Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Common standards for detention and prison conditions in the EU: recommendations and the need for legislative measures

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

This article aims at providing arguments in support of further action of the EU on prison and detention conditions in the Member States. It is argued that in order to facilitate mutual trust and recognition, the EU should move towards adopting common standards in this area, which should be followed by close monitoring that the Member States indeed follow these standards in practice. It is also argued that prison and detention conditions respecting human rights are necessary not only for the purposes of mutual trust, but they express important values the EU carries: the rule of law, and respect for human and constitutional rights.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings [2009] OJ C 295/1.

  2. Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings [2010] OJ L 280/1; Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings [2012] OJ L 142/1; Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty [2013] OJ L 294/1; Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings [2016] OJ L 65/1; Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings [2016] OJ L 132/1; Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings [2016] OJ L 297/1.

  3. Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters [2014] OJ L 130/1.

  4. Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of the Council of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States—Statements made by certain Member States on the adoption of the Framework Decision [2002] OJ L 190/1.

  5. Several terms could be used here: detention could be divided into pre-trial detention and post-conviction detention (as phrased in Art. 5(1) of the ECHR), or detention could cover only pre-trial detention as the time spent in prison after the final conviction could be considered imprisonment. In this article difference between detention and imprisonment (i.e. detention and prison conditions) is made only if it is necessary due to the context. For further discussion on the notion of (pretrial) detention see Coventry [3], pp. 44–46.

  6. Appl. No. 28524/95 Peers v. Greece; Appl. Nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13 Varga and Others v. Hungary; Appl. Nos. 61467/12, 39516/13, 48213/13, and 68191/13 Rezmiveş and Others v. Romania, etc.

  7. Cases C-404 and C-659/15 PPU Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru, EU:C:2016:198.

  8. Atkinson [1], 4.30 and 4.31.

  9. [2012] OJ C 326/391.

  10. Short but vivid description on conditions detainees have contested at the ECtHR can be found at the ECtHR’s factsheet of January 2019 available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Detention_conditions_ENG.pdf. See also discussion on ECtHR case law on detention conditions at Harris et al. [8], pp. 261–269.

  11. Fair Trials. A Measure of Last Resort? The Practice of Pre-trial Detention Decision-making in the EU of 2016, available at: https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/A-Measure-of-Last-Resort-Full-Version.pdf, p. 3.

  12. Ibid; European Parliament. Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions. Cost of Non-Europe Report of 2017, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611008/EPRS_STU(2017)611008_EN.pdf, p. 7.

  13. Harding [7], p. 852.

  14. Adopted on 26 November 1987; entered into force on 1 February 1989.

  15. Adopted 4 November 1950; entered into force 3 September 1953. See the analysis on the case law of the EctHR on detention conditions available at available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/FS_Detention_conditions_ENG.pdf.

  16. First adopted in 1987, and amended in 2006 by the Committee of Ministers to member states of the Council of Europe.

  17. The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens [2010] OJC 115/1.

  18. COM (2011) 327 final of 14 June 2011.

  19. Analysis of the Replies to the Green Paper on the Application of EU Criminal Justice Legislation in the Field of Detention is available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2012/dec/eu-com-consult-pre-trial-detention.pdf.

  20. [2009] OJ L 294/20.

  21. [2008] OJ L 337/102.

  22. European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU, P7_TA(2011)0585; European Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 (2013/2109(INL)), P7_TA (2014)0174, p. 17; European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2016, P8_TA-PROV(2016)0485, p. 43. See also description and list on the European Parliament’s activities in this area available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-area-of-justice-and-fundamental-rights/file-common-standards-for-prisons-and-for-detention-conditions.

  23. Morgenstern [13], pp. 527–542.

  24. Klip [9], p. 370.

  25. [2012] OJ C 326/47.

  26. Cras [4], pp. 112–113.

  27. Peers [15], p. 152.

  28. See overview of the Strasbourg case law on the state’s responsibility in extradition cases at van Dijk et al. [18], pp. 416 ff.

  29. Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of 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 in the European Union [2008] OJ L 327/27.

  30. Mitsilegas [11], p. 12.

  31. Ibid, 131–136.

  32. Niblock [14], p. 28–31.

  33. Schallmoser [17], p. 145.

  34. Satzger [16], p. 331; Bovend’Eerdt [2], p. 117.

  35. Mitsilegas [12], p. 167.

  36. Aranyosi, para 90.

  37. Ibid, para 92.

  38. Ibid, para 95.

  39. Ibid, para 98.

  40. Ibid, para 104.

  41. Gáspár-Szilágyi [5], p. 142. See discussion on interpretation of the CJEU standpoints on this matter at Meyer [10], p. 287.

  42. Willems [20], pp. 225 and 247.

  43. Case C-216/18 PPU LM, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586.

  44. Ibid, para 78.

  45. Case C-220/18 PPU ML, ECLI:EU:C:2018:589.

  46. Ibid, para 87.

  47. Ibid, para 90–107.

  48. [2012] OJ C 326/13.

  49. Hallevy [6], p. 1.

  50. Appl. Nos. 26289/12, 29062/12 and 29891/12 Magee and others v. the UK, paras 86–87.

  51. Peers [15], p. 152.

  52. Case C-237/15 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. Francis Lanigan, ECLI:EU:C:2015:474.

  53. European Parliament. Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions. Cost of Non-Europe Report of 2017, available at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/611008/EPRS_STU(2017)611008_EN.pdf, p. 68 referring to Vermeulen et al. [19], p. 92.

  54. See thorough analysis on this matter at Coventry [3], pp. 43 ff.

References

  1. Atkinson, D. (ed.): EU Law in Criminal Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bovend’Eerdt, K.: The joined cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: a new limit to the mutual trust presumption in the area of freedom, security, and justice? Utrecht J. Int. Eur. Law 32(83), 112–121 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Coventry, T.: Pretrial detention: assessing European Union competence under article 82(2) TFEU. New J. Eur. Crim. Law 8(1), 43–63 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cras, S.: The directive on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings genesis and descriptive comments relating to selected articles. Eucrim 2016(2), 109–119 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gáspár-Szilágyi, S.: Joined cases Aranyosi and Căldăraru: converging human rights standards, mutual trust and a new ground for postponing a European arrest warrant. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 24(2–3), 197–219 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hallevy, G.: The Right to Be Punished. Modern Doctrinal Sentencing. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Harding, C.: EU criminal law under the area of freedom, security, and justice. In: Arnull, A., et al. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Harris, D.J., et al. (eds.): Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Klip, A.: European Criminal Law. An Integrative Approach, 3rd edn. Intersentia, Cambridge (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Meyer, F.: ‘From Solange II to Forever I’. The German Federal Constitutional Court and the European Arrest Warrant (and how the CJEU responded). New J. Eur. Crim. Law 7(3), 277–294 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Mitsilegas, V.: EU Criminal Law After Lisbon. Rights, Trust and the Transformation of Justice in Europe. Hart Publishing, Oxford (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mitsilegas, V.: Mutual recognition, mutual trust and fundamental rights after Lisbon. In: Mitsilegas, V., et al. (eds.) Research Handbook on EU Criminal Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham (2016)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Morgenstern, C.: Pre-trial/remand detention in Europe: facts and figures and the need for common minimum standards. ERA Forum 9(4), 527–542 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Niblock, R.: Mutual recognition, mutual trust? Detention conditions and deferring and EAW. New J. Eur. Crim. Law 7(2), 250–251 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Peers, S.: EU Justice and Home Affairs Law. Volume II EU Criminal Law, Policing, and Civil Law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2016)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Satzger, H.: Mutual recognition in times of crisis – mutual recognition in crisis? An analysis of the new jurisprudence on the European arrest warrant. Eur. Crim. Law Rev. 8(3), 317–331 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schallmoser, N.M.: The European arrest warrant and fundamental rights. Risks of violation of fundamental rights through the EU framework decision in light of the ECHR. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim. Justice 22(2), 135–165 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Dijk, P., et al. (eds.): Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 5th edn. Intersentia, Cambridge (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Vermeulen, G., et al.: Cross-Border Execution of Judgements Involving Deprivation of Liberty in the EU. Maklu, Antwerpen (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Willems, A.: Mutual trust as a term of art in EU criminal law: revealing its hybrid character. Eur. J. Leg. Stud. 9(1), 211–249 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Law, School of Law, University of Tartu, Näituse 20, 50409, Tartu, Estonia

    Anneli Soo

Authors
  1. Anneli Soo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anneli Soo.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A. Soo is Humboldt Experienced Researcher at the Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law at University of Cologne (2018–2019).

This article is the revised and amended version of a paper presented at the ERA-Seminar Recent Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on detention on 6–7 December 2018 in Strasbourg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soo, A. Common standards for detention and prison conditions in the EU: recommendations and the need for legislative measures. ERA Forum 20, 327–341 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00569-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00569-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation