The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
The evolution of European Union criminal law (1957-2012)
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
although the EU has already organs whose action may infringe people’s rights (i.e.<br />
Europol)”<br />
whilst showing concern with the<br />
“…additional plus <strong>of</strong> deficits <strong>of</strong> the liberal element that in parallel [to prosecution and<br />
punishment] 519 accompanies <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> as a measures <strong>of</strong> people’s freedom”. 520<br />
To be sure, the <strong>European</strong> Commission had put forward a Green Paper on Procedural<br />
Safeguards for suspects and defendants in <strong>criminal</strong> proceedings 521 and subsequently a<br />
Proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in <strong>criminal</strong><br />
proceedings throughout the <strong>European</strong> <strong>Union</strong>. 522 However, agreement in relation to the<br />
latter failed despite only five basic rights being covered:<br />
“access to legal advice, both before the trial and at the trial; access to free<br />
interpretation and translation; ensuring that persons who are not capable <strong>of</strong><br />
understanding or following the proceedings receive appropriate attention; the rights to<br />
communicate, inter alias, with consular authorities in the case <strong>of</strong> foreign suspects; and<br />
notifying suspected persons <strong>of</strong> their rights (by giving them a written “Letter <strong>of</strong><br />
Rights”).” 523<br />
Disagreements were many: 524 some Member States asked for derogations and<br />
limitations <strong>of</strong> some provisions, for example, in cases where there is suspicion <strong>of</strong><br />
involvement <strong>of</strong> the suspect in terrorist activities (the main provisions affected would be<br />
the right to legal advice and <strong>of</strong> communication; the Commission was opposed to these<br />
519 Our parenthesis.<br />
520 M. Kaiafa-Gbandi, “<strong>The</strong> Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe and challenges for<br />
<strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> at the commencement <strong>of</strong> the 21st Century” (2005) 13 <strong>European</strong> Journal <strong>of</strong> Crime,<br />
Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 483, 484-485. Some authors further develop such matters,<br />
namely by proposing possible solutions and paths forward. See, for instance A. Klip, “<strong>The</strong><br />
Constitution for Europe and Criminal Law: a step not far Enough” (2005) 12 Maastricht Journal<br />
<strong>of</strong> <strong>European</strong> and Comparative Law 115-123; B. Schünemann, “Alternative project for a<br />
<strong>European</strong> <strong>criminal</strong> <strong>law</strong> and procedure” (2007) 18 Criminal Law Forum 227.<br />
521 Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for suspects and defendants in <strong>criminal</strong> proceedings,<br />
COM (2003) 75 final, 19.2.2003.<br />
522 Proposal for a Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in <strong>criminal</strong> proceedings<br />
throughout the <strong>European</strong> <strong>Union</strong>, COM (2004) 328, 28 April 2004.<br />
523 Para 24, page 7, ibid..<br />
524 Peers mentions the UK as the main opponent <strong>of</strong> the measure, having led several Member<br />
States in opposing the measure, de facto blocking any possibility <strong>of</strong> its approval under the<br />
Amsterdam framework, S. Peers, EU Lisbon Treaty Analysis no 4: UK and Irish opt-outs from<br />
EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) <strong>law</strong>, Version 3, 26 June 2009, Statewatch, 9.<br />
138