The Future of Europe in Prisons

  • Tom Daems
  • Luc Robert
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology book series (PSIPP)


In this concluding chapter, the editors identify a number of key issues that emerge from the chapters of the book and raise further questions about the evolution and developments of European institutions and the impact these institutions may have on domestic prison systems. This provides some key topics of a Europe in prisons research agenda. A number of contemporary developments are also touched upon, because they raise questions about the legitimacy of European institutions at large, including what happens in the sphere of imprisonment. Some of these developments are still ongoing; many questions remain present, if not in a direct manner, then at least in a latent way, with the potential to resurface at any time.


Europe in prisons agenda Transversal themes Further questions 


  1. Bovend’Eerdt, K. 2016. The Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: A New Limit to the Mutual Trust Presumption in the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice? Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 32 (83): 112–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Daems, T. 2013. Punishment and the Question of Europe. In European Penology? ed. T. Daems, D. van Zyl Smit, and S. Snacken. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2017. Slaves and Statues: Torture Prevention in Contemporary Europe. British Journal of Criminology 57 (3): 627–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission. 2011. Strengthening Mutual Trust in the European Judicial Area—A Green Paper on the Application of EU Criminal Justice Legislation in the Field of Detention. COM(2011) 327, June 14.Google Scholar
  5. Fair Trials. 2016. Fair Trials Welcomes CJEU Judgement on European Arrest Warrant and Detention Conditions. April 6.
  6. Gáspár-Szilágyi, S. 2016. Joined Cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: Converging Human Rights Standards, Mutual Trust and a New Ground for Postponing a European Arrest Warrant. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 24 (2/3): 197–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jagland, T. 2016. Don’t Caricature Europe’s Court. The New York Times, December 12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Daems
    • 1
  • Luc Robert
    • 2
  1. 1.Leuven Institute of Criminology (LINC), KU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.National Institute of Forensic Sciences and Criminology (NICC)BrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations