred  option  that  marks  its  effectiveness  both  in  ensuring  that  suspects  and 
accused persons receive adequate information in criminal proceedings across the EU and in promoting trust 
of judges in the fairness of such proceedings in Member States other than their own: options A5 and B3 will 
give  judges  the  greatest  certainty  that  adequate  procedures  are  in  place  for  the  provision  of  adequate 
information  to  suspects  and  accused  persons.  They  will  know  what  minimum  procedural  rights  a  suspects 
would  be  (or  would  have  been)  informed  of  upon  arrest  and  that  an  accused  person  would  generally  be 
allowed  to  inspect  the  case-file  to  acquaint  himself  with  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 alternative options, options A5 and B3 do not go beyond what is 
necessary  in  order  to  achieve  the  objectives  set  out  in  part  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 options A5 and B4 would not be limited to those Member 
States only that currently do not use Letters of Rights already or grant accused persons access to the case-
file. Even amongst those Member States which already 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 

34 

   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 persons of their rights and the case against them. Thus, 
no exact figures could be developed to calculate current 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 operational 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 States. 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 estimated with any statistical precision due to lack of Member State data 
on costs per case. Thus, only indicative qualitative expectations in non-numerical terms could be provided 
based on stakeholder judgement.  

Financial or economic impact 

Core elements of 
preferred option 
and resulting 
necessary action 

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  formulation  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  of 
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 experience 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  that  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 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
use  their  current  formulations  and  translations  alongside  the  EU-wide  standard 
formulation  for  minimum  rights  where  applicable.  Drafting  costs  are  likely  to  vary 
considerably between Member States on account 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 the 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 
  Thus,  set-up  costs  are 
range  of  approximately  400  to  4,600  €  per  Member  State.  
likely to vary between 5,400 and 54,600 € per Member State.  

70

Informing and training police officers, prosecutors and judges: In Member States that already 
operate Letter of Rights schemes, law enforcement 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, staff 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 
71
indicate a  potential  costs  impact  of between  5,000 €  and  2.4  million €  per  Member  State.
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  formulation  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 of 
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 reduce 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 
70 
71 
72 

See model calculation in Annex V, A.1.(1). 
See model calculation in Annex V, A.1.(2).  
See Annex V, Tables 1 and 2. 
See Annex V, Table 3. 

EN 

36 

   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 increase  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 statistical data about the content and level of detail 
of  information  on  fair  trial  rights  law  enforcement  staff,  prosecutors  or  judges  currently 
provide to suspects and accused persons, the precise 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  Member  State  of  informing  suspects  and 
accused persons of their rights by means of the Letter 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 (including 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 number 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  for  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-filei  

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  of 
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 Member 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  of 
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-off  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 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.Operational costs  per  year: Those Member  States  that do 
not yet provide for access to the case-file for suspects and accused persons (or their lawyer) to 

73 

See Annex V, Tables 4 and 5. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
inform them about the case against them will incur operational costs per case for providing 
such  access.  These  consist  primarily  of  the  costs  of  police  officers,  judges  or  prosecutors 
deciding  whether  or  not  exceptionally  to  refuse  or  limit  inspection  of  the  case-file  and  of 
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 used. 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  indication  of  the  overall  operational  costs  for 
two of the three most affected 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 than not that the actual overall operational costs 
per  Member  State  of  this  option  verge  towards  the  bottom-end  of  the  costs  range 
indicated above.  

Aggregate costs of option B3 for the three Member States most affected:  minimum: 14
one-off  costs:  minimum:  1.2  million  €; 
million  €,  maximum:  41  million  €;  of  these 
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 the 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. 

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 for implementing the Directive in Member States' 
laws, Member States' courts are likely to seek clarification 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  of 
applications to the ECtHR where a breach of a suspect or accused person's right to a fair trial 

Aggregate effects of 
both elements 

74 

See Annex V, Table 6. 

EN 

38 

   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 limited 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  provided  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  compiling  reports  on  the  rights  covered  in  the  Directive. 
Member States should be encouraged to collect relevant data to assist in this process as there is currently a 
lack of reliable empirical data. 

The Commission envisages carrying out a specific empirical 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  hitherto  available.  Once  all  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 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEXES 

I The Procedural Rights Roadmap  

II: Examples of Letter of Rights (UK and DE)  

III: EU overview on the right to information 

IV: General statistics 

V: Model calculations 

42 

46 

53 

55 

57 

VI: Report of the Impact Assessment Steering Group 

68 

VII: Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 

70 

EN 

40 

   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 COUNCIL 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) 

(2) 

(3) 

In  the  European  Union,  the  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental 
Freedoms  (the  "Convention")  constitutes  the  common  basis  for  the  protection  of  the  rights  of 
suspected  or  accused  persons  in  criminal  proceedings,  which  for  the  purposes  of  this  Resolution 
includes the pre-trial and trial stages.  

Furthermore, the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is an important 
foundation for Member States to have trust in each other’s criminal justice systems and to strengthen 
such trust. At the same time, there is room for further action on the part of the European Union to 
ensure full implementation and respect of Convention standards, and, where appropriate, to ensure 
consistent application of the applicable standards and to raise existing standards.  

The  European  Union  has  successfully  established  an  area  of  freedom  of  movement  and  residence, 
which citizens benefit from by increasingly travelling, 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 criminal 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 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

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. 

This  calls  for  specific  action  on  procedural  rights,  in  order  to  ensure  the  fairness  of  the  criminal 
proceedings.  Such  action,  which  can  comprise  legislation  as  well  as  other  measures,  will  enhance 
citizens' confidence that the European Union and its Member States will protect and guarantee their 
rights. 

The 1999 Tampere European Council concluded that, in the context of implementing the principle of 
mutual  recognition,  work  should  also  be  launched  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  fundamental  legal  principles  of  Member  States 
(Conclusion 37). 

Also,  the  2004  Hague  Programme  states  that  further  realisation  of  mutual  recognition  as  the 
cornerstone  of  judicial  cooperation  implies  the  development  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.). 

Mutual  recognition  presupposes  that  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States  trust  the 
criminal  justice  systems  of  the  other  Member  States.  For  the  purpose  of  enhancing  mutual  trust 
within  the  European  Union,  it  is  important  that,  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.  

Recent  studies  show  that  there  is  wide  support  among  experts  for  European  Union  action  on 
procedural  rights,  through  legislation  and  other  measures,  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 context 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 strengthen procedural guarantees and the respect of the rule 
of law in criminal proceedings, no matter where citizens decide to travel, study, work or live in the 
European Union.  

(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  overall  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  catalogue  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 

77 

78 

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.  
See e.g. the "European Parliament recommendation of 7 May 2009 to the Council on development of an EU 
criminal justice area", 2009/2012(INI), point 1 a). 
"An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen", COM (2009) 262/4 (point 4.2.2.). 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
HEREBY ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Action should be taken at the level of the European 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.  

The  Council  endorses  the  "Roadmap  for  strengthening  procedural  rights  of  suspected  or  accused 
persons in criminal proceedings" (hereinafter referred to as "the Roadmap"), set out in the Annex to 
this Resolution, as the basis for future action. The 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.  

The Commission is invited to submit proposals regarding the measures set out in the Roadmap, and 
to consider presenting the Green Paper mentioned under point F.  

The Council will examine all proposals presented in the context of the Roadmap and pledges to deal 
with them as matters of priority.  

The  Council  will  act  in  full  cooperation  with  the  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  understand  what  is  happening  and  to  make  him/herself 
understood. A suspected or accused person who does not speak 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  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  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  (through  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 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Measure D: Communication with Relatives, Employers and Consular Authorities 

Short explanation: 

A suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty shall be promptly informed of the right to 
have  at  least  one  person,  such  as  a  relative  or  employer,  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 authorities informed of the deprivation of liberty. 

Measure E: Special Safeguards for Suspected 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.  Excessively  long  periods  of  pre-trial  detention  are 
detrimental for the individual, can prejudice the judicial cooperation between the Member States and do not 
represent the values for which the European Union stands. Appropriate measures in this context should be 
examined in a Green Paper.  

EN 

44 

   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

EN 

http://www.bmj.de/enid/2388cb7d879ab1247684347347e0c27e,0/Fachinformationen/Belehrungsform

ulare_1mi.htmli 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
If  you  are  a  foreign  national,  you  can  also  request  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 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
b. England and Wales:80 

The  following  rights  and  entitlements  are  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  information  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 advise you about the law.  

• If you want a solicitor, tell the police custody officer. The police 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  area  or  you  cannot  get  in  touch  with  your  own 
solicitor, you can speak to the duty solicitor. It is free. The police 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 telephone 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 the 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/powers-pace-codes/rights-entitlements-foreign-lang.html 

EN 

47 

   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 offence, 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 are 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 Practice 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 Practice, tell the police 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 station, you, your solicitor or your appropriate 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 custody 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 expect while you are kept at the police station. To find out 
more, ask to see the book called the Codes of Practice. Inside its back cover you will find a list of 
where  to  find  more  information  about  each  of  these  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 

48 

   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 should be clean, warm and lit. Your bedding 
should be clean and in good order. You must be allowed to use a toilet 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 outside each day for fresh air.  

If you are unwell  

Ask to see a doctor if you feel ill or need medicine. 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 police 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 without being charged. This can be longer but only 
if  a  Police  Superintendent  allows  it  to  happen.  After  36  hours  only  a  court  can  allow  more  time 
without you being charged. Every so often a senior police officer has to look into your case to see if 
you should still be kept here. This is called a review. You have the right 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 hours rest in any 24 hours you are in custody.  

People who need help  

EN 

49 

   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  things.  This  person  is  called  your  “appropriate 
adult”.  

• Your appropriate adult must be with you when the police tell you about your rights and tell you 
why you are being kept at the police station. He or she must also 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 things 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 appropriate adult in the room if you want to.  

Getting an interpreter to help you  

If  you  do  not  speak  or  understand  English  the  police  will  arrange  for  someone  who  speaks  your 
language to help you.  

If  you  are  deaf  or  have  difficulty  speaking  the  police  will  arrange  for  a  British  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  before  you  sign  it  as  an  accurate 
record.  

If you make a statement to the police, the interpreter will make a copy 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  that  you  want  to  contact  your  High  Commission, 
Embassy or Consulate to tell them where you are and why you are in the police station. They can 
also visit you in private 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 special 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 

50 

   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 police must let you talk to another solicitor. 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 are at the police station  

There  are  some  special  times  when  the  police  will  not  allow  you  to  contact  anyone.  Information 
about these special times is given in the Codes of Practice. If you want to look up the details, it is in 
Annex B of Code C of the Codes of Practice.  

Breath tests  

If you are under arrest because of a drink drive offence, you have the right to speak to a solicitor. 
That right does not mean you can refuse to give the 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 allowed 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 cannot request that an independent custody visitor visit you. If an 
independent  custody  visitor  does  visit  you  while  you  are  in  custody  they  will  be  acting 
independently  of  the  police  to  check  that  your  welfare  and  rights  have  been  protected.  However, 
you do not have to speak to them if you do not wish to. 

EN 

51 

   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 

Country 

Right to access 
evidence 

Right to remain 
silent 

Right to call 
expert/witness 

Right to 
translation 

Right to 
interpretation

Right to 
legal 
assistance

Austria 

O + LR 

O + LR 

O + LR 

Belgium 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Bulgaria 

O+W 

O +W 

O +W 

O 

LR 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

O 

LR 

O 

O 

LR 

N/A 

O+W 

O +W 

N/A 

NO 

N/A 

N/A 

NO 

O 

NO 

O 

LR 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

NO 

O + LR 

O + W 

O 

N/A 

O 

W 

W 

O 

LR 

O + W 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

O 

O 

O 

O 

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

EstoniaE 

Finland 

France 

81 

82 

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. 
While there is no official definition of a Letter of Rights, in the study on EU Procedural Rights in Criminal 
Proceedings  (2009)  the  LR  is  defined  as  ‘written  information  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  Rights  in  criminal  proceedings:  towards  best  practice’, 
Maastricht University, 2010 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Germany 

Greece  

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

O 

O 

W 

O 

LR 

LR 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

LR 

W+LR 

N/A 

LR 

O 

N/A 

O 

O 

O 

O 

NO 

O +W 

O + W 

W 

N/A 

NO 

O 

N/A 

O 

O+LR 

O 

O 

W 

O 

W 

O 

Lithuania 

O + W 

O + W 

O+W 

O +W 

O + W 

Luxembou
rg 

Malta 

The 
Netherland
s 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Poland 

LR 

Portugal 

Roumania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

O 

O 

LR 

O 

Spain 

N/A 

Sweden 

O 

N/A 

O + W 

O+LR 

LR 

O 

O+W  

O 

O 

O 

O 

N/A 

N/A 

W 

LR 

NO 

O  

O 

O 

O 

O + W 

N/A 

O + W + LR 

LR 

NO 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

LR 

NO 

O 

LR 

O 

O 

O 

LR 

O +W 

O 

O 

LR 

O 

LR 

O +LR 

W 

O 

LR 

O 

LR 

O 

United 
Kingdom 
(England 
and 
Wales) 

EN 

N/A 

O + LR 

O 

N/A 

LR 

O + LR 

53 

   EN 

ANNEX IV 

General statistical information on the number of criminal proceedings in the EU 

AT 

BE* 

BL 

CY 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI* 

FR 

DE 

HL 

HU 

IE* 

IT 

LV* 

LT* 

LU 

MT* 

NL 

PL 

PT 

RO* 

SK 

SI 

2006 

238111 

49884 

34840 

1441 

69445 

75202 

51834 

2007 

247021 

51243 

33577 

1903 

75728 

73078 

50375 

116979 

116789 

247626 

425941 

247252 

426914 

2008 

240554 

51127 

38313 

1903 

75728 

50977 

113462 

744832 

872573 

240042 

408407 

94215 

1207088 

1216655 

1195300 

51073 

75751 

10441 

9015 

134400 

481003 

14545 

50490 

74914 

10539 

9026 

127600 

477278 

110802 

15710 

48611 

72060 

10356 

8783 

127400 

12899 

431919 

460842 

104758 

15329 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SP 

SE 

E&W 

EU 27 

*data are not available 

1779300 

5073918 

944962 

1732500 

6094356 

995064 

119244 

1640000 

8174698 

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  percentages;  we  then  used  this  average  to  calculate  the  number  of 
criminal  proceedings  in  the  countries  for  which  data  are  not  available.  By  multiplying  the  average  found  by  the  overall 
population in each remaining Member State (Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania), we found the annual 
number of criminal proceedings in the Member States for which official statistics are not available. 

EN 

55 

   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 Ministries of Justice). This has been the case in Germany 
and in Austria (where the LR was the result of collaboration 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  significantly  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. Moreover, 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  daily  rate  for  a  legal  expert  is  €1,000.  In  the  other 
Member States, we assume that the cost of a legal expert does not diverge much from lawyers' fees.  

Estimates of daily lawyers’ fees are provided below:  

-  Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Lithuania: €400 - €800 
-  Estonia, Portugal, Hungary, Slovenia, Greece, Belgium: €800 - €2,000 
-  Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Latvia, the Netherlands: €2,000 - €2,800 
- 

Ireland, Italy, Sweden, Finland: €2,800 - €4,000 

The daily rate of a legal expert therefore ranges between €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  exclusively  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  drafting  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 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
further  national  procedural  rights  in  a  Letter  of  Rights  containing  the  EU-wide  standard  formulation  of 
minimum rights would require the work of maximum 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  incur  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 Letters 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 
to provide translation for Therefore, considering 
and €16,100. However, where Member States would have 
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 formulation into 23 extra (non-EU official) languages would range 
between  €585  and  €5,750
.  This  cost  is  likely  to  be  incurred  only  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 included 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 pages in 46 languages is likely to cost each Member State 
between €391 and €4,600

.  

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(3) Training of police officers, prosecutors and judges: 

Generally, training on the provision of information to accused 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 judges/prosecutors/civil servants providing the training outside their working 
. In this framework, it is assumed that each 
time) would receive between €20 and €75 per hour of training
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 already 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  police  officers  and  judges  on  the 
practices to be used, if the LR and the new legislation were introduced. Below we present figures about the 
cost of training of police officers in these Member States, 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 

BG 

CY 

CZ* 

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

38718 

 €     103,248  

 €     387,180  

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

n/a 

 n/a  

 n/a  

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

5139 

 €       13,704  

 €       51,390  

DK 

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

10620 

 €       28,320  

 €     106,200  

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

3247 

 €         8,659  

 €       32,470  

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

8156 

 €       21,749  

 €       81,560  

 €     20  

 €     75  

 €    40  

 €     150  

238478 

 €     635,941  

 €   2,384,780  

EE 

FI 

FR 

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 

58 

   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 have 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  assumed  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 prosecutors (about information about the rights)  

Cost of training (per 
hour) 

Cost of training package 
(2h in countries with no 
LR, 15 judges) 

of 

Number 
criminal 
judges 
prosecutors 

and 

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 

59 

   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 officers 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), 
number of police officers, judges and prosecutors across Member States.   

if  we  consider  the  different  cost  of  training  and  the  different 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Operational costs 

(1) Costs of oral explanation of the rights 

The oral provision of information about the rights and about the charges requires more time than the simple 
distribution of the Letter of Rights to the accused and suspected 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 officers, a model calculation of the range of costs of the 
oral provision of information was prepared. In this context 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 €20
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 

83.  

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 their 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 
84 

Hourly wage in North Rhine-Westphalia, http://www.polizei-nrw.de/beruf/berufsangebot/Besoldung  
http://www.police-information.co.uk/policepay.htm#constables  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
  
                                                 
Table 3 Oral explanation of the rights 

Criminal 
Proceedings 
involving non-
nationals 
(2008)_ 

Criminal 
proceedings 
(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 

BG 

CY 

CZ* 

DK 

EE 

FI 

FR 

DE* 

HL 

HU 

IE 

IT* 

51127 

21933 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €       38,925  

 €      121,640  

 €      85,906  

 €      584,893

38313 

728 

 €     5.90  

 €      5.90  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €       50,113  

 €      156,604  

 €       3,373  

 €         7,498

1903 

1012 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €         1,187  

 €         3,711  

 €       3,965  

 €       26,997

73078 

13154 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €       79,899  

 €      249,683  

 €      51,520  

 €      350,774

50977 

20850 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €       40,170  

 €      125,531  

 €      81,661  

 €      555,989

113462 

9417 

 €   80.00  

 €  100.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      138,726  

 €      433,520  

 €    276,243  

 €      392,390  

744832 

144497 

 €   15.00  

 €    20.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      800,446  

 €   2,501,394  

 € 1,107,813  

 €   2,167,461  

240042 

19395 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      294,195  

 €      919,361  

 €      75,965  

 €      517,21

0  

408407 

15111 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      524,395  

 €   1,638,733  

 €      59,185  

 €      402,962

94215 

13473 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      107,656  

 €      336,426  

 €      52,768  

 €      359,273

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal 
Proceedings 
involving non-
nationals 
(2008)_ 

Criminal 
proceedings 
(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 

NL 

PL* 

PT 

RO 

8783 

331 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €       11,269  

 €       35,215  

 €       1,297  

 €         8,830  

127400 

37073 

 €   20.23  

 €    46.29  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      120,435  

 €      376,361  

 €    348,861  

 €      880,988 

431919 

88543 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €      457,834  

 €   1,430,732  

 €    346,795  

 €   2,361,157  

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  

15329 

1610 

 €     3.75  

 €    55.00  

 €    8.00  

 €   25.00  

 €   

    18,293  

 €       57,164  

 €       6,304  

 €       42,921 

SI 

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 

63 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. Model calculations for the provision of information on the case by means of granting access to the case-file (option B3) 

1. One-off costs 

(1) Training of police officers, prosecutors and judges: 

In the case in which legislation is passed on the provision of information about the access to file, police officers, prosecutors and judges in those Member States that 
do not provide currently provide this right (Estonia, France, , Spain), 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 (about 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 police officers training 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Min 

 Max  

EE 

FR 

ES 

 €   20.00  

 €  75.00 

 €   20.00  

 €  75.00 

 €   20.00  

 €  75.00 

EU 27 

 €   20.00  

 €  75.00 

 €  40.00 

 €  40.00 

 €  40.00 

 €  40.00 

 €  150.00 

3247 

 €         8,659 

 €            32,470  

 €  150.00 

238478 

 €      635,941 

 €        2,384,780  

 €  150.00 

214935 

 €      573,160 

 €        2,149,350  

 €  150.00 

456660 

€     1,217,760 

€         4,566,600 

Table 5 Training cost of prosecutors and judges (about provision of access 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 

EE 

 €    20.00  

 €    75.00 

 €   40.00 

 €   150.00 

311 

€ 828.00 

EN 

64 

Max  

€ 3,105.00 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Training cost (per hour) 

Cost of training package (2h, 15 
judges) 

Min 

Max 

Min 

Max 

Number of 
criminal judges 
and 
prosecutors 

FR 

ES 

 €    20.00  

 €    75.00 

 €   40.00 

 €   150.00 

 €    20.00  

 €    75.00 

 €   40.00 

 €   150.00 

5600 

4193 

EU 27 

 €    20.00  

 €    75.00 

 €   40.00 

 €   150.00 

10103 

Total cost of judges' and prosecutors' training 

Min 

€ 14,933.33 

€ 11,180.00 

€ 26,941.33 

Max  

€ 56,000.00 

€ 41,925.00 

€ 101,030.00 

Overall, the cost of training police officers and judges and prosecutors, about right to access to the file, ranges between €9,500 and 35,600 in Estonia and €651,000 
and 2.1 million in France.  

EN 

65 

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 lawyer should be granted 
access  to  the  case-file;  this  would,  on average,  require  not  more  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; this is likely to take no more than 30 minutes 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* 

FR* 

ES* 

 €  11.76 

 € 16.15  

 €   5.00 

 € 15.00 

 €  2.94 

 €    4.04 

 €  2.50  

 € 7.50 

50977 

 €      277,332.26 

 €      588,184.55  

 €  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  

 €  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 

EN 

CEPEJ 

From 
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 

four  member 

Evaluation 

Judicial 

edition 

system 

report, 

report 

2008, 

each 

the 

of 

of 

in 

- 

3rd 

66 

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  attend  but  their  views  were  canvassed  bilaterally 
afterwards and are included 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  budget  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 that 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  answer  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 what is useful (Matrix cannot be criticised because 
the timeframe meant that they were required 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 administrative burden, by having a Letter 
of  Rights  and  also  by  saving  on  costs  of  appeals  on  the  ground  that  insufficient  information  was 
provided to the suspect or defendant. 

Comments from the Legal Service 

EN 

67 

   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  seconded  national  expert  in  OLAF  (judge  from  Slovakia) 
has the following comments: 

1.  In the EJN criminal law section meetings it happens often, that colleagues complain about the lack 
of mutual trust: e. g.  the implementation of the EAW 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) and 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  multilateral  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 information with investigative and judicial authorities of 
the other MS.  

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII – Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 

Main policy objectives 

Potential indicators for preferred option 

Sources 
information 

of 

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  

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 

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 

•  Number of refusals by Member State judicial 
authorities to execute another Member States' 
judicial decision on fair trial grounds 

Member 
governments 

States' 

•  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 

also: Eurojust 

Judges'  associations 
European  Network 
Councils for the Judiciary) 

(e.g. 
of 

•  Legislation passed by Member State to implement 

Directive by providing for  

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

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 failure 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 
•  Availability of Letters of Rights  

(cid:131) 
(cid:131) 
(cid:131) 

in accessible language 
in a suitable range of foreign languages 
in a version for minors and persons with 
learning disabilities 

Member 
governments 

States' 

also:  Judges'  associations 
(e.g.  European  Network  of 
Councils for the Judiciary)  

foreigners' 

States' 
Member 
verification 
governments, 
by 
support 
groups  and  childrens'  rights 
organisations (e.g. by use of 
'user panels') 

•  Number of informal complaints in relation to 

insufficiently comprehensible Letters of Rights or 
lack of interpretation of additional oral explanation 
of the rights 

Lawyers'  associations  (e.g. 
Council  of  Bars  and  Law 
Societies  of  Europe)  and  
foreigners/children's groups  

•  be provided at or 

•  Number of Letters of Rights handed out to suspects 

before first 
contact with the 
police 

and accused persons in comparison to overall 
number of criminal proceedings 

Member 
States' 
governments  (e.g.  national 
statistics agencies) 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Availability of  suitable guidance and/or training 
for police officers on how best to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights 

•  Availability of  suitable guidance and/or training 
for police officers on how best to inform suspects 
and accused persons of their rights 

Member 
governments 

States' 

•  Experience of defence lawyers in relation to 

adequate provision of information on rights in day-
to-day practice 

Lawyers'  associations  (e.g. 
Council  of  Bars  and  Law 
Societies of Europe) 

Member 
governments 

States' 

Lawyers' 
judges' 
and 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars  and  Law  Societies  of 
Europe;  European  Network 
of  Councils 
the 
Judiciary) 

for 

Member 
governments 

States' 

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) 

Experience  of  defence  lawyers  and  judges  with  the 
sufficiency of verification mechanisms in place 

•  Legislation passed by Member State to implement 

Directive by providing for  

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

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 failure 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 

also:  Judges'  associations 
(e.g.  European  Network  of 
Councils for the Judiciary)  

•  Number of successful appeals against a final 

judgment or pre-trial decision on ground of failure 
to provide information on rights 

Experience of defence lawyers and judges in relation 
to adequate provision of information on rights in day-
to-day practice 

Lawyers' 
judges' 
and 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars  and  Law  Societies  of 
Europe;  European  Network 
of  Councils 
the 
Judiciary) 

for 

•  include core 

rights under the 
ECHR and the 
CFREU which 
are applicable on 
arrest, first 
interrogation and 
during detention 

•  be relevant, 
practical and 
effective 

•  be provided in 

such a way that it 
is possible to 
verify that the 
information has 
been transmitted 

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  

Information 
provided  to  suspects 
or  accused  persons 
on  the  case  against 
them should: 

•  be sufficiently 

detailed to allow 
adequate 
preparation of the 
defence case or 
challenge of pre-
trial decisions 

•  be provided in a 

•  Provision of adequate guidance and/or training of 

Member 

States' 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 

officials, prosecutors and judges 

governments 

(cid:131) 

(cid:131) 

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 

Experience  of  defence  lawyers  and  judges  in  relation 
to  adequate  robustness  of  verification  mechanisms  in 
place 

Lawyers'  associations  (e.g. 
Council  of  Bars  and  Law 
Societies  of  Europe)  and  
foreigners/children's groups 

Lawyers' 
judges' 
and 
associations (e.g. Council of 
Bars  and  Law  Societies  of 
Europe;  European  Network 
of  Councils 
the 
Judiciary) 

for 

EN 

71 

   EN