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

the individual. The building of a mutual understanding and of a framework where
cooperation and information sharing were to be easier was thus initiated through the
simplification and streamlining of mechanisms aimed at a better mutual understanding
of national systems and at facilitating prosecution across Member States. The number
and depth of measures adopted was considerable in this regard which perhaps comes as
no surprise given the high level of development of this field even prior to the TEU(M).
This was seen where judicial cooperation was concerned, for example, in 1995 when a
Convention was signed on the simplification of extradition which sought to reduce the
time necessary for extradition and to make procedures easier. 273 The Convention dealt
mainly with issues of consent and sought to impose a maximum period of twenty days
for the extradition to take place. 274 Additionally, specific networks of experts were
formed, namely the European Judicial Network – a network of judicial contact points
between the Member States, which sought to enable direct contacts between the national
judicial authorities in order to help the prevention and combat of all forms of
international crime, including organised crime. 275 Along the same lines, the Grotius
Programme – a programme of incentives and exchanges for legal practitioners – was
also set in place, with the aim of fostering a mutual knowledge and understanding of the
EU’s legal and judicial systems and to facilitate the lowering of barriers to judicial
cooperation between Member States, namely through training, exchange and workexperience
programmes, meetings, studies, research and the distribution of
information. 276
Other efforts to improve mutual understanding were also taken, such as the adoption of a
Joint Action on good practice on mutual legal assistance, requiring each Member State
to deposit a “Statement of good practice” in executing and sending requests to other
273 The Convention drawn up on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty of the European Union, on
simplified extradition procedure between the Member States of the European Union, OJ C 78/2
[1995]. The effort to simplify and make extradition quicker was criticised by R. Errera, for
example, who thought that the previous regime – under the 1957 European Convention on
Extradition – was satisfactory and allowed for the creation of an authentic European common
place in relation to extradition. Furthermore, whilst the author recognised that making extradition
simpler could be a noteworthy objective, he also recalled that it would only be so as long as the
basic principles of the rule of law were respected, namely the right of judicial review, which was
lacking in the Convention, in R. Errera, “Combating fraud, judicial criminal matters and police
cooperation”, in J.Winter, D. Curtin, A. Kellermann and B. de White, Reforming the Treaty of the
European Union (TCM Asser Institute: Kluwer Law International, 1995) 407, 410.
274 Articles 7, 8, 11 and 12 of the Convention on simplification of extradition, ibid..
275 Joint Action 98/428/JHA of 29 June 1998 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3
of Treaty on European Union, on the creation of a European Judicial Network, OJ L 191/4
[1998].
276 Preamble and Article 1 (3) of the Joint Action of 28 October 1996 adopted by the Council on
the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on a programme of incentives and
exchanges for legal practitioners, OJ L 287/3 [1996].
77