EC releases its proposals for European criminal justice

For Immediate Release

The European Commission has today published proposals for the programme that will chart the direction of EU justice laws over the next 5 years. Action will focus on increasing the sharing and use of personal data and other evidence by EU criminal justice bodies; greater harmonisation of laws on serious organised and cross-border crime; and renewed attempts to ensure greater protection of defence rights across Europe.

Jago Russell, Chief Executive of Fair Trials International, said:

“We urge Europe’s newly elected politicians to ensure that fundamental rights are given their proper place at the heart of European justice policy. European cooperation in the fight against crime must not be at the expense of basic principles of justice and fairness.”

Although Fair Trials International agrees that states should cooperate in combating crime, we are concerned that the last ten years of EU justice policy have been dominated by the security and crime control agenda, with insufficient focus on fundamental rights. Increased cooperation between states should have been accompanied by strengthening procedural defence rules in all states. Without this, states cannot trust each other’s systems to deliver justice to the necessary standard. Our work on cross-border cases has shown time and again the injustices that result from increased cooperation without parallel protection for fundamental rights.

Notes to editors

The proposals published by the Commission today will result in a programme (the “Stockholm programme”) expected to be adopted by the 27 heads of EU member states’ governments in December 2009. It will lay the basis for EU activity on justice matters between 2010 and 2014.

Defence Rights

If states are to cooperate in justice matters, they must be able to trust in the fairness of each other’s justice systems. This requires basic defence rights to be in place in all member states’ legal systems, for nationals and non-nationals alike. Previous attempts to create these safeguards failed in 2007 when 6 member states (including the UK, Ireland and Poland) vetoed a Commission proposal. The Stockholm programme proposals acknowledge the importance of defence rights. FTI welcomes this, but we are concerned that these crucial rights could be sidelined, because they will be developed outside the framework of the Stockholm programme, in a separate “Roadmap”. This risks project drift, as successive Presidencies deal with it “right-by-right”.

Data sharing and privacy

The proposals envisage increased automated transmission of personal data between member states and into the European Police Office (“Europol”). They also envisage extensions to the way this personal data can be used. The proposals highlight the need to ensure data use is proportionate to what is strictly necessary. These laudable aims must be backed by concrete provisions that give citizens quick, easy remedies where people’s rights to privacy are not properly respected and personal data is misused or corrupted.

Criminal evidence

The Stockholm programme will implement and build further on recent European laws requiring states to share criminal evidence (including DNA evidence and the results of intrusive surveillance), when requested by another state. We will continue to press for enhanced EU-wide rules to ensure the fair handling of such evidence. No new evidence powers should be enacted till these protections take effect.

Technology in Justice

While we welcome the Commission’s intention to improve access to justice, we are concerned at some of the proposals. E-Justice must be properly handled so citizens can be confident about accurate content. Automated translations are not appropriate in criminal justice, where accuracy is essential. While video-conferencing of hearings can sometimes serve the interests of justice, defendants’ rights can also be compromised, so prior consent should generally be obtained.

European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”)

The proposals envisage the continued use of this and other existing EU legislation to streamline criminal justice, without correcting some serious flaws in the way the EAW system operates. We need clearer definitions of some extraditable offences, a proportionality test to avoid extradition for petty offences, and discretion for judges to refuse extradition where the individual’s human rights are at serious risk in the requesting country.