The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)

However, competence to enact legislation in this realm – and mostly so in procedural
criminal law – was highly contentious. Title VI TEU(A) did not make any particular
reference to human rights, fundamental freedoms or criminal procedural rights and there
was no legally binding measure on procedural rights of the defendant at EU level at that
stage. 504 The emphasis on pro-criminalisation and pro-prosecution measures brought
further to light the lack of action on defence rights.
In fact, during the Amsterdam years, only one measure rekating to criminal procedure
was agreed to, namely the Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings. 505 The latter was adopted in 2001 and listed a number of procedural rights
that victims, namely,
“the right to be treated with respect for their dignity, the right to provide and receive
information, the right to understand and to be understood, the right to be protected at
the various stages of procedure and the right to have allowance made for the
disadvantage of living in a different Member State from the one in which the crime was
committed.” 506
The importance of the Framework Decision was reinforced by the CJEU in the case
Pupino. 507
Maria Pupino was a nursery school teacher in Italy, where criminal
proceedings were initiated against her for maltreatment of children. During the criminal
proceedings the prosecutor requested the children not be heard in court given their
young age and vulnerability. The Italian Code of criminal procedure only contemplated
such possibility in cases of charges for sexual offences. The Framework Decision on
the standing of victims requires “vulnerable victims” to be protected “from the effects
of giving evidence in open court”, in which case the court itself may decide to enable
them to testify in a less pressurised setting. 508
The CJEU was asked whether the
Framework Decision entailed indirect effect, and thus whether the national court was
under an obligation to interpret national law in the light of the Framework Decision.
The CJEU confirmed that the ‘interpretative obligation’ of national courts was also
extended to the third pillar and hence the Italian Court was under the obligation to
504 As it will be seen later in this chapter and in chapter 6 the Lisbon reforms significanlty altered
the text of the TEU(A). Furthermore, measures regarding the right of victims and defendants in
criminal procedure were further adopted under the Lisbon framework.
505 Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, supra note 412. In the context of the first pillar the CJEU
had already decided on some cases where it set conditions on national procedural law in order to
guarantee the effectiveness of EC policies and objectives. This was the case in, for example, Ian
Willian Cowen, the Court stated that the award of State compensation for harm caused in that
State to the victim of an assault could not be condition on the victim’s holding of a residence
permit or nationality, Case 186/87, supra note 492, para 19-20.
506 Recital (8), ibid..
507 Case C-105/03, Pupino, supra note 390.
508 Article 8 (4) of the Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, supra note 412.
135