In 2008, for the European Union, the introduction of the Framework Decision - the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters, imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement - sparked discussions as to whether the practical operation of the instrument would be compatible with its very objective, being the enhancement of detained persons' social rehabilitation prospects. Transferring detained people back to their respective Member State of residence and/or nationality within the mutual recognition framework is somewhat precarious in light of the variety of Member States' legal and prison systems. In this context, and following a call for tender by the European Commission, the authors of this book conducted the largest study to date on Member States' material detention conditions, early/conditional release provisions, and sentence execution modalities. In addition to exploring the diversity of legal frameworks, the study also assessed practitioners' views on the cross-border execution of custodial sentences in the EU. The book contains individual Member State reports resulting from legal practitioners' analyses, backed by additional information drawn from monitoring and evaluation conducted at the Council of Europe (Committee for the Prevention of Torture) and United Nation levels. This will be essential reading for EU policy makers, judicial and law enforcement authorities, and defense lawyers. Additionally, it will be an asset to everyone who is involved in or taking an interest in detention issues and cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 41)

This publication examines the rules in force in Europe governing prisons and the treatment of prisoners, including the use of force, the selection of prison staff and the protection of prisoners' human rights, based on Recommendation Rec (2006) 2 on the European Prison Rules (which was adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in January 2006). It contains the text of the recommendation with a detailed commentary on it, together with a report which considers recent developments and analyses the effectiveness of these rules and of imprisonment as a form of punishment.

In 2008, the introduction of the EU's Framework Decision - the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters, imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement - sparked discussions as to whether the practical operation of the instrument would be compatible with its very objective, being the enhancement of detained persons' social rehabilitation prospects. Transferring detained people back to their respective Member State of residence and/or nationality within the mutual recognition framework is somewhat precarious in light of the variety of Member States' legal and prison systems. In this context, and following a call for tender by the European Commission, the authors of this book conducted the largest study to date on Member States' material detention conditions, early/conditional release provisions, and sentence execution modalities. In addition to exploring the diversity of legal frameworks, the study also assessed practitioners' views on the cross-border execution of custodial sentences in the EU. This book contains EU-level legal and practitioners' analyses, as well as the high level final report to the study, confirming preliminary concerns that flanking measures are urgently needed for a proper operation of the Framework Decision. It will be essential reading for policy makers, judicial and law enforcement authorities, and defense lawyers. Additionally, it will be an asset to everyone who is involved in or taking an interest in detention issues and cross-border execution of judgements involving deprivation of liberty in the EU. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 40)

Reviewing European policy with respect to different phases in the criminal justice chain, the contributions in this book range from looking into the extension of criminalization in the sphere of trafficking in human beings and labor exploitation, to the operability of cross-border execution of sentences involving deprivation of liberty. Most contributions look into the need to develop a conceptual framework to support future policy making, pointing to the lack thereof with respect to liability of legal persons, ne bis in idem as an EU principle, cross-border effect of disqualifications, and cooperation with private security actors. One essay looks into the public expenditure in different phases of the criminal justice chain, based on a case study on the public expenditure of Belgian drug policy. Additionally, from a historical and comparative perspective, the book analyzes specific European and Chinese interrogation rules to provide a solid context for the current situation and to support future legal reforms. (Series: Governance of Security (GofS) Research Paper - Vol. 7)

This fifth volume of the Governance of Security (GofS) Research Paper series addresses a wide variety of topical issues focusing on European criminal justice and financial and economic crime. The first cluster of articles is concerned with European criminal justice matters particularly relating to EU mutual recognition, such as: conceptualization, unwanted effects in the context of prisoner transfer and sentence execution, impact for cross-border gathering and use of forensic expert evidence, and interrogational fairness standards. A second cluster of articles addresses the subjects of financial and economic crime, ranging from informal economy (among street children) to formal/informal economy (vulnerability of the hotel and catering industry to crime) and white collar crime phenomena like (transnational) environmental crime and corruption. A final cluster groups together a variety of selected topical issues, including juvenile offending and mental disorders, desistance theories, and sexually transmitted infections.

The growing internationalization and Europeanization of criminal procedures has created new challenges to traditional defense rights. Hence, the Ghent Bar Association, the Bar Association of The Hague, and Ghent University have joined forces, exploring and addressing these challenges during an international conference held in Ghent in November 2012. This book examines the various topics presented at the conference. Whereas international criminal tribunals - especially the International Criminal Court (ICC) - should play an exemplary role when it comes to the right to fair trial and adequate access to a lawyer, reality proves to be troublesome. In this respect, the book addresses key issues: What is the status quaestionis of the defense position and procedural rights before international criminal tribunals, more specifically the ICC? Has the Rome Statute lived up to its expectations after a decade of its application? Can defense before international tribunals keep functioning without a Bar? What are the needs for such a defense to be adequate, knowing that it balances on the borderline between the Anglo-Saxon legal system and the Northern European system? At the same time, defense and procedural rights are developing as a result of different EU Directives which have been or are now being negotiated. This is of major importance to every penalist, even in strictly national cases. The book presents and critically assesses the entire EU 'roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings.' The EU Directives on the right to information in criminal procedure, the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings, and the right to communicate upon arrest - which are about to revolutionize traditional domestic criminal procedural law - are assessed. Further, the book addresses the important implications and challenges for the legal position of detainees as a result of the recent Framework Decision on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences and measures involving deprivation of liberty. Finally, awareness is raised concerning the future of procedural rights in the framework of cross-border evidence gathering and admissibility. The book will be essential reading for both defense practitioners and scholars taking an interest in defense and procedural rights in criminal matters.

Prisons and imprisonment have become a commonplace topic in popular culture as the setting and rationale for fiction and documentaries and most people seem to have a clear notion of what it is like in prison, ranging from the idea of the prison cell as a cosy nook with fast internet access to that of a dungeon with a hard bed and a diet of bread and water. But what is prison really like? Do prisoners have the same rights as everyone else? What are the similarities and differences between prisons in different European countries? This book answers all of these questions, whilst also presenting cutting-edge research on the living conditions of long-term prisoners in Europe and considering whether these conditions meet international human rights standards. Bringing together leading experts in the field, with comprehensive coverage of the issues in Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and Sweden, this book offers the first comparative study on the subject. Whereas past research in this area has concentrated on the Anglo-American experience, this book offers a truly comparative European approach and pays due attention to the differences in prison systems between the post-Soviet countries and continental Europe. This book will be key reading for academics and students of criminology, criminal justice and penology and will also be of interest to students and practitioners of law.

Discussions of the possibility to attribute liability to legal persons for committing offenses are far from new. The EU landscape however is scattered. Although there are obligations for the Member States to introduce liability for legal persons committing offenses, diversity remains as to: the offenses that may trigger liability * the legal persons that may be held liable * the attribution theories and mechanisms used * the type of liability, which may be either penal, administrative, or civil * the sanctions that legal persons may incur. Consistent policy making requires an identification of the main commonalities and differences in view of being able to adequately reflect them in cross-national policy initiatives. Hence, the European Commission launched a call for tender for a study on the issue, which was awarded to the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP). The results are published in this book. Based on comparative legal analysis in the EU27, recommendations are formulated relating to the EU approximation policy (amongst others to reconsider the concept of a 'legal person' and to look into the need for specific 'legal person'-offenses), the functioning of mutual recognition (amongst others to extend the current mutual recognition instrumentarium), the exchange of information (amongst others to develop a criminal records policy), and procedural safeguards (amongst others to secure equivalent protection outside a criminal liability context). In other words, a helicopter view is taken to ensure consistent EU policy making. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - Vol. 44)

In the European Union, international cooperation in criminal matters has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Importantly, there are a wide variety of authorities involved therein, rendering the traditional distinction between police and judicial cooperation as outdated. Furthermore, its rapid growth exposed this policy field to inconsistencies and incoherence. Additionally, despite the wave of new legislation, important lacunae can be identified, setting important challenges for the future. The combination of these issues clarifies the title of this book: there is a pressing need to rethink international cooperation in criminal matters. In answer to a call from the European Commission, the contributors of this book have designed a comprehensive methodological framework to review the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters, combining desktop reviews, expert consultations, Member State questionnaires, and focus group meetings in each of the Member States to obtain a comprehensive overview of the currently experienced obstacles and future policy options that are both needed and feasible. Over 150 individuals from different backgrounds contributed to the study, including academics, lawyers, policy makers, police, customs, intelligence services, prosecution, judiciary, correctional authorities, Ministries of Justice, and Home Affairs. The book provides an overview of the research findings and the recommendations formulated. These findings include, but are not limited to: (1) a helicopter view on cooperation with criminal justice finality, (2) a clear demarcation of the role of the judicial authorities, (3) a comprehensive review of refusal grounds, including proportionality and capacity concerns, (4) an assessment of gaps in the current body of instruments regulating international cooperation in criminal matters and possible remedies thereto, (5) a well-considered further development of Eurojust, and (6) ensuring EU wide effect of mere domestic actions. This book represents the first overall analysis of the entirety of international cooperation in criminal matters in the EU. As essential reading, it is an analysis that moves beyond the actors, bringing logic back, footed in reality. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - No. 42)

Any effort to gather evidence may prove pointless without ensuring its admissibility. Nevertheless, the EU, while developing instruments for smooth gathering of evidence in criminal matters, is not taking much effort to enhance its admissibility. Due to the lack of common rules in this matter, gathering and use of evidence in the EU cross-border context is still governed by the domestic law of the member states concerned. This may lead to situations where, given the differences between legal systems across the EU, evidence collected in one member state will not be admissible in other member states. Due to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty opened the possibility to adopt minimum rules concerning, among other things, the mutual admissibility of evidence, this research investigates the concept of minimum standards designed to enhance mutual admissibility of evidence in the EU. Through a study of two investigative measures, telephone tapping and house search, the author examines whether coming to various common minimum standards is feasible and whether compliance with these standards would finally shape the as yet nonexistent concept of the free movement and mutual recognition of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. Essential reading for both national and EU policy makers, scholars and practitioners involved in cross-border gathering of evidence in the EU.