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

fundamental rights in the preamble and the right to legal aid and interpretation enshrined
in Article 11 of the Framework Decision. 726
This framework is significantly improved in the post Lisbon framework with the
adoption of two Directives on procedural rights, namely the Directive on the right of
information in the course of criminal proceedings which was very recently adopted. 727
The Directive envisages the provision of an ‘appropriate’ Letter of Rights to persons
who are arrested for the purpose of the execution of an EAW, although it does not
provide further details on the type of information that should be provided in those
cases. 728 Likewise, a Directive on translation and interpretation rights has also been
adopted, 729 covering the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings
and proceedings for the execution of an EAW which shall apply to persons from the
time they are made aware that they area suspected or accused of having committed a
criminal offence until conclusion of the proceedings and if applicable sentencing and
resolution of any appeal. 730
Regarding the Framework Decision on the EAW itself, however, the placement of the
principle of protection of fundamental rights in extradition in the preamble, but not in
the list of grounds for refusal or of conditions that can be demanded from the requesting
State, creates a distinction between the two. This distinction is suggested by the
Commission when it pointed out, in its implementing reports and working documents,
that States which expressly introduced a ‘human rights clause’ - as grounds for refusal to
surrender - in their national legislation implementing the Framework Decision, went
beyond the wording of the latter. 731 This implies that, in the Commission’s opinion, the
726 C. Morgan, “The EAW and Defendant’s Rights”, in Judge R. Blekxtoon and W. van
Ballegooij (eds) Handbook on the European Arrest Warrant (The Hague/ The Netherlands:
T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005) 195. N. Keijzer and P. Garlick also share the idea of balance in the
amount of protection given by the EU framework to the protection of the fundamental rights of
the requested person, see N. Keijzer, “Extradition and Human Rights: A Dutch Perspective”, in
Judge R. Blekxtoon and W. van Ballegooij (eds) Handbook on the European Arrest Warrant
(The Hague/ The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005) 183; and P. Garlick, “The European
Arrest Warrant and the ECHR”, in Judge R. Blekxtoon and W. van Ballegooij (eds) Handbook on
the European Arrest Warrant (The Hague/ The Netherlands: T.M.C. Asser Press, 2005) 181.
727 Directive 2012/12/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the
right to information in criminal proceedings, OJ L 142/1 [2012].
728 Article 5, ibid..
729 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on
the right of interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, OJ L 280/1 [2010].
730 Articles 1, 2 and 3, ibid..
731 European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document Annex to the Report from the
Commission on the Implementation since 2005 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June
2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States,
SEC(2007)979, Brussels 11.7.2007; in relation to Lithuania and Denmark who introduced a
196