1. Slide 1/32 © copyright Standard training programme in judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012 The European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union

2. Slide 2/32 © copyright Training organised by (name of training organiser) on (date) at (place) Title (of the training/ module) (logo of the training organiser) The European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union

3. Slide 3/32 © copyright Module 2 General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU Version: 3.0 Last updated: 20.12.2012

4. Slide 4/32 © copyright Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in the EU Contents I. Introduction: the concept of cooperation in criminal matters and classifications of the various forms of judicial cooperation II.The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU 1. Conventional cooperation 2. ‘Enhanced’ judicial cooperation 3. Mutual recognition III.Illustration of this evolution

5. Slide 5/32 © copyright I. Introduction: concept and classifications 1. The concept of cooperation in criminal matters  Principle: criminal law is core to national sovereignty => Principle of territoriality => but if there is strict application of this territorialism, situations with a foreign element cannot be adequately managed!  Development of cooperation: to prevent the existence of borders and the principle of territorality from disrupting the smooth running of the criminal justice system. Important development because the number of situations with foreign elements has increased. > Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU

6. Slide 6/32 © copyright  Definition: Judicial cooperation in criminal matters Conventionally, can be defined as ‘ a series of actions performed by a competent judicial authority (requested authority) within a State (requested State) on behalf of a requesting judicial authority within another State (requesting State) ’.  Level of cooperation: differs according to the framework in which it occurs: different degrees of legal integration => cooperation will be more or less conventional > Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU I. Introduction: concept and classifications

7. Slide 7/32 © copyright 2. Types of traditional mechanisms of judicial cooperation in criminal matters  Mechanisms relating to the pre-trial stage : Minor MLA Transfer of proceedings  Mechanisms relating to the pre-trial and trial stages: Extradition: 'the surrender of an individual by one State to another requesting State in order to try them for a criminal offence or enforce a sentence'. I. Introduction: concept and classifications > Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU

8. Slide 8/32 © copyright  Mechanisms relating to the trial and post-trial stages Enforcement of foreign judgments Recognition of the res judicata authority of foreign judgments: either positive: taken into account or negative ( ne bis in idem ) the transfer of sentenced persons > Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU I. Introduction: concept and classifications

9. Slide 9/32 © copyright II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters 3 phases: 1.The starting point, or conventional judicial cooperation 2.Enhanced judicial cooperation 3.Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, or the specificity of the EU > Module 2: General framework of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU

10. Slide 10/32 © copyright 1. Conventional judicial cooperation 1.1 The main sources => Conventions of the Council of Europe  Minor MLA: European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 20 April 1959, its first Protocol of 17 March 1978, and its second Protocol of 8 November 2001 (relates more to enhanced cooperation)  Extradition European Convention on Extradition of 13 December 1957 and its two additional Protocols of 15 October 1975 and of 17 March 1978  Transfer European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983 and its additional Protocol of 18 December 1997 > Module 2: General framework > Conventional cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

11. Slide 11/32 © copyright 1.2 Characteristics  Highly traditional cooperation mechanisms => principle of territorial sovereignty  Functions slowly and cumbersomely: The channel used to transmit cooperation requests. The scope of the acts giving rise to cooperation Restrictions related to the severity of the acts Restrictions related to the requirement of double criminality Restrictions related to their specific nature (e.g. political, fiscal, military offences) Other grounds for refusing cooperation The lack of deadline within which the cooperation must take place Reservations and declarations > Module 2: General framework > Conventional cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

12. Slide 12/32 © copyright 2. Enhanced judicial cooperation 2.1 Instruments:  1990 Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement  The extradition conventions concluded within the EU in 1995 and 1996  Joint Action of 29 June 1998 on good practice in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters  Convention of 29 May 2000 on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union and its Protocol of 2001 > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

13. Slide 13/32 © copyright 2.2 Improvements: Faster and more flexible cooperation mechanisms: more direct channels for transmitting requests broadening of the types of offence giving rise to cooperation reduced grounds for refusal reduced opportunities to make reservations => But instruments still traditional => no alternative to existing instruments > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

14. Slide 14/32 © copyright A.Schengen Agreement  On minor legal assistance (Article 53 CISA) possibility of direct contact without prejudice to the right to go through the Ministries of Justice  On extradition (Articles 59 et seq. CISA) the impact of the SIS and alerts on the basis of Article 95 = same effect as a request for provisional arrest under the 1957 Convention  On transfers (Articles 67 et seq. CISA)  On the ‘ ne bis in idem ’ principle (Article 54 of the CISA) => extension of the principle between the Contracting Parties => key, due to ‘transnationalisation’ of the scope of ne bis in idem > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

15. Slide 15/32 © copyright B.The EU extradition conventions  Convention of 1995 Aim: to simplify the extradition procedure by concentrating on cases where the subject consents to their extradition.  Convention of 1996 => reform of the procedures Relaxes restrictions on the offences that can give rise to extradition, as regards their severity, the requirement of double criminality, their nature (e.g. fiscal and political offences) Reduced grounds for refusal: e.g. conventional option to refuse extradition of their nationals => Improvements but traditional aspects remain, such as: Restrictions on the removal of double criminality Restrictions on the removal of the exception for nationality > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

16. Slide 16/32 © copyright C. Joint Action of 29 June 1998 => Promoting ‘best practice’ D. The mutual assistance convention of 29 May 2000 =>Improvements:  Direct contact standardised but possibility of sending requests through central authorities only in specific cases (Article 6)  Transition from locus regit actum to forum regit actum (Article 4)  Execution of the request for mutual assistance as soon as possible, taking as full account as possible of the deadlines indicated by the requesting Member State (Article 4)  Adaptation of MLA to new technologies (hearings by videoconference, teleconference, telecommunications interception, etc.). > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

17. Slide 17/32 © copyright D. Protocol of 2001 to the 2000 Convention => Sector covered: banking (requests for information on bank accounts, bank transactions etc.) => Improvements: grounds for refusal  No removal of grounds founded on ‘sovereignty, security and law and order, or the essential interests of the requested State’ but obligation to notify the Council if the requested State uses this option  Relaxation of other grounds for refusal based on: banking secrecy the fiscal nature of the offences the political nature of the offences > Module 2: General framework > Enhanced cooperation II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

18. Slide 18/32 © copyright 3. Mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters, or the specificity of the EU A. Context B. The principle of mutual recognition is ambitious C. Mutual recognition used in conjunction with other instruments of cooperation D. The philosophy and foundation of mutual recognition and respect for fundamental rights E. Measures accompanying mutual confidence and recognition II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

19. Slide 19/32 © copyright A. Context  Mutual recognition already existed within the European Union but in other sectors: Community law Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters  Extension to criminal matters Cardiff European Council of June 1998 Tampere European Council of October 1999, ‘the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (Nov 2000) > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters

20. Slide 20/32 © copyright B. The principle of mutual recognition is ambitious => An ambitious principle  Aim: to realize the concept of ‘European criminal law- enforcement area’ recognition and execution of judicial decisions handed down in other Member States Speed, flexibility, less formality  Ambitious at three levels: 1. Its symbolic or formal aspects 2. Its scope 3. How cooperation functions II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

21. Slide 21/32 © copyright 1. Symbolic or formal aspects => change of terminology: Requesting State/Requested State => Issuing State/Executing State Extradition => Surrender II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

22. Slide 22/32 © copyright 2. Its scope:  All stages of criminal proceedings are affected.  10 legislative instruments adopted:  FD of 13 June 2002 on the EAW and surrender procedures between Member States  FD of 22 July 2003 on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence  FD 24 February 2005 on financial penalties  FD of 6 October 2006 relating to confiscation orders  FD of 24 July 2008 on the taking account of convictions in the Member States of the EU in the course of new criminal proceedings  FD of 27 November 2008 on judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions  FD of 27 November 2008 on judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU  FD of 18 December 2008 on the European Evidence Warrant (‘EEW’)  FD of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the EU, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (‘European Supervision Order’ or ‘ESO’)  Directive of 13 December 2011 on the European Protection Order (‘EPO’) (+ FD of 26 February 2009 on proceedings in absentia)  And more to come (‘EIO’ Directive)  And the case-law of the CJEU II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

23. Slide 23/32 © copyright 3. How cooperation functions No ‘automatic’ cooperation – maintenance of certain grounds and procedures - but procedures greatly simplified and accelerated  5 elements:  A more central role for judicial authorities channels for transmitting requests made more fluid: standard procedure = direct exchange between judicial authorities (with exceptions). cooperation becoming an entirely judicial process (novel for some mechanisms, particularly extradition)  Fewer formalities => warrant or certificate technique II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

24. Slide 24/32 © copyright  Broadening the types of offence that can give rise to cooperation: as to the severity of the acts as to the requirement of double criminality (with differences depending on the text) as to the nature of the acts  Reduction of other conventional grounds for refusing cooperation e.g. the EAW, which removes grounds for refusal based on nationality e.g. the FD on the freezing of property and evidence, which removes the conventional grounds for refusing assistance on the basis of the essential interests of the requested State  Setting deadlines: Binding deadlines in some cases (e.g. EAW and EEW) Indicative deadlines (e.g. FD on the freezing of property and evidence) II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

25. Slide 25/32 © copyright C. Mutual recognition used in conjunction with other instruments of cooperation  Rationalisation of instruments: in theory, replacement of existing instruments (e.g. FDs on the EAW, on the taking account of convictions, penalties and custodial measures and alternative sanctions)  Qualifications Existing texts are still applicable (between third countries + between MS and third countries) Mutual recognition is gradual: it will only totally replace existing mechanisms once fully implemented. Meanwhile, mutual recognition and the existing mechanisms coexist Relationship with existing individual variable instruments II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

26. Slide 26/32 © copyright D. The philosophy and foundation of mutual recognition and respect for fundamental rights 1. Philosophy and foundation of mutual recognition 2. Respect for fundamental rights II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

27. Slide 27/32 © copyright 1. Philosophy and foundation of mutual recognition  Aims to enhance, facilitate, simplify and accelerate judicial cooperation  Founded on a (high) degree of mutual confidence. Importance of mutual confidence confirmed by the CJEU (cf., inter alia, Joined Cases Gözütok and Brügge, judgment of 11 February 2003, § 33)  Double verification in the issuing State and in the executing State must be avoided  Majority of verifications in the issuing State rather than the executing State. Cf. Court of Justice judgment of 16 November 2010, Case C- 261/09, Mantello and Eur. Court HR decision as to inadmissibility of 4 May 2010, Stapleton Case. II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

28. Slide 28/32 © copyright 2. Respect for fundamental rights Sensitive relationship between mutual recognition and fundamental rights Mutual recognition does not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights Examination of:  Texts of the instruments of MR  Transposing laws  Application  Case-law of the CJEU: Court of Justice, 21 December 2011, N.S. and Others Case, Joined Cases C-411/10 and C-493/10. Radu Case, C-396/11. II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

29. Slide 29/32 © copyright E. Measures accompanying mutual confidence and recognition => Creation of an environment conducive to mutual confidence => adoption of accompanying measures:  Preventing conflicts of jurisdiction and determining competency criteria  Exchange of information relating to decisions handed down in other Member States II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

30. Slide 30/32 © copyright  Evaluation of the implementation of European criminal law instruments by the Member States and evaluation of national legal systems  Judicial training: the European Judicial Training Network and other projects  Approximation of laws: substantive criminal law but above all procedural criminal law II. The evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

31. Slide 31/32 © copyright III. Illustrations of the evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters  Case study 1: mutual legal assistance in criminal matters Enquiries conducted in France into a transnational drugs trafficking case that also concerned Portugal and Italy: X, leader of the criminal organisation, has a bank account in Portugal and has contacts with Y and Z in Italy => French Judge of Toulouse wants to freeze the assets in this account in Portugal and conduct a search at the home of Y and Z Italy. 5 months after the request, the Portuguese authorities refuse to freeze the assets, declaring that it would be contrary to their essential national interests. The Italian authorities carried out a search at 10.30pm. Comments: 1. Transmission of the French request for freezing and letters rogatory for searches 2. The possibility for the Portuguese authorities to refuse the freezing request 3. The deadlines 4. The law governing the search > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition

32. Slide 32/32 © copyright  Case study 2: the Ramda case Rachid Ramda case: In 1995, a bomb exploded in the Paris metro killing eight people and injuring more than 200. R. Ramda was charged. He was arrested by British police a few months later on the basis of an international arrest warrant. An extradition request was sent by the French authorities to the British authorities, but was rejected on the basis of the risk of violations of the accused’s human rights upon his surrender to France. In 2005, the British minister finally ordered his extradition to France and, following appeal, Ramda was finally extradited. Comments 1. The length of the procedure 2. The nature of the procedure and the transmission of the extradition request 3. Other grounds for refusing extradition III. Illustrations of the evolution of judicial cooperation in criminal matters > Module 2: General framework > Mutual recognition The contents and opinions expressed herein are solely that of the EJTN, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any use that may be made of these contents and opinions.