Proposal for a COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union {SEC(2004) 491}

Proposition de DÉCISION-CADRE DU CONSEIL relative à certains droits procéduraux accordés dans le cadre des procédures pénales dans l'Union européenne {SEC(2004) 491}

(presented by the Commission)

(présentée par la Commission)

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

EXPOSÉ DES MOTIFS

1. Introduction

1. Introduction

1. This proposal for a Council Framework Decision aims to set common minimum standards as regards certain procedural rights applying in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union.

1. La présente proposition de décision-cadre du Conseil vise à définir des normes minimales communes concernant certains droits procéduraux à accorder dans le cadre des procédures pénales dans l'Union européenne.

2. Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) provides that the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to Member States. Moreover, in December 2000, the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament jointly signed and solemnly proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

2. L'article 6 du traité sur l'Union européenne (traité UE) dispose que l'Union respecte les droits fondamentaux, tels qu'ils sont garantis par la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (CEDH) et tels qu'ils résultent des traditions constitutionnelles communes aux États membres. En outre, en décembre 2000, la Commission européenne, le Conseil et le Parlement européen ont signé conjointement et proclamé solennellement la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne.

3. The Presidency Conclusions of the Tampere European Council [1] stated that mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation, but makes the point that mutual recognition "...and the necessary approximation of legislation would facilitate [...] the judicial protection of individual rights" [2]. Furthermore the European Council asked the Council and the Commission to press ahead with mutual recognition measures "respecting the fundamental legal principles of the Member States" [3].

3. Selon les conclusions de la présidence du Conseil européen de Tampere [1], le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle devrait devenir la pierre angulaire de la coopération judiciaire, mais la reconnaissance mutuelle «...et le rapprochement nécessaire des législations faciliteraient [...] la protection judiciaire des droits de la personne» [2]. Le Conseil européen a en outre invité le Conseil et la Commission à poursuivre la mise en oeuvre de mesures de reconnaissance mutuelle «dans le respect des principes fondamentaux du droit des États membres» [3].

[1] 15 and 16 October 1999.

[1] 15 et 16 octobre 1999.

[2] Conclusion 33.

[2] Point 33 des conclusions.

[3] Conclusion 37.

[3] Point 37 des conclusions.

4. The Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament of 26 July 2000 on Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters [4] stated that "it must therefore be ensured that the treatment of suspects and the rights of the defence would not only not suffer from the implementation of the principle [of mutual recognition] but that the safeguards would even be improved through the process".

4. Selon la communication de la Commission au Conseil et au Parlement européen, présentée le 26 juillet 2000 et relative à la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions finales en matière pénale [4], «il faut donc faire en sorte que non seulement le traitement des suspects et les droits de la défense ne pâtissent pas de l'application du principe [de la reconnaissance mutuelle], mais encore que les sauvegardes soient renforcées tout au long de la procédure».

[4] COM(2000) 495 final, 29.7.2000.

[4] COM(2000) 495 final du 29.7.2000.

5. This was endorsed in the Programme of Measures to Implement the Principle of Mutual Recognition of Decisions in Criminal Matters [5] ("Programme of Measures"), adopted by the Council and the Commission. It pointed out that "mutual recognition is very much dependent on a number of parameters which determine its effectiveness".

5. Ce point de vue a été entériné dans le programme de mesures destiné à mettre en oeuvre le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions pénales [5], adopté par le Conseil et la Commission, qui indique que «la reconnaissance mutuelle dépend étroitement de l'existence et du contenu de certains paramètres qui conditionnent l'efficacité de l'exercice».

[5] OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[5] JO C 12 du 15.1.2001, p. 10.

6. These parameters include "mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of [...] suspects" (parameter 3) and "the definition of common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition" (parameter 4). This proposal for a Framework Decision represents an embodiment of the stated aim of enhancing the protection of individual rights.

6. Parmi ces paramètres, citons «les mécanismes de protection des droits des [...] personnes soupçonnées» (paramètre 3) et «la définition des normes minimales communes nécessaires pour faciliter l'application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle» (paramètre 4). La présente proposition de décision-cadre concrétise l'objectif déclaré, qui est de renforcer la protection des droits de la personne.

7. This proposal seeks to enhance the rights of all suspects and defendants generally. Offering an equivalent level of protection to suspects and defendants throughout the European Union by way of these common minimum standards should facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition in the manner set out in section 5, "The Principle of Mutual Recognition", below. It was within the contemplation of the Heads of State at Tampere that such "necessary approximation" should occur.

7. Elle vise à renforcer de manière générale les droits de tous les suspects et personnes mises en cause. L'octroi d'un niveau équivalent de protection aux suspects et personnes mises en cause à travers l'Union européenne grâce à ces normes minimales communes devrait faciliter l'application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle ainsi qu'énoncé à la section 5 ci-dessous, intitulée «Le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle». À Tampere, les chefs d'État avaient d'ailleurs recommandé ce «rapprochement nécessaire des législations».

8. In seeking to enhance fair trial rights generally, this Framework Decision will also have the effect of ensuring a reasonable level of protection for foreign suspects and defendants [6] in particular, since several of the measures are specifically intended for them. The number of foreign defendants is increasing owing to various factors (increased job mobility, more people taking foreign holidays, migratory patterns, growth in the number of asylum seekers, refugees and displaced persons present in the Union etc) and will continue to do so. In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of serious cross-border criminality; criminal activity against the financial interests of the European Union increasingly has a transnational character. The TEC enables citizens of the Union to "move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States" [7]. Statistics suggest that approximately 6 million EU nationals live in a Member State other than their country of origin [8]. Logically, the number of those migrants becoming involved in criminal proceedings will grow with the increasing exercise of this right of free movement and residence. It is incumbent on the Member States to ensure that proper care is taken of EU citizens should they find themselves involved in criminal proceedings in a Member State other than their own.

8. En cherchant à améliorer à titre général les droits garantissant un procès équitable, la présente décision-cadre aura aussi pour effet d'assurer un niveau raisonnable de protection aux suspects et personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère [6] en particulier, puisque, parmi les mesures prévues, plusieurs leur sont spécifiquement destinées. La hausse du nombre de personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère, imputable à plusieurs facteurs (mobilité professionnelle accrue, augmentation du nombre de personnes passant leurs vacances à l'étranger, schémas migratoires, croissance du nombre de demandeurs d'asile, de réfugiés et de personnes déplacées présents dans l'Union, etc.), se poursuivra à l'avenir. On a pris davantage conscience de l'existence d'une grande criminalité transfrontalière ces dernières années et les activités criminelles dirigées contre les intérêts financiers de l'Union européenne revêtent une dimension de plus en plus transnationale. Le traité CE permet aux citoyens de l'Union «de circuler et de séjourner librement sur le territoire des États membres» [7]. D'après les statistiques, quelque 6 millions de ressortissants de l'UE vivent dans un État membre qui n'est pas leur pays d'origine [8]. En toute logique, le nombre de personnes étrangères impliquées dans des procédures pénales croîtra à mesure qu'augmentera l'exercice de ce droit de circuler et de séjourner librement. Il appartient aux États membres d'assurer une prise en charge adéquate des citoyens de l'UE impliqués dans des procédures pénales dans un État membre dont ils ne sont pas ressortissants.

[6] "Foreign suspects and defendants" shall mean those who are not nationals of the country in which they are arrested. There is a further subdivision to be observed: some foreigners are EU nationals from another Member State, others are nationals of third countries. Unless otherwise stated, it does not matter which category they fall into for the purposes of this proposal.

[6] Les termes «suspects et personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère» désignent les personnes qui ne sont pas des ressortissants du pays dans lequel elles sont arrêtées. Une distinction supplémentaire doit être établie: certains étrangers sont des ressortissants d'un autre État membre de l'UE, alors que d'autres sont des ressortissants de pays tiers. Sauf indication contraire, la présente proposition s'applique à ces deux catégories de personnes.

[7] Article 18 TEC.

[7] Article 18 du traité CE.

[8] Source: Eurostat Migration Statistics for 1998,1999 and 2000 give the figure of EU nationals living in a Member State other than their own as 5,900,000.

[8] Source: selon les statistiques d'Eurostat concernant les flux migratoires en 1998, 1999 et 2000, 5 900 000 ressortissants de l'UE vivent dans un État membre autre que celui dont ils sont ressortissants.

2. The european convention on human rights (echr)

2. La convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (la CEDH)

9. All the Member States have criminal justice systems that meet the requirements of Articles 5 (Right to liberty and security) and 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR, using a variety of procedural safeguards. The intention here is not to duplicate what is in the ECHR, but rather to promote compliance at a consistent standard. This can be done by orchestrating agreement between the Member States on a Union wide approach to a "fair trial".

9. Dans tous les États membres, le système de justice pénale satisfait aux obligations imposées par les articles 5 (Droit à la liberté et à la sûreté) et 6 (Droit à un procès équitable) de la CEDH, grâce à un éventail de garanties procédurales. La présente proposition n'entend pas reproduire inutilement les dispositions de la CEDH, mais vise plutôt à encourager le respect systématique de ces garanties. Une manière d'y parvenir serait de trouver un accord entre les États membres sur une conception d'un «procès équitable» commune à toute l'Union.

10. The number of applications to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the case-law of that court demonstrate that compliance with the ECHR is not universal. Furthermore, the number of applications is growing every year [9] and the ECtHR is "seriously overloaded" [10] - the volume of applications grew by over 500% in the period 1993-2000. Higher visibility of safeguards would improve knowledge of rights on the part of all actors in the criminal justice systems and hence facilitate compliance.

10. Le nombre de recours portés devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme ainsi que sa jurisprudence prouvent que la CEDH n'est pas universellement respectée. De plus, le volume des requêtes dont la Cour est saisie augmente chaque année [9] et le système est aujourd'hui «sérieusement engorgé» [10] - le nombre de requêtes a crû de plus de 500 % entre 1993 et 2000. Accroître la visibilité des garanties applicables devrait permettre à tous les acteurs des systèmes de justice pénale de mieux connaître les droits prévus et, partant, de faciliter le respect de ces droits.

[9] Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights (EG(2001)1 of 27 September 2001.

[9] Rapport du groupe d'évaluation au Comité des Ministres sur la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (EG(2001)1) du 27 septembre 2001.

[10] Preface to the Report the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights referred to in footnote 9 above.

[10] Préface du Rapport du groupe d'évaluation au Comité des Ministres sur la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (voir note 9 ci-dessus).

11. This proposal for a Framework Decision highlights some rights identified as basic, many of which already exist in some form in the criminal justice systems of the Member States. These include the right to legal advice and the right to understand the "nature and cause of the accusation", from which is derived the right to translation of documents and access to an interpreter where the defendant does not understand the language of the proceedings. Whilst it is proper and appropriate for each Member State to decide on its criminal justice system, the discrepancies in procedure as concerns these basic safeguards should be kept to a minimum.

11. La présente proposition de décision-cadre met l'accent sur certains droits qualifiés de fondamentaux, nombre d'entre eux existant déjà sous une forme ou une autre dans les systèmes de justice pénale des États membres. Parmi ces droits figurent le droit à l'assistance d'un avocat et le droit de comprendre la «nature et la cause de l'accusation», dont découle le droit d'obtenir la traduction de documents et de se faire assister d'un interprète, lorsque la personne mise en cause ne comprend pas la langue de la procédure. S'il convient que chaque État membre définisse son propre système de justice pénale, il faut maintenir au minimum les divergences procédurales relatives à ces droits fondamentaux.

3. the charter of fundamental rights of the european union (cfreu)

3. La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne (la Charte)

12. In December 2000, the European Commission, the Council and the Parliament jointly signed and solemnly proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) [11]. The CFREU covers the civil, political, economic and social rights of European citizens and synthesises the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to the Member States. A significant aspect of the Charter is that it affirms that the European Union is a political community, rather than solely an economic organisation. Moreover, it asserts that respect for fundamental rights will be at the foundation of all European law.

12. En décembre 2000, la Commission européenne, le Conseil et le Parlement européen ont signé conjointement et proclamé solennellement la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne [11]. La Charte prévoit les droits civils, politiques, économiques et sociaux des citoyens européens et fait la synthèse des traditions constitutionnelles et des obligations internationales communes aux États membres. L'un des apports majeurs de la Charte réside dans le fait qu'elle affirme que l'Union européenne est une communauté politique et non uniquement une organisation économique. En outre, elle déclare que le respect des droits fondamentaux sera l'un des fondements de tout le droit européen.

[11] The text of the CFREU can be found at: http://www.europarl.eu.int/charter/ default_en.htm.

[11] Le texte de la Charte peut être consulté à l'adresse suivante:

13. The section entitled "Justice" (Articles 47-50) lays down the right to a fair trial (Art. 47) and provides that respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged [with a criminal offence] shall be guaranteed (Art. 48). It provides for the presumption of innocence, legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties. It extends the principle of ne bis in idem to the whole of the EU.

13. Son chapitre intitulé «Justice» (articles 47 à 50) consacre le droit à un procès équitable (article 47) et prévoit le respect des droits de la défense de toute personne accusée [d'une infraction] (article 48). La Charte prévoit la présomption d'innocence ainsi que la légalité et la proportionnalité des délits et des peines. Elle étend le principe "non bis in idem" à l'intégralité de l'UE.

14. This proposal espouses the spirit of the CFREU. It contributes to the definition of a "fair trial" and to agreeing common standards for "the rights of the defence" so that equivalent treatment in respect of trials throughout the EU can be facilitated.

14. La présente proposition s'inspire de l'esprit de la Charte. Elle contribue à définir la notion de «procès équitable» et à arrêter des normes communes en matière de «droits de la défense», de manière à faciliter à travers l'UE un traitement équivalent dans le cadre des procédures pénales.

4. Background to the framework decision

4. Contexte dans lequel s'inscrit la présente décision-cadre

15. In line with the Tampere Conclusions, the Commission has taken the necessary steps to carry out the Programme of Measures for Mutual Recognition, including considering the relevant parameters. The introduction to the Programme of Measures makes the point that "the extent of the mutual recognition exercise is very much dependent on a number of parameters which determine its effectiveness". In order to take parameters 3 and 4, referred to in paragraph 6 above, into account, it was necessary to consider whether it was appropriate to take action on procedural safeguards at the EU level. The Commission carried out a comprehensive consultation and extended impact assessment exercise.

15. Conformément aux conclusions du Conseil européen de Tampere, la Commission a pris les dispositions nécessaires pour appliquer le programme de mesures destiné à mettre en oeuvre le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions pénales et a notamment envisagé les paramètres applicables. Dans son introduction, le programme de mesures relève que «l'étendue de la reconnaissance mutuelle dépend étroitement de l'existence et du contenu de certains paramètres qui conditionnent l'efficacité de l'exercice». Afin de tenir compte des paramètres 3 et 4, mentionnés au point 6 ci-dessus, il s'est avéré nécessaire d'examiner l'opportunité de prendre des mesures concernant les garanties procédurales au niveau de l'UE. La Commission a procédé à une consultation de grande ampleur et à un exercice approfondi d'analyse d'impact.

16. In February 2003, the Commission presented a Green Paper on Procedural Safeguards for Suspects and Defendants in Criminal Proceedings [12]. The Green Paper noted that the Member States of the EU are all signatories of the principal treaty setting the basic standards, the ECHR, as are all the acceding states and candidate countries, so the mechanism for achieving mutual trust is already in place. Nevertheless, the Green Paper explained that existing divergent practices had hitherto hindered mutual trust and confidence, and that in order to counter that risk, the EU is justified in taking action on procedural rights pursuant to Article 31 TEU.

16. En février 2003, la Commission a publié un Livre vert sur les garanties procédurales accordées aux suspects et aux personnes mises en cause dans des procédures pénales [12]. Le livre vert relevait que les États membres de l'UE sont tous signataires du traité majeur qui définit ces normes, à savoir la CEDH, de même que tous les États adhérents et les pays candidats, de sorte que le mécanisme de la confiance mutuelle est déjà en place. Il expliquait toutefois que l'existence de pratiques divergentes avait jusqu'à ce jour entravé la confiance mutuelle, et que, pour contrecarrer le risque que cette situation perdure, il était justifié que l'Union européenne prenne des mesures relatives aux droits procéduraux au titre de l'article 31 du traité UE.

[12] COM(2003) 75 final, 19.2.2003.

[12] COM(2003) 75 final du 19.2.2003.

17. The Commission received 78 written replies to the Green Paper [13], together with a number of emails, telephone calls and other communications in response. The overwhelming majority of respondents endorsed the Commission's proposal to set common minimum standards for procedural safeguards. Many respondents applauded this effort but considered that these proposals do not go far enough [14]. Of the Member States, Ireland, Luxembourg, Austria, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and France replied either through their Ministry of Justice or another governmental body. The views as expressed by these bodies ranged from support [15] to opposition [16]. The new Member States were also involved in the consultation, with Slovakia and the Czech Republic responding to the Green Paper and representatives from all the new States taking part in bilateral and other meetings.

17. La Commission a reçu 78 réponses écrites au livre vert [13], ainsi qu'un certain nombre de réactions par courrier électronique, par téléphone et par d'autres voies. L'immense majorité des réactions souscrivaient à la proposition de la Commission de définir des normes minimales communes en matière de garanties procédurales. Nombre d'entre elles saluaient ses travaux, mais estimaient que ces propositions n'étaient pas suffisamment ambitieuses [14]. Parmi les États membres, l'Irlande, le Luxembourg, l'Autriche, le Royaume-Uni, les Pays-Bas, la Finlande, le Danemark, l'Allemagne, la Suède et la France ont répondu par l'intermédiaire de leur ministère de la justice ou d'une autre instance gouvernementale. Les opinions exprimées par ces instances allaient du soutien [15] à l'opposition [16]. Les nouveaux États membres ont également été associés au processus de consultation, la Slovaquie et la République tchèque ayant répondu au livre vert et des représentants de tous les nouveaux États membres ayant participé à des réunions bilatérales ou autres.

[13] The written responses may be consulted on DG JHA's website at:

[13] Les réponses écrites peuvent être consultées sur le site web de la DG JAI, à l'adresse suivante:

[14] For examples of positive reactions, see that of Amnesty International: "AI welcomes any measures taken which aim to ensure the implementation of existing obligations of Member States under international human rights treaties and ensure the highest possible standards for the protection of human rights, including the rights to fair trial, and do not risk weakening existing standards or practice to the lowest common denominator". The Law Society of England and Wales: "The Law Society welcomes the publication of the Green Paper, which we consider an important step in developing mutual trust between member states in the protections of individuals". The French Cour de Cassation: "This type of initiative seems particularly appropriate insofar as it is part of the creation of a real European area of justice. It is even more interesting because it is capable of giving people greater confidence in the different European legal systems, by harmonising procedural safeguards". The criticism from Liberty (whose response was generally positive) is typical of many comments received in this vein: "It is a weakness of this Green Paper that it does not address certain critical rights, namely the right to bail; the right to have evidence handled fairly; symmetry in sentencing; double jeopardy; and trials in absentia".

[14] Pour des exemples de réactions positives, il convient de se reporter à la réponse d'Amnesty International: «Amnesty International est favorable à toute mesure destinée à assurer l'accomplissement des obligations existantes des États membres aux termes des traités internationaux relatifs aux droits de l'homme et à garantir les normes les plus élevées possibles en matière de protection de droits de l'homme, y compris les droits à un procès équitable, sans risque d'abaisser les normes et pratiques existantes au plus petit dénominateur commun». Voir également la réponse de la Law Society of England and Wales: «La Law Society se félicite de la publication du Livre vert, qu'elle considère comme une étape importante dans le développement de la confiance mutuelle entre les États membres en matière de protection des personnes». Ainsi que celle de la Cour de cassation française: «Une telle initiative paraît particulièrement opportune dans la mesure où elle s'inscrit dans le cadre de la création d'un véritable espace européen de justice. C'est une initiative d'autant plus intéressante qu'elle est de nature à susciter une plus grande confiance des justiciables dans les différents systèmes juridiques européens, en harmonisant ainsi les garanties procédurales». Les critiques exprimées par Liberty (dont la réaction était généralement positive) sont caractéristiques des nombreuses observations reçues en ce sens: «Ce livre vert présente une faiblesse en ce qu'il n'aborde pas certains droits essentiels, à savoir le droit à la mise en liberté provisoire sous caution; le droit à un traitement équitable en ce qui concerne les éléments de preuve; la symétrie des condamnations; la règle «non bis in idem»; et les procédures par défaut ou par contumace».

[15] For an example of support, the following is from the Finnish Ministry of Justice: "As regards the areas proposed in the Green Paper, Finland supports minimum Union-level standards on the right to legal assistance, the right to interpretation and translation assistance, and the Letter of Rights. It is particularly important to ensure that these rights are catered for at a sufficiently early stage, i.e. right from the moment the suspect is apprehended or at the latest by the time he/she starts to be questioned".

[15] Le ministère finlandais de la justice a, par exemple, soutenu l'approche de la Commission: «concernant les domaines proposés dans le livre vert, la Finlande soutient la définition de normes européennes minimales relatives au droit à une assistance juridique et au droit à l'assistance d'un interprète et d'un traducteur, ainsi que la déclaration des droits. Il est particulièrement important de veiller à ce que ces droits soient garantis suffisamment tôt dans la procédure, c'est-à-dire dès l'arrestation du suspect ou au plus tard au moment où commence son interrogatoire».

[16] For a negative assessment, see the submissions of Response of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland: "[t]he Green Paper [...]seeks to introduce obligations which would apply internally in each Member State. This is outside the scope of article 31 and breaches the principle of subsidiarity".

[16] Pour une réaction négative, voir les observations contenues dans la réponse du Ministre irlandais de la justice, de l'égalité et de la réforme du droit: "[l]e livre vert [...] vise à introduire des obligations qui s'appliqueraient sur le plan interne dans chaque État membre. L'introduction de telles obligations ne relève pas du champ d'application de l'article 31 et est contraire au principe de subsidiarité».

18. In June 2003, the Commission held a public hearing on the subject of safeguards. All those who had replied to the Green Paper, or manifested an interest, were invited to attend and given the opportunity to express their views orally. In addition, all the Member States were invited to send a representative. What emerged at the hearing was a great deal of support from legal practitioners and non-governmental organisations for the Commission's proposals. The representatives of the Member States present were divided in their support. Slovakia and the Czech Republic sent representatives as observers. The Member States that are opposed to the idea invoke (1) the subsidiarity principle, (2) concerns over legal basis and (3) the fear that "common minimum standards" could result in a general lowering of standards as the grounds for their opposition, (4) the argument that common minimum standards have already been set by the ECHR and that no further action is needed and finally, (5) fears were expressed that implementing these proposals would be technically difficult.

18. En juin 2003, la Commission a organisé une audition sur les garanties procédurales. Toutes les personnes ou instances ayant répondu au livre vert ou manifesté leur intérêt ont été invitées à y participer et ont eu l'occasion de faire valoir leur point de vue verbalement. En outre, tous les États membres ont été invités à y dépêcher un représentant. Il est apparu, lors de cette audition, que les praticiens du droit et les organisations non gouvernementales soutenaient les propositions de la Commission dans une large mesure. Les représentants des États membres présents étaient, quant à eux, partagés par rapport au livre vert. La Slovaquie et la République tchèque ont envoyé des représentants en qualité d'observateurs. Les États membres qui n'y sont pas favorables invoquent, pour justifier leur opposition au livre vert: 1) le principe de subsidiarité, 2) des préoccupations liées à la base juridique, 3) la crainte que l'adoption de «normes minimales communes» puisse entraîner un abaissement général des normes appliquées, 4) le fait que des normes minimales communes ont déjà été définies par la CEDH et qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de prendre des mesures supplémentaires et 5) la crainte que la mise en oeuvre de ces propositions ne s'avère difficile sur le plan technique.

19. The Commission considers first that in this area only action at the EU level can be effective in ensuring common standards. To date, the Member States have complied on a national basis with their fair trial obligations, deriving principally from the ECHR, and this has led to discrepancies in the levels of safeguards in operation in the different Member States. It has also led to speculation about standards in other Member States and on occasion, there have been accusations of deficiencies in the criminal justice system of one Member State in the press and media of another. This would be remedied by the adoption of common minimum standards. By definition, the standards can only be common if they are set by the Member States acting in concert, so it is not possible to achieve common standards and rely entirely on action at the national level.

19. Sur le premier point, la Commission estime que, dans ce domaine, seule une action au niveau de l'UE peut réussir à imposer des normes communes. Actuellement, les États membres s'acquittent de leurs obligations relatives à un procès équitable, principalement celles qui découlent de la CEDH, à un niveau national, de sorte qu'il en résulte des écarts entre les niveaux de garanties appliqués dans les différents États membres. Cela donne également lieu à des conjectures quant aux normes qui sont appliquées dans les autres États membres et parfois à des accusations, dans la presse ou les autres médias d'un État membre, sur les lacunes du système de justice pénale d'un autre État membre. L'adoption de normes minimales communes apporterait une solution à ce problème. Par définition, les normes ne peuvent être communes que si elles sont fixées de concert par les États membres, de sorte qu'il n'est pas possible de parvenir à des normes communes et, simultanément, de ne compter que sur une action prise au niveau national.

20. As regards the legal basis, the Commission relies on Article 31 (1) of the Treaty on European Union. Article 31(1) envisages that the EU may develop "common action" so as to ensure compatibility in rules where necessary to improve cooperation. Judicial cooperation, in particular mutual recognition presents a situation where compatibility is necessary to improve co-operation. It is for that reason that the parameters of the Mutual Recognition Programme include "mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of [...] suspects" (parameter 3) and "common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition" (parameter 4).

20. Pour ce qui est de la base juridique, la Commission se fonde sur l'article 31 du traité UE, qui dispose que l'UE peut mener une «action en commun» de manière à assurer, dans la mesure nécessaire à l'amélioration de la coopération, la compatibilité des règles. Le renforcement de la coopération judiciaire, en particulier la reconnaissance mutuelle, rend cette compatibilité nécessaire. C'est pour cette raison que les paramètres du programme de reconnaissance mutuelle comprennent «les mécanismes de protection des droits des [...] personnes soupçonnées» (paramètre 3) et «la définition des normes minimales communes nécessaires pour faciliter l'application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle» (paramètre 4).

21. There is no need to fear that common standards will lead to a lowering of standards. Member States remain free to implement the highest level of safeguards they consider appropriate as long as they comply with the agreed minimum. Furthermore, the non-regression provision in Article 17 states explicitly that nothing in the Framework Decision may be interpreted as "limiting or derogating from" any existing rights. The proposal is for common minimum standards. It is unthinkable that Member States, bound by Article 6(2) TEU to respect fundamental rights, would use that as a basis to "level down" where current provisions exceed the EU requirements.

21. Il n'y a pas lieu de craindre que des normes communes puissent entraîner un abaissement des normes. Les États membres restent libres d'appliquer le plus haut niveau de garanties qu'ils considèrent comme approprié, tant qu'ils respectent les normes minimales convenues. En outre, la clause de non-régression prévue à l'article 17 dispose explicitement qu'aucune disposition de la présente décision-cadre ne saurait être interprétée comme «limitant» les droits existants ou y «dérogeant». La proposition prévoit des normes minimales communes. Il est impensable que les États membres, qui sont tenus par l'article 6, paragraphe 2, du traité UE de respecter les droits fondamentaux, puissent se servir de normes communes pour «abaisser» le niveau de protection lorsque les dispositions en vigueur vont au-delà des exigences communautaires.

22. On the fourth point, the Commission's research and consultation, together with the case-law of the ECtHR, shows the ECHR is implemented to very differing standards in the Member States and that there are many violations of the ECHR. Those divergences prejudice a common protection of procedural rights within the Union, jeopardize mutual trust and affect the smooth operation of the mutual recognition principle. Furthermore, the Commission's aim is to render more efficient and visible the practical operation of ECHR rights with this proposal so that everyone in the criminal justice system is more aware of them, not only defendants but also police officers, lawyers, translators and interpreters and all other actors in the criminal justice system. This should lead to better compliance with the ECHR.

22. Sur le quatrième point, les études et la consultation menées par la Commission, ainsi que la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, montrent que la CEDH est appliquée à des degrés divers dans les États membres et que les violations de la CEDH sont nombreuses. Ces disparités sont préjudiciables à une protection commune des droits procéduraux à l'intérieur de l'Union, mettent en péril la confiance mutuelle et nuisent à une application harmonieuse du principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle. En outre, l'objectif que poursuit la Commission en présentant cette proposition est de rendre plus efficace et plus visible la mise en oeuvre des droits que consacre la CEDH, de sorte qu'au sein du système de justice pénale, chacun y soit davantage sensibilisé, qu'il s'agisse des personnes mises en cause ou des services de police, des avocats, des traducteurs et des interprètes, ainsi que de tous les autres acteurs de ce système. Cela devrait déboucher sur un respect plus strict de la CEDH.

23. Finally as regards technical difficulties and cost, the Commission contends that the final outcome for this proposal should not lead to an intolerable burden for Member States since the substance of the provisions essentially confirms existing rights under the ECHR and relevant case-law.

23. En ce qui concerne, en dernier lieu, les difficultés techniques et le coût, la Commission soutient que la présente proposition ne devrait pas avoir pour résultat de faire peser une charge intolérable sur les États membres, puisque sur le fond, les dispositions confirment pour l'essentiel des droits existants, tels que consacrés par la CEDH et la jurisprudence correspondante.

24. The Commission has concluded that the smooth operation of the measures set out in the Programme of Measures can best be achieved if accompanied by agreed common minimum standards in relevant areas. The areas where common minimum standards are proposed at this first stage are:

24. La Commission a conclu que le meilleur moyen d'appliquer harmonieusement les mesures définies dans le programme de mesures était de les accompagner de normes minimales communes dans les domaines concernés. Les domaines dans lesquels des normes minimales communes sont proposées au cours de cette première étape sont les suivants:

- access to legal advice, both before the trial and at trial,

- accès à l'assistance d'un avocat, avant comme pendant le procès,

- access to free interpretation and translation,

- accès gratuit aux services d'un interprète et d'un traducteur,

- ensuring that persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings receive appropriate attention,

- garantie pour les personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure de bénéficier d'une attention adéquate,

- the right to communicate, inter alia, with consular authorities in the case of foreign suspects, and

- droit de communiquer, notamment, avec les autorités consulaires dans le cas de suspects étrangers, et

- notifying suspected persons of their rights (by giving them a written "Letter of Rights").

- information des suspects au sujet de leurs droits (en leur remettant une «déclaration des droits» écrite).

The decision to make proposals in relation to these five rights at this first stage was taken because these rights are of particular importance in the context of mutual recognition, since they have a transnational element which is not a feature of other fair trial rights, apart from the right to bail which is being covered separately in a forthcoming Green Paper. The foreign defendant will generally need an interpreter and may require consular assistance. He is also less likely to be familiar with his rights in the country of arrest and hence all the more likely to be helped by a Letter of Rights in his own language. All suspected persons are in a better position if they have a lawyer, and it is true that a person who has a lawyer is more likely to have his other rights respected as he will have someone who is aware of the rights and can verify that they are complied with. For this reasons, it was important to include the right to legal advice. Persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings and who need appropriate attention are a special category of defendant requiring a higher degree of protection. This is an embodiment of the concept of "equality of arms" which requires a fair balance between the parties in court proceedings.

Il a été décidé de présenter des propositions concernant ces cinq droits dès le premier stade parce qu'il s'agit de droits particulièrement importants dans le contexte de la reconnaissance mutuelle, puisqu'ils comportent un élément transnational qui ne caractérise pas les autres droits garantissant un procès équitable, à l'exception du droit à la mise en liberté provisoire sous caution, lequel fait l'objet d'un traitement séparé dans le cadre d'un livre vert qui sera prochainement publié. Une personne mise en cause qui est d'origine étrangère a généralement besoin d'un interprète et peut avoir besoin d'une assistance consulaire. Il y a également moins de chances qu'elle connaisse bien ses droits dans le pays où elle est arrêtée, d'où l'utilité pour elle de disposer d'une déclaration des droits rédigée dans sa langue. Il sera plus facile à tous les suspects de se défendre s'ils disposent d'un avocat, tant il est vrai que celui qui est assisté d'un avocat connaissant bien ces droits et en mesure de s'assurer de leur respect a plus de chances de faire respecter ses autres droits. Pour toutes ces raisons, il était important d'inclure le droit à l'assistance d'un avocat. Les personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure et qui ont besoin d'une attention adéquate constituent une catégorie particulière de personnes mises en cause auxquelles il faut accorder un degré de protection plus élevé. C'est une concrétisation du principe de l'«égalité des armes» qui exige un juste équilibre entre les parties à une procédure judiciaire.

25. The Commission reiterates that this draft Framework Decision is a first step and that other measures are envisaged over the next few years. There is no intention to convey the impression that these five rights are more important than others, simply that they are more immediately relevant to mutual recognition and the problems that have arisen to date in the discussion of mutual recognition measures. The Commission has already started to examine the need for safeguards relating to fairness in obtaining, handling and use of evidence throughout the EU. The rights stemming from the presumption of innocence (including the right to silence, the right against self-incrimination and the rules governing the burden of proof) will also be examined. The Commission's first assessment of this work, which has already started, will be made public in 2004.

25. La Commission réaffirme que le présent projet de décision-cadre est une première étape et que d'autres mesures seront envisagées dans les toutes prochaines années. Le propos n'est pas de donner l'impression que ces cinq droits seraient plus importants que les autres. Ces droits ont tout simplement une utilité plus immédiate pour la reconnaissance mutuelle et pour résoudre les problèmes qui ont été soulevés jusqu'ici dans les discussions sur les mesures de reconnaissance mutuelle. La Commission a déjà commencé à réfléchir à la nécessité de prévoir des garanties relatives à un traitement équitable concernant l'obtention, le traitement et l'utilisation des éléments de preuve à travers l'UE. Il conviendra aussi d'examiner les droits résultant de la présomption d'innocence (y compris le droit de garder le silence, le droit de ne pas contribuer à sa propre incrimination et les règles relatives à la charge de la preuve). La première évaluation par la Commission de ces travaux, qui ont déjà débuté, sera rendue publique en 2004.

5. The principle of mutual recognition

5. Le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle

26. At the European Council in October 1999 in Tampere, it was agreed that the principle of mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters. Mutual recognition implies that while another state may not deal with a certain matter in the same or even a similar way as one's own state, the results are accepted as equivalent to decisions of one's own state [17].

26. Lors du Conseil européen de Tampere d'octobre 1999, il a été convenu que le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle devait devenir la pierre angulaire de la coopération judiciaire tant civile que pénale. La reconnaissance mutuelle implique que, même si un autre État peut ne pas traiter une affaire donnée de façon identique, voire analogue à son propre État, les résultats sont tels qu'ils sont considérés comme équivalents aux décisions de ce dernier [17].

[17] COM(2000) 495 final, 26.7.2000, p. 4.

[17] COM(2000) 495 final du 26.7.2000, p. 4.

27. The European Council also asked the Council and the Commission to adopt, by December 2000, the Programme of Measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters [18].

27. Le Conseil européen a également invité le Conseil et la Commission à adopter, en décembre 2000 au plus tard, un programme de mesures destiné à mettre en oeuvre le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions pénales [18].

[18] OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[18] JO C 12 du 15.1.2001, p. 10.

28. The Programme of Measures consists of twenty-four areas which are deemed suitable for mutual recognition, some of which will be amalgamated so that between fifteen and twenty proposals will ultimately be put forward under the Programme. The first instrument to have been adopted on mutual recognition in criminal matters is the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [19]. This has been followed by a Framework Decision on orders for freezing property or evidence [20], and will be followed by measures on confiscation orders, financial penalties and transmission of evidence and criminal records. If these measures, and indeed the rest of the proposals resulting from the Programme of Measures, are to be implemented successfully, mutual recognition must be welcomed in the Member States, not only at government and policy level but also by those who will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the measures. Mutual recognition can only operate effectively in a spirit of confidence, whereby not only the judicial authorities, but all actors in the criminal process see decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own and do not call in question their judicial capacity and respect for fair trial rights. This is important so as to enhance a general perception of mutual recognition which is positive, and that involves "not only trust in the adequacy of one's partner's rules, but also trust that these rules are correctly applied" [21].

28. Le programme de mesures comporte vingt-quatre domaines dans lesquels on considère que la reconnaissance mutuelle peut s'appliquer; certains seront fusionnés de sorte qu'entre quinze et vingt propositions seront finalement présentées dans le cadre du programme. Le premier instrument à avoir été adopté dans le domaine de la reconnaissance mutuelle en matière pénale est la décision-cadre du Conseil du 13 juin 2002 relative au mandat d'arrêt européen et aux procédures de remise entre États membres [19]. Elle a été suivie par une décision-cadre relative à l'exécution des décisions de gel de biens ou d'éléments de preuve [20], et des mesures relatives aux décisions de confiscation, aux sanctions financières et à la transmission d'éléments de preuve et d'extraits du casier judiciaire seront adoptées ultérieurement. Pour que ces mesures et, bien entendu, les autres propositions découlant du programme de mesures soient mises en oeuvre d'une manière satisfaisante, la reconnaissance mutuelle doit être accueillie par les États membres, non seulement au niveau des gouvernements et à l'échelon politique, mais aussi par les personnes qui seront chargées de l'application de ces mesures au quotidien. La reconnaissance mutuelle ne peut être efficace que dans un climat de confiance, qui ne saurait être établi que si les autorités judiciaires, mais aussi tous les acteurs de la procédure pénale, considèrent les décisions des autorités judiciaires des autres États membres comme équivalentes à celles de leur propre État et ne mettent pas en cause leur compétence judiciaire et leur respect des droits garantissant un procès équitable. C'est d'autant plus important si l'on veut favoriser une perception générale positive de la reconnaissance mutuelle, ce qui implique une confiance mutuelle en ce qui concerne «non seulement le caractère approprié des règles des partenaires, mais aussi l'application correcte de ces règles» [21].

[19] OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.

[19] JO L 190 du 18.7.2002, p. 1.

[20] Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. OJ L 196, of 2.8.2003, p. 45.

[20] Décision-cadre 2003/577/JAI du Conseil du 22 juillet 2003 relative à l'exécution dans l'Union européenne des décisions de gel de biens ou d'éléments de preuve. JO L 196 du 2.8.2003, p. 45.

[21] COM(2000) 495 final, 26.7.2000, p. 4.

[21] COM(2000) 495 final du 26.7.2000, p. 4.

29. All Member States are parties to the ECHR and this is sometimes cited as adequate grounds for mutual confidence. However experience has shown that, despite the need for such confidence, there is not always sufficient trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States and this notwithstanding the fact that they are all signatories to the ECHR [22]. This proposal for a Framework Decision is an implicit acknowledgement of that insufficient trust in that it provides a mechanism for enhancing and increasing mutual confidence. This will be even more important when there must be trust between twenty-five states or more.

29. Tous les États membres sont parties à la CEDH, et ce fait est parfois invoqué pour justifier la confiance mutuelle. L'expérience a toutefois montré qu'en dépit de la nécessité d'une telle confiance, le crédit accordé aux systèmes de justice pénale des autres États membres n'est pas toujours suffisant, bien que tous les États membres soient signataires de la CEDH [22]. La présente proposition de décision-cadre reconnaît implicitement que ce crédit est insuffisant en ce qu'elle prévoit un mécanisme permettant d'améliorer et d'accroître la confiance mutuelle, à plus forte raison lorsque ce crédit devra exister entre vingt-cinq États membres, voire plus.

[22] For example in the UK case R v. Secretary of State ex parte Ramda, 27 June 2002, the High Court said that France's status as a signatory to the ECHR could not be invoked as a complete answer to complaints about the fairness of his trial. Likewise, in its judgment of 16 May 2003, in the case of Irastorza Dorronsoro, the Cour d'Appel de Pau (France) - refused to accede to an extradition request from Spain on the ground that there was a suspicion that a co-defendant had been "tortured" by Spanish police officers.

[22] Ainsi, dans l'affaire britannique R v. Secretary of State ex parte Ramda (27 juin 2002), la High Court a indiqué que le statut de la France en tant que signataire de la CEDH ne pouvait être invoqué pour répondre totalement aux plaintes relatives au caractère équitable du procès de l'intéressé. De même, dans son arrêt du 16 mai 2003, dans l'affaire Irastorza Dorronsoro, la Cour d'appel de Pau (France) a refusé de faire droit à une demande d'extradition présentée par l'Espagne au motif qu'on soupçonnait qu'un codéfendeur avait été «torturé» par des agents de police espagnols.

30. The rights proposed will operate so as to strengthen mutual trust and thereby enhance the operation of mutual recognition in all its forms as regards criminal matters. Continuous evaluation and monitoring, if it discloses that standards are adhered to and shows any improvement in areas currently causing concern, will serve to reinforce that trust.

30. Les droits proposés seront appliqués de manière à renforcer la confiance mutuelle et à améliorer ainsi la mise en oeuvre de la reconnaissance mutuelle sous toutes ses formes en matière pénale. Une procédure continue d'évaluation et de suivi, si elle fait apparaître que les normes sont respectées et que la situation s'est améliorée dans les domaines actuellement préoccupants, permettra de renforcer cette confiance.

6. Specific provisions

6. Dispositions spécifiques

6.1. The right to legal advice

6.1. Droit à l'assistance d'un avocat

31. During the consultation period, the Commission researched the Member States' differing arrangements. The rules governing both access to legal representation and its organisation vary from one Member State to another.

31. Au cours de la période de consultation, la Commission a examiné les différentes modalités appliquées par les États membres. Les dispositions régissant l'accès à une représentation en justice et son organisation varient d'un État membre à l'autre.

32. This Framework Decision proposes EU wide agreement that suspected persons be given access to legal advice from a qualified lawyer as soon as possible. At present, some Member States impose a limit on access, have an initial period during which the suspect may not have access to a lawyer ("garde à vue") or preclude the presence of a lawyer during police questioning. Some Member States do not have a formal scheme offering 24-hour access to a lawyer, so that those arrested at night or at week-ends are also denied access, at least on a temporary basis. This Framework Decision proposes that legal advice be an entitlement throughout all the criminal proceedings which are defined as all proceedings taking place within the European Union aiming to establish the guilt or innocence of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence or to decide on the outcome following a guilty plea in respect of a criminal charge.

32. La présente décision-cadre propose un accord à l'échelon de l'UE en vertu duquel les suspects devraient bénéficier d'un accès à l'assistance d'un avocat qualifié dans les plus brefs délais. À l'heure actuelle, certains États membres fixent des limites à cet accès, prévoient une période initiale au cours de laquelle le suspect ne peut avoir accès à un avocat (la «garde à vue») ou interdisent à l'avocat d'être présent au cours des interrogatoires de police. Certains États membres ne prévoient pas de mécanisme formel d'accès à un avocat 24h/24, de sorte que les personnes arrêtées pendant la nuit ou le week-end se voient également refuser l'accès à un avocat, du moins à titre temporaire. La présente décision-cadre propose que le droit à l'assistance d'un avocat soit garanti pendant toute la durée de toutes les procédures pénales, définies comme étant toutes les procédures se déroulant dans l'Union européenne afin d'établir la culpabilité ou l'innocence d'une personne soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction, ou de statuer à la suite d'un plaider-coupable à l'égard d'une accusation pénale.

33. Where the suspected person falls into one of the listed categories of persons who are not able to understand or follow the proceedings or is a minor or is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant or extradition request or other surrender procedure legal advice should be made available. This does not affect a person's right to defend themselves if they choose. Member States should bear the costs of legal advice where those costs represent undue hardship for the suspected person or his dependants.

33. Lorsque le suspect appartient à l'une des catégories prévues - personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure, mineurs d'âge ou personnes faisant l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêt européen ou d'une demande d'extradition ou d'une autre procédure de remise -, l'assistance d'un avocat devrait lui être proposée, sans que cela ne porte atteinte à son droit de se défendre lui-même s'il le souhaite. Il convient que les États membres supportent le coût de l'assistance d'un avocat lorsqu'il constitue une charge excessive pour le suspect ou les personnes à sa charge.

34. This Framework Decision proposes that Member States be required to implement a system for providing a replacement if the original lawyer is found not to be effective.

34. La présente décision-cadre propose d'obliger les États membres à mettre en place un système prévoyant le remplacement de l'avocat initialement choisi si son assistance n'est pas effective.

6.2. The right to free interpretation and translations

6.2. Droit de bénéficier gratuitement de services d'interprétation et de traduction

35. Article 6 (3) of the ECHR lays down the right for a defendant to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The case-law of the ECtHR [23] also makes it clear that the obligation towards the defendant extends to translations of all the relevant documents in the proceedings.

35. L'article 6, paragraphe 3, de la CEDH consacre le droit de toute personne mise en cause de se faire assister gratuitement d'un interprète, si elle ne comprend pas ou ne parle pas la langue employée à l'audience. Il ressort aussi clairement de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme [23] que l'obligation envers la personne mise en cause s'applique également à la traduction de toutes les pièces présentant un intérêt pour la procédure.

[23] Kamasinski v. Austria (judgment of 19 December 1989 A Series N° 168) para74.

[23] Kamasinski c. Autriche (arrêt du 19 décembre 1989, Série A n° 168), point 74.

36. The Commission's research showed that whilst Member States were conscious of this obligation in theory, it was not complied with in full in reality. During police questioning, a qualified interpreter was not always present, with the services of lay persons who have some knowledge of the defendant's language sometimes being used. There were limitations on the documents translated for defendants. Whereas Article 6(3)(e) makes it clear that the obligation is to provide "the free assistance of an interpreter" for a defendant who cannot understand or speak the language used in court, interpreters sometimes appeared to be provided for the benefit of the judge and/or prosecutor, rather than for the defendant. In some instances, the judge's or prosecutor's statements were not interpreted for defendants and the role of the interpreter was limited to interpreting the judge's direct questions to the defendant and his replies back to the judge, rather than ensuring that the defendant could understand the proceedings.

36. Les recherches de la Commission ont fait apparaître que, si les États membres étaient conscients de cette obligation en théorie, ils ne la respectaient pas totalement en pratique. Au cours des interrogatoires de police, un interprète qualifié n'était pas toujours présent, et il était parfois fait appel aux services de non-professionnels ayant certaines connaissances de la langue de la personne mise en cause. Certaines restrictions étaient appliquées concernant les documents à traduire pour les personnes mises en cause. Alors que l'article 6, paragraphe 3, point e), indique clairement que l'obligation est de fournir «gratuitement» les services d'un interprète à la personne mise en cause qui ne comprend pas ou ne parle pas la langue employée à l'audience, les interprètes semblaient parfois être présents dans l'intérêt du juge et/ou du procureur, plutôt que dans celui de la personne mise en cause. Dans certains cas, les déclarations du juge ou du procureur n'étaient pas traduites pour la personne mise en cause et le rôle de l'interprète se limitait à traduire les questions du juge posées directement à la personne mise en cause ainsi que ses réponses au juge, plutôt que de veiller à ce qu'elle puisse comprendre la procédure.

37. The Commission also noted that Member States had difficulty in recruiting sufficient legal/court translators and interpreters. In some Member States, the profession of public service interpreter/translator has official status, with training organised at national level, registration, accreditation and continuous professional development. This is not the case in all Member States. The profession suffers from a lack of status, with translators and interpreters sometimes being poorly paid, not having social benefits (such as paid sick leave and pension rights) and complaining that they are not consulted enough by their counterparts in the legal profession.

37. La Commission a aussi relevé que les États membres éprouvaient des difficultés à recruter suffisamment de traducteurs et d'interprètes judiciaires. Dans certains États membres, la profession d'interprète ou de traducteur pour un service public jouit d'un statut officiel, la formation est organisée à l'échelon national et l'enregistrement, l'agrément et la formation professionnelle continue sont prévus, mais ce n'est pas le cas dans tous les États membres. La profession souffre de l'absence de statut: il arrive que les traducteurs et les interprètes soient mal rémunérés, qu'ils n'aient droit à aucune prestation sociale (comme des congés de maladie rémunérés ou des droits à pension) et qu'ils se plaignent de ne pas être suffisamment consultés par leurs homologues juristes.

38. This is something that the Commission will continue to explore in the hope of finding a solution. It is essential that there are enough translators and interpreters in each Member State to cover the needs of foreign defendants [24].

38. C'est une question que la Commission continuera à examiner en espérant trouver une solution. Il est fondamental que, dans chaque État membre, un nombre suffisant de traducteurs et d'interprètes permette de répondre aux besoins des personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère [24].

[24] See footnote 6 regarding foreign defendants.

[24] Voir la note 6 concernant les personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère.

6.3. Persons who cannot understand or follow the proceedings

6.3. Personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure

39. Certain suspects are in a weaker position than the average person owing to their age or their physical, mental or emotional condition when it comes to understanding or following the proceedings. These persons need specific attention to ensure that their particular rights are respected and to guard against a possible miscarriage of justice.

39. Certains suspects sont dans une position désavantageuse par rapport à la population moyenne, en raison de leur âge, de leur état physique, mental ou émotionnel, lorsqu'il s'agit de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure. Ces personnes doivent bénéficier d'une attention particulière afin de garantir le respect de leurs droits individuels et d'éviter toute erreur judiciaire.

40. Law enforcement and judicial officers should have an increased awareness of the problems of persons who cannot understand or follow the proceedings. They should be required to consider whether the suspected person is in need of specific attention, and if so, they should take the necessary steps to offer that person the appropriate attention.

40. Les agents des services répressifs et judiciaires devraient être sensibilisés aux problèmes des personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure. Ils devraient être tenus d'examiner si le suspect a besoin d'une attention particulière et, le cas échéant, prendre les mesures nécessaires pour offrir à cette personne l'attention qu'elle exige.

41. The nature of the specific attention to be offered will vary according to the situation. For example, children should be accompanied by a parent or appropriate adult during questioning; persons needing medical attention should be provided with a doctor etc. Whilst every situation cannot be set out and provided for in an instrument of this type, the responsibility must be on Member States to ensure that their criminal justice system provides for a specific attention for those suspects and defendants who need it.

41. La nature de cette attention particulière variera selon la situation. Ainsi, les enfants devraient être accompagnés d'un parent ou d'un adulte possédant les qualités appropriées au cours des interrogatoires; les personnes nécessitant une assistance médicale devraient pouvoir bénéficier des services d'un médecin, etc. S'il est impossible de prévoir chaque situation et, pour chacune d'elle, un instrument de ce type, il doit incomber aux États membres de veiller à ce que leur système de justice pénale offre une attention particulière aux personnes mises en cause et aux suspects qui en ont besoin.

6.4. The right to communication

6.4. Droit de communiquer

42. A detained person should be entitled to have family members, persons assimilated to family members and any employer informed of the detention. This can be achieved by having the relevant information communicated on behalf of the detained person if there are concerns about preserving any evidence.

42. Une personne détenue devrait avoir le droit d'obtenir que les membres de sa famille, les personnes assimilées aux membres de sa famille ainsi que son éventuel employeur soient informés de sa détention. Cette information peut se faire en transmettant les renseignements voulus au nom de la personne détenue, si la protection des éléments de preuve pose des difficultés.

43. Where the detained person is a non-national, it may be appropriate for the consular authorities of the person's home state to be informed. Foreign suspects and defendants are an easily identifiable vulnerable group who sometimes need additional protection such as is offered by the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), which provides that on arrest or on detention a foreign national has the right to ask for his consulate to be informed of the detention and to receive visits from consular officials.

43. Lorsque le détenu n'est pas un ressortissant de l'État membre, il peut s'avérer utile d'informer les autorités consulaires de son pays d'origine. Les suspects et personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère constituent un groupe vulnérable aisément identifiable qui a parfois besoin d'une protection supplémentaire comme celle offerte par la convention de Vienne de 1963 sur les relations consulaires, qui prévoit que tout ressortissant étranger arrêté ou placé en détention a le droit de demander à ce que son consulat soit informé de sa détention et de recevoir des visites des fonctionnaires consulaires.

44. Foreign nationals may refuse to see a consular official who is the representative of their government, for example, if they are asylum seekers or refugees fleeing persecution in their State of origin. Those falling into this category may contact representatives from a recognised international humanitarian organisation.

44. Les ressortissants étrangers peuvent refuser de rencontrer un fonctionnaire consulaire représentant leur gouvernement, par exemple, s'il s'agit de demandeurs d'asile ou de réfugiés fuyant des persécutions dans leur pays d'origine. Les personnes entrant dans cette catégorie peuvent contacter les représentants d'une organisation internationale humanitaire reconnue.

6.5. Written notification of rights (the "Letter of Rights")

6.5. Information écrite relative aux droits (la «déclaration des droits»)

45. It is not always the case that suspects, and even sometimes the law enforcement officers questioning them, have full knowledge of the relevant rights. If suspects were properly aware of their rights on arrest there would be fewer allegations of miscarriage of justice and violations of the ECHR. A simple and inexpensive way to ensure an adequate level of knowledge is to require Member States to produce a short, standard written statement of basic rights (the "Letter of Rights") and to make it compulsory for all suspects to be given this written notification in a language they understand at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly before any questioning takes place.

45. Il peut arriver que les suspects, voire, parfois, les agents des services répressifs qui les interrogent, ne connaissent pas parfaitement les droits applicables. Une information correcte des suspects au sujet de leurs droits au moment de leur arrestation permettrait de réduire les allégations d'erreurs judiciaires et de violations de la CEDH. Une manière simple et peu onéreuse d'assurer un niveau satisfaisant de connaissances est d'exiger des États membres qu'ils élaborent une courte déclaration-type écrite, reprenant les droits fondamentaux (la «déclaration des droits»), et de faire en sorte que tous les suspects reçoivent obligatoirement ce document écrit, dans une langue qu'ils comprennent, le plus tôt possible et en tout état de cause avant l'interrogatoire.

6.6. Evaluation and monitoring

6.6. Évaluation et suivi

46. Since the principle of mutual recognition may only be implemented efficiently if there is mutual trust, and since common minimum standards will enhance trust, it is important for any agreed common standards to be respected. The level of compliance should be demonstrably high. In order for each Member State to be confident of the level of compliance in the other Member States, there must be some form of evaluation.

46. Puisque le principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle ne peut être mis en oeuvre efficacement que s'il existe une confiance mutuelle, et puisque des normes minimales communes accroîtront la confiance, il est important que les normes acceptées soient respectées et ce, de manière stricte et visible. Pour que chaque État membre puisse être certain que les normes sont respectées dans les autres États membres, il est indispensable de prévoir un mécanisme d'évaluation, sous une forme ou une autre.

47. Mutual trust must go beyond the perceptions of the governments of the Member States - it must also be established in the minds of practitioners, law enforcement and judicial officers and all those who will administer decisions based on mutual recognition on a daily basis. This cannot be achieved overnight, and cannot be achieved at all unless there is some reliable means of assessing compliance with common minimum standards across the European Union. Evaluation and monitoring should be carried out on a regular, continuous basis and the results should be made available. This will provide a system for ensuring that standards are adhered to and will bring both any improvement and/or deterioration to the notice of the other Member States as well as the European institutions.

47. La confiance mutuelle ne doit pas exister seulement entre les gouvernements des États membres - elle doit aussi être ancrée dans l'esprit des praticiens, des agents des services répressifs et judiciaires et de tous ceux qui rendront chaque jour des décisions fondées sur la reconnaissance mutuelle. Cela ne se fera pas en un jour et ne pourra se faire que s'il existe des moyens fiables de vérifier que les normes minimales communes sont respectées dans toute l'Union européenne. L'évaluation et le suivi doivent se faire sur une base régulière et permanente et les résultats devraient être communiqués. Cela permettra de mettre en place un système garantissant le respect des normes et d'avertir les autres États membres ainsi que les institutions européennes des améliorations et/ou des dégradations éventuelles.

48. It is appropriate that the Commission, as a body charged with making proposals [25] and in the usual course of events with monitoring that Framework Decisions are correctly implemented in the Member States [26], should co-ordinate evaluation and monitoring. The necessary information and data should be provided by the Member States for the Commission to collate. The Commission will, if necessary, delegate the analysis of the information to an outside body such as an independent group of experts.

48. Il convient que la Commission, en qualité d'organe chargé de présenter des propositions [25] et, habituellement, d'assurer le suivi de la transposition correcte des décisions-cadres dans les États membres [26], coordonne l'évaluation et le suivi. Les États membres devraient transmettre les renseignements et données nécessaires à la Commission afin que celle-ci puisse les rassembler. Le cas échéant, la Commission chargera un organisme extérieur, comme un groupe d'experts indépendants, d'analyser ces informations.

[25] Article 34(2) TEU.

[25] Article 34, paragraphe 2, du traité UE.

[26] The usual practice following adoption of a Framework Decision is for Member States to send the Commission details of their implementing legislation and for the Commission to compile a report on implementation for transmission to the Council.

[26] Ordinairement, après l'adoption d'une décision-cadre, les États membres sont tenus d'envoyer à la Commission des renseignements concernant les mesures de transposition et la Commission doit établir un rapport sur la transposition de la décision-cadre et le transmettre au Conseil.

7. Legal basis

7. Base juridique

49. This proposal has a legal basis under Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), as amended by the Treaty of Nice, which covers common action on judicial co-operation in criminal matters.

49. La base juridique de la présente proposition est l'article 31 du traité sur l'Union européenne (traité UE), modifié par le traité de Nice, qui concerne l'action en commun dans le domaine de la coopération judiciaire en matière pénale.

50. Article 31 (1) (c) of the TEU provides for "ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States as may be necessary to improve [judicial co-operation in criminal matters]". Ensuring compatibility can be achieved, inter alia, by providing for some approximation of minimum procedural rules in the Member States so as to enhance mutual trust and confidence.

50. L'article 31, paragraphe 1, point c), du traité UE dispose ce qui suit: «assurer, dans la mesure nécessaire à l'amélioration de [la] coopération [judiciaire en matière pénale], la compatibilité des règles applicables dans les États membres». Il est possible d'assurer la compatibilité, notamment, en prévoyant un certain rapprochement des règles procédurales minimales des États membres afin d'améliorer la confiance mutuelle.

51. The Commission considers that this proposal constitutes the necessary complement to the mutual recognition measures that are designed to increase efficiency of prosecution. A set of agreed procedural rights to ensure equivalent treatment of suspected persons throughout the EU should enable judicial cooperation measures to be applied as efficiently as possible, especially those that envisage surrender of persons or of evidence to another Member State. Any reluctance on the part of the authorities of one State to surrender a national to the judicial authorities of another may be alleviated in this way.

51. La Commission estime que la présente proposition constitue le complément nécessaire aux mesures de reconnaissance mutuelle destinées à accroître l'efficacité des poursuites. Un ensemble de droits procéduraux arrêtés d'un commun accord et visant à assurer un traitement équivalent des suspects dans toute l'UE devrait permettre l'application de mesures de coopération judiciaire de la manière la plus efficace possible, en particulier celles qui prévoient la remise de personnes ou d'éléments de preuve à un autre État membre. Les éventuelles réticences des autorités d'un État membre à remettre un ressortissant aux autorités judiciaires d'un autre État membre pourraient ainsi être apaisées.

8. Explanation of the articles

8. Commentaire des articles

52. Gender neutrality: The terms "he" and "his" are used throughout to refer to the suspected person or the suspected person's lawyer. They are intended to be gender neutral and to cover both male and female suspects and male and female lawyers.

52. Adoption d'une terminologie neutre: la terminologie utilisée dans tout le document désigne le suspect ou son avocat, qu'il s'agisse d'hommes ou de femmes.

Article 1 - Scope of application of procedural rights

Article 1er - Champ d'application des droits procéduraux

53. This Article sets out the scope of application of the Framework Decision. The scope includes all persons suspected in respect of a criminal offence in any proceedings to establish the guilt or innocence of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence, or to decide on the outcome following a guilty in plea in respect of a criminal charge or to rule on any appeal from these proceedings. There is no differentiation between EU national and third country nationals since to offer one group better protection could lead to criticisms of discrimination that would defeat the aim of enhancing trust between the Member States in each other's criminal justice system.

53. Cet article définit le champ d'application de la décision-cadre, qui s'applique à toutes les personnes soupçonnées d'une infraction dans une procédure visant à établir la culpabilité ou l'innocence d'une personne soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction, ou à statuer à la suite d'un plaider-coupable à l'égard d'une accusation pénale ou à la suite d'un recours formé à l'issue de procédures de ce type. Aucune distinction n'est établie entre les ressortissants de l'UE et les ressortissants de pays tiers, puisque le fait d'offrir une meilleure protection à un groupe de personnes pourrait être taxé de discrimination, compromettant ainsi l'objectif de renforcement de la confiance de chaque État membre dans le système de justice pénale des autres États membres.

54. Since the case-law of the ECtHR has clarified that persons being questioned in relation to offences, but not yet formally charged, should be covered by Article 6 ECHR, persons arrested or detained in connection with a criminal charge also come within the ambit of this provision. These rights start to apply from the time when the person is informed that he is suspected of having committed an offence (e.g. on arrest or when the suspected person is no longer free to leave police custody).

54. La jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme ayant précisé que l'article 6 de la CEDH doit s'appliquer aux personnes interrogées au sujet d'infractions, mais non encore formellement mises en accusation, les personnes arrêtées ou placées en détention dans le cadre d'une accusation pénale entrent aussi dans le champ d'application de cette disposition. Ces droits commencent à s'appliquer à compter du moment où la personne est informée qu'elle est soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction (par exemple, au moment de son arrestation ou lors de son placement en garde à vue).

Article 2 - The right to legal advice

Article 2 - Droit à l'assistance d'un avocat

55. This Article sets out the basic right to legal advice for a suspected person if he wishes to receive it. The Article provides that legal advice should be provided as soon as possible. It is important that a suspect benefits from legal advice before answering any questions in the course of which he may say something he later regrets without understanding the legal implications.

55. Cet article définit le droit fondamental à l'assistance d'un avocat dont dispose tout suspect, s'il exprime le souhait d'en bénéficier. Il prévoit que cette assistance doit être fournie le plus rapidement possible. Il est important qu'un suspect bénéficie de l'assistance d'un avocat avant tout interrogatoire au cours duquel il pourrait tenir des propos qu'il pourrait regretter par la suite sans en comprendre les conséquences juridiques.

Article 3 - Obligation to provide legal assistance

Article 3 - Obligation de fournir l'assistance d'un avocat

56. Article 6 (3) (c) ECHR makes it clear that a suspected person has the right to defend himself in person which implies that he is entitled to refuse to be represented by a lawyer. Notwithstanding that right, in certain circumstances it is particularly desirable that the suspected person receives legal advice. Those circumstances are set out in Article 3 and include cases where the suspected person is remanded in custody prior to the trial, or is formally accused of having committed a criminal offence which involves a complex factual or legal situation or which is subject to severe punishment, in particular where, in a Member State, a mandatory sentence of more than one year's imprisonment can be imposed, or is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant or extradition request or other surrender procedure, or is a minor, or appears not to be able to understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition. This provision requires Member States to ensure that every effort is made so that those persons in particular receive legal advice.

56. L'article 6, paragraphe 3, point c), de la CEDH indique clairement qu'un suspect a le droit de se défendre en personne, ce qui implique qu'il est autorisé à refuser d'être représenté par un avocat. En dépit de ce droit, dans certains cas, il est particulièrement souhaitable que le suspect bénéficie de l'assistance d'un avocat. Ces cas sont énoncés à l'article 3: il s'agit notamment des cas dans lesquels le suspect est placé en détention provisoire avant le procès, ou est officiellement accusé d'avoir commis une infraction s'inscrivant dans une situation complexe de fait ou de droit ou passible d'une peine sévère, notamment lorsque, dans un Etat membre, une peine maximale obligatoire supérieure à un an d'emprisonnement peut être infligée, ou fait l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêt européen ou d'une demande d'extradition ou d'une autre procédure de remise, ou est un mineur d'âge, ou semble ne pas pouvoir comprendre ou suivre le contenu ou la signification de la procédure en raison de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel. Cette disposition oblige les États membres à veiller à ce que tout soit mis en oeuvre pour que ces personnes en particulier bénéficient de l'assistance d'un avocat.

Article 4 - Obligation to ensure effectiveness of legal advice

Article 4 - Obligation de garantir l'effectivité de l'assistance d'un avocat

57. This Article provides that Member States should ensure that some check is made that effective advice is given.

57. Cet article dispose que les États membres doivent veiller à assurer un certain contrôle de l'effectivité de l'assistance d'un avocat qui est accordée.

58. The Commission has chosen to specify that only lawyers as defined in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 98/5 EC [27] are employed in this context so as to help to safeguard effectiveness.. If the legal advice offered is not effective, Member States are obliged to provide an alternative [28]. This right, stemming from Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR, has been explained in the case-law of the ECtHR (e.g. in Artico v. Italy).

58. La Commission a choisi de préciser que, dans ce cadre, il est uniquement fait appel aux avocats tels que définis à l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, point a), de la directive 98/5/CE [27] afin de contribuer à garantir l'effectivité de l'assistance fournie. Si l'assistance proposée n'est pas effective, les États membres sont tenus de prévoir une solution de remplacement [28]. Ce droit, découlant de l'article 6, paragraphe 3, point c), de la CEDH, a été explicité dans la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (dans l'arrêt Artico c. Italie, par exemple).

[27] Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998.

[27] Directive 98/5/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 février 1998.

[28] Artico v. Italy May 13, 1980, Series A, n° 37.

[28] Artico c. Italie, arrêt du 13 mai 1980, Série A, n° 37.

59. Since the suspect is not always in a position to assess the effectiveness of his legal representation, the onus must be on the Member States to establish a system for checking this.

59. Comme le suspect n'est pas toujours à même d'apprécier l'effectivité de sa représentation juridique, il doit incomber aux États membres de mettre en place un système de vérification.

Article 5 - The right to free legal advice

Article 5 - Droit à l'assistance gratuite d'un avocat

60. This Article provides that where Article 3 applies legal advice should be provided at no cost to the suspected person if these costs would cause undue financial hardship to himself or his dependants. Member States must ensure that they have in place a mechanism for ascertaining whether the suspected person has the means to pay for legal advice. Under the ECHR, the defendant does not have to prove "beyond all doubt" that he lacks the means to pay for his defence (Pakelli v. Germany [29]). Member States should respect this ECtHR guidance in connection with the assessment of the person's means.

60. Cet article dispose qu'en cas d'application de l'article 3, l'assistance d'un avocat doit être accordée gratuitement au suspect si les frais qu'elle engendre représentent une charge financière excessive pour le suspect ou les personnes à sa charge. Les États membres doivent veiller à l'existence d'un mécanisme permettant de vérifier que le suspect a les moyens de se payer un avocat. Au titre de la CEDH, le défendeur ne doit pas prouver «de manière absolue» qu'il n'a pas les moyens de rémunérer un défenseur (Pakelli c. Allemagne [29]). Il convient que les États membres respectent les orientations données par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme concernant l'appréciation des ressources du justiciable.

[29] Pakelli v. Germany, judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A n° 64 para. 34.

[29] Pakelli c. Allemagne, arrêt du 25 avril 1983, Série A n° 64, point 34.

61. This Article provides that legal advice should be free if the person's means fall below a set minimum. Some Member States operate a means test to establish whether the defendant "has not sufficient means to pay for his defence". Others provide free legal advice to all on the basis that a means test is expensive to operate and that some of the costs can be recovered from the defendant in certain circumstances. Member States are free to operate the system that appears to them to be the most cost effective as long as free legal advice remains available when it is in the interests of justice.

61. Cet article prévoit que l'assistance d'un avocat doit être gratuite si les moyens du suspect sont inférieurs à un seuil donné. Certains États membres appliquent un critère de ressources pour déterminer si la personne mise en cause «n'a pas les moyens de rémunérer un défenseur». D'autres accordent au contraire à toutes les personnes mises en cause l'assistance gratuite d'un avocat, en partant du principe que le critère des ressources est coûteux à appliquer et qu'il est possible de réclamer à la personne mise en cause le remboursement d'une partie des frais dans certains cas. Les États membre sont libres d'appliquer le système qui leur semble le plus efficace par rapport à son coût pour autant que l'assistance gratuite d'un avocat continue d'être accordée lorsque les intérêts de la justice le réclament.

Article 6 - The right to free interpretation

Article 6 - Droit à l'assistance gratuite d'un interprète

62. The assistance of an interpreter or a translator must be free of charge to the suspect. This right is established in the case-law of the ECtHR. In the case of Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, the ECtHR held that it follows from Article 6(3)(b) that for anyone who cannot speak or understand the language used in court, the right to receive the free assistance of an interpreter, without subsequently having claimed back from him payment of the costs thereby incurred [30] must be respected. In Kamasinski v. Austria [31], the ECtHR held that the principle also extended to translation of "documentary material".

62. L'assistance d'un interprète ou d'un traducteur doit être fournie gratuitement au suspect. Ce droit est consacré par la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. Dans l'affaire Luedicke, Belkacem et Koç c. Allemagne, la Cour a estimé qu'il découlait de l'article 6, paragraphe 3, point b), que le droit pour quiconque ne parlant ou ne comprenant pas la langue employée à l'audience d'être assisté gratuitement d'un interprète sans pouvoir se voir réclamer après coup le paiement des frais résultant de cette assistance [30] doit être respecté. Dans l'affaire Kamasinski c. Autriche [31], la Cour a dit pour droit que le principe s'étendait aussi à la traduction des «pièces écrites».

[30] Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany - judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A N°29 para.46.

[30] Luedicke, Belkacem et Koç c.Allemagne, arrêt du 28 novembre 1978, Série A n° 29, point 46.

[31] Kamasinski v. Austria (cited above).

[31] Kamasinski c. Autriche (précité).

63. Member States are under an obligation to provide an interpreter as soon as possible after it has come to light that the suspect does not understand the language of the proceedings. This right extends to all sessions of police questioning, meetings between the suspect and his lawyer and, after charge, occasions when the person's presence is required at court. It is clear from the ECtHR case-law that the obligation to provide an interpreter, which is laid down in the ECHR, is not always respected [32]. Article 6 of the Framework Decision sets out the right, pointing out that it applies "throughout the proceedings".

63. Les États membres ont l'obligation de fournir un interprète dans les meilleurs délais dès qu'il apparaît que le suspect ne comprend pas la langue de la procédure. Ce droit s'étend à toutes les séances d'interrogatoire de police, à toutes les rencontres entre le suspect et son avocat et chaque fois que la présence du prévenu ou de l'accusé est requise à l'audience. Il ressort clairement de la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme que l'obligation de prévoir un interprète, inscrite dans la CEDH, n'est pas toujours respectée [32]. L'article 6 de la décision-cadre prévoit ce droit, en soulignant qu'il s'applique «pendant toute la procédure».

[32] Cuscani v. UK - judgment of 24 September 2002 - is a good example where the Court proposed to rely on the defendant's brother to interpret, which was held to be a violation of Art. 6.

[32] L'arrêt rendu le 24 septembre 2002 dans l'affaire Cuscani c. Royaume-Uni constitue un bon exemple: la juridiction avait proposé de faire appel au frère du défendeur comme interprète, et la Cour a conclu à une violation de l'article 6.

64. This Article covers persons with hearing or speech impairments. Article 6(3) of the ECHR provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed about what he is accused of so that he understands the nature and cause of the accusation. He also has the right to have the assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand the language used in court. This applies also to deaf suspects or people with hearing or speech impairments. Inadequate communication can affect a deaf suspect's chances of receiving fair treatment as regards questioning by law enforcement officers. It also affects his chances of a fair trial. Member States must therefore ensure that police stations and courts provide proper specialised sign language interpreting for deaf suspects. As the consequences of poor or incompetent interpreting can be so serious, it is important that only qualified and experienced sign language interpreters are assigned for court proceedings or police interviews.

64. Cet article s'applique aux personnes présentant des troubles de l'audition ou de l'élocution. L'article 6, paragraphe 3, de la CEDH dispose que toute personne accusée d'une infraction a le droit d'être informée de l'accusation portée contre elle de manière à pouvoir comprendre la nature et la cause de cette accusation. Elle a également le droit de se faire assister d'un interprète, si elle ne comprend pas la langue employée à l'audience. Ce droit s'applique aussi dans le cas de suspects sourds ou souffrant de troubles de l'audition ou de l'élocution. Une mauvaise communication peut compromettre les chances d'un suspect de recevoir un traitement équitable lors de son interrogatoire par les agents des services répressifs, ainsi que ses chances d'avoir un procès équitable. Les États membres doivent donc veiller à ce que les commissariats de police et les juridictions fournissent une interprétation spécialisée et adéquate en langue des signes aux suspects malentendants. Les conséquences d'une interprétation médiocre ou insatisfaisante pouvant être graves, il est essentiel que seuls des interprètes qualifiés et expérimentés en langue des signes soient désignés pour les audiences ou les interrogatoires de police.

65. Some people who are deaf require the services of a lipspeaker. Lipspeakers communicate with deaf people who do not know or use sign language, but who are usually skilled lipreaders. This is also covered in the Article as an alternative.

65. Certains malentendants doivent avoir recours aux services d'un interprète oraliste. Les interprètes oralistes communiquent avec les malentendants qui ne connaissent pas ou n'utilisent pas la langue des signes, mais qui maîtrisent en général la lecture labiale. Cet article prévoit aussi cette possibilité comme solution de remplacement.

Article 7 - The right to free translation of relevant documents

Article 7 - Droit à la traduction gratuite des documents utiles

66. There is a right to translations of relevant material but this right is not unlimited. The ECtHR has ruled that Art. 6(3)(e) ECHR does not require a written translation of all items of written evidence or official documents in the procedure but it has ruled that documents which the defendant "needs to understand in order to have a fair trial" must be translated [33]. The rules on how much material is translated vary from one Member State to the next and also in accordance with the nature of the case. This variation is acceptable as long as the proceedings remain "fair". The onus should be on the defence lawyer to ask for translations of any documents he considers necessary over and above what is provided by the prosecution. Since the conduct of the defence is essentially a matter between the defendant and his lawyer, the defence lawyer is best placed to assess which documents are needed. Consequently, this Article places the onus is on the competent authorities to decide what documents shall be provided in translation but the suspect's lawyer has the right to request further documents in translation.

66. Il existe un droit à la traduction des documents utiles, mais il n'est pas illimité. La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme a dit pour droit que l'article 6, paragraphe 3, point e), de la CEDH n'exige pas la traduction écrite de toute preuve documentaire ou pièce officielle du dossier, mais a considéré qu'il convient de traduire les documents que la personne mise en cause «doit comprendre pour bénéficier d'un procès équitable» [33]. Les règles qui fixent le nombre de pièces écrites à traduire diffèrent d'un État membre à l'autre et selon la nature de l'affaire. Ces différences sont acceptables tant que la procédure reste «équitable». Il doit incomber à l'avocat de la défense de demander la traduction de tout document qu'il considère nécessaire, outre les pièces fournies par l'accusation. La ligne de défense étant pour l'essentiel décidée entre la personne mise en cause et son avocat, l'avocat de la défense est la personne la mieux placée pour apprécier quels sont les documents nécessaires. Cet article dispose donc qu'il incombe aux autorités compétentes de décider quels documents seront traduits, mais que l'avocat du suspect a le droit de demander la traduction de documents supplémentaires.

[33] Kamasinski v. Austria, cited above, para 74.

[33] Kamasinski c. Autriche (précité), point 74.

Article 8 - Accuracy of the translation and interpretation

Article 8 - Fidélité de la traduction et de l'interprétation

67. The standard of interpretation and translation must be good enough to enable the suspect to understand the nature and cause of the accusation.

67. L'interprétation et la traduction doivent être d'une qualité suffisante pour que le suspect puisse comprendre la nature et la cause de l'accusation.

68. Member States must ensure that there is in place within their jurisdiction a system so that lawyers, judges, defendants or anyone else involved in criminal proceedings who becomes aware that the required standard of interpretation has not been met by a particular interpreter or in a particular case may report it so that a replacement translator or interpreter may be provided.

68. Les États membres doivent veiller à mettre en place dans leur ressort un système permettant aux avocats, aux juges, aux personnes mises en cause et à tous les participants à une procédure pénale qui apprennent que le niveau de qualité requis de l'interprétation n'a pas été atteint par un interprète en particulier ou dans une affaire donnée, d'en faire état afin de remplacer le traducteur ou l'interprète.

Article 9 - Recording the proceedings

Article 9 - Enregistrement de la procédure

69. The standard required by the ECHR is that the interpretation be such as to enable the defendant's "effective participation" in the proceedings. If he then makes an application to the ECtHR on the grounds that the interpretation was inadequate and damaging to his effective participation in the proceedings, it is important to have a method of verification of the interpretation. It is therefore incumbent on Member States to ensure that a recording exists in the event of a dispute.

69. La CEDH exige que la qualité de l'interprétation soit telle qu'elle permette la «participation effective» de la personne mise en cause à la procédure. Si la personne mise en cause forme ensuite un recours devant la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme au motif que l'interprétation n'était pas satisfaisante et a compromis sa participation effective à la procédure, il est important de disposer d'une méthode de vérification de l'interprétation. Il incombe dès lors aux États membres d'assurer l'enregistrement de la procédure afin de le produire en cas de litige.

70. The purpose of this provision is to have a method of verifying that the interpretation was accurate and not to challenge the proceedings from any other point of view since this would otherwise lead to preferential treatment of suspected persons who need interpretation. Therefore, the recordings may only be used for that one purpose.

70. Cette disposition vise à la mise en place d'une méthode de vérification de la fidélité de l'interprétation, et non à contester la procédure à d'autres égards, ce qui conduirait à un traitement préférentiel des suspects qui ont besoin des services d'un interprète. L'enregistrement ne doit donc servir qu'à cette seule fin.

Article 10 - The right to specific attention

Article 10 - Droit à une attention particulière

71. This Article provides that Member States shall ensure that a person who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, owing to their age or mental, physical or emotional condition, is offered any specific relevant attention, such as medical attention or the presence of a parent in the case of children. The duty to provide specific attention applies throughout criminal proceedings. This enhanced duty of care is to promote fair trials and to avoid potential miscarriages of justice based on vulnerability. Consultation and replies to the Green Paper have made it clear that identifying these suspects is difficult. The minimum expectation is that law enforcement officers ask themselves the question whether the suspect is able to understand or follow the proceedings, by virtue of his age or mental, physical or emotional condition. Any steps taken as a consequence of this right should be recorded in writing in the suspects' notes.

71. Cet article dispose que les États membres veillent à ce que toute personne incapable de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure en raison de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel bénéficie de l'attention particulière requise, comme des soins médicaux ou la présence d'un parent dans le cas d'enfants. Cette obligation d'offrir une attention particulière s'applique tout au long de la procédure pénale et vise à favoriser les procès équitables et à éviter les éventuelles erreurs judiciaires dues à la vulnérabilité. Il ressort clairement de la consultation ainsi que des réactions au livre vert qu'il est malaisé d'identifier les suspects vulnérables. Le minimum qu'on puisse exiger est que les agents des services répressifs se posent la question de savoir si le suspect est à même de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure, du fait de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel. Les éventuelles mesures prises en vertu de ce droit devraient être mentionnées dans le dossier.

Article 11 - The rights of suspected persons entitled to specific attention

Article 11 - Droits des suspects fondés à bénéficier d'une attention particulière

72. This Article specifies which steps must be taken in accordance with Article 10. In order to verify that the correct procedures have been followed in the case of questioning by law enforcement officers of persons who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, Member States must ensure that an audio or video recording is made of any pre-trial questioning. Any party requesting a copy of the recording in the event of a dispute must be provided with one.

72. Cet article précise les mesures à prendre conformément à l'article 10. Afin de s'assurer du suivi des procédures appropriées en cas d'interrogatoire par les agents des services répressifs de personnes incapables de comprendre ou de suivre la procédure, les États membres veillent à ce qu'un enregistrement audio ou vidéo de tout interrogatoire préalable au procès soit réalisé. En cas de litige, il convient de fournir une copie de cet enregistrement à toute partie qui en fait la demande.

73. Medical assistance should be provided if the suspected person needs it.

73. Une assistance médicale doit être fournie au suspect si nécessaire.

74. A suspected person entitled to specific attention should, where appropriate, be allowed to have a suitable third person present during police questioning in order to provide an additional safeguard of the fairness of the proceedings.

74. Tout suspect fondé à bénéficier d'une attention particulière doit, le cas échéant, être autorisé à obtenir la présence d'un tiers ayant les qualités nécessaires au cours des interrogatoires de police, ce qui constitue une garantie complémentaire du caractère équitable de la procédure.

Article 12 - The right to communicate

Article 12 - Droit de communiquer

75. This Article lays down the right for a person remanded in custody to have his family, persons assimilated to his family or his employer contacted as soon as possible.

75. Cet article confère à toute personne placée en détention provisoire le droit d'obtenir que sa famille, des personnes assimilées à sa famille ou son lieu de travail soient informés dès que possible de sa mise en détention.

76. It is proposed here that if direct communication is inappropriate, communication may be by other channels including the consular authorities or an international humanitarian organisation.

76. Il est proposé, pour le cas où des contacts directs avec ces personnes seraient contre-indiqués, de les informer par d'autres voies, notamment par le canal des autorités consulaires ou d'une organisation internationale humanitaire.

Article 13 - The right to communicate with consular authorities

Article 13 - Droit de communiquer avec les autorités consulaires

77. This Article restates the right to communicate with consular authorities. It places a duty on Member States to ensure that all foreign detainees are able to have the consular authorities of their home State informed of the detention if they so wish.

77. Cet article réaffirme le droit de communiquer avec les autorités consulaires. Il fait obligation aux États membres de veiller à ce que tous les détenus étrangers qui en expriment le souhait puissent obtenir que les autorités consulaires de leur pays d'origine soient informées de leur mise en détention.

78. If a detained suspect does not wish to have the assistance of the consular authorities of his home State, he should be entitled to have the assistance of an international humanitarian organisation. Unless individual Member States decide otherwise, the most suitable international humanitarian organisation offering this type of assistance is the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) whose official functions include visits to detainees [34]. Member States are invited to decide which international humanitarian organisations they recognise so that the concept of "recognised international humanitarian organisation" can be used to correct effect and to prevent recourse to organisations that do not have the approval of the Member State in question.

78. Si un suspect placé en détention ne souhaite pas bénéficier de l'assistance des autorités consulaires de son pays d'origine, il doit avoir le droit de se faire assister par une organisation internationale humanitaire. À moins qu'un État membre en décide autrement, l'organisation internationale humanitaire la plus apte à fournir ce type d'assistance est le Comité international de la Croix-Rouge (CICR), dont les tâches officielles comprennent les visites aux détenus [34]. Les États membres sont invités à choisir les organisations internationales humanitaires qu'ils reconnaissent, de sorte que la notion d'«organisation internationale humanitaire reconnue» puisse être utilisée à bon escient et pour éviter tout recours à des organisations qui n'auraient pas reçu l'autorisation de l'État membre en question.

[34] Extract from ICRC annual report 2002: "[In 2002] ICRC delegates visited 448,063 detainees held in 2,007 places of detention in more than 75 countries. Of this number, 26,727 detainees were registered and visited in 2002 for the first time. A total of 47,205 detention certificates were issued. Detainees who were not individually monitored but nevertheless benefited from ICRC assistance are included in the total number visited."

[34] Extrait du rapport annuel 2002 du CICR: «[En 2002], les délégués du CICR ont visité 448 063 détenus, incarcérés dans 2 007 lieux de détention répartis dans plus de 75 pays. Sur ce nombre, 26 727 détenus ont été enregistrés et visités pour la première fois en 2002. Au total, 47 205 certificats de détention ont été délivrés. Les détenus n'ayant pas fait l'objet d'un suivi individuel mais ayant néanmoins bénéficié de l'assistance du CICR sont compris dans le nombre total de personnes visitées».

79. Member States have a duty towards their long-term non-national residents, particularly if these are refugees. A refugee from the regime in force in his home State will not want the assistance of the consular authorities of that State. Refugees must be able to contact representatives from another State that has agreed to look after their interests [35] or an international humanitarian organisation for this type of assistance [36]. This Article proposes that the right to consular assistance be extended to long-term non-national residents of a Sending state, particularly if they have refugee status. Member States should ensure that this type of assistance is an option available to the suspect.

79. Les États membres ont un devoir envers leurs résidents de longue durée, ressortissants d'un autre État, en particulier s'il s'agit de réfugiés. Un réfugié qui fuit le régime en place dans son pays d'origine ne veut en aucun cas de l'assistance des autorités consulaires de ce pays. Les réfugiés doivent être en mesure de contacter des représentants d'un autre État ayant accepté de veiller à leurs intérêts [35] ou d'une organisation internationale humanitaire fournissant ce type d'assistance [36]. Cet article propose d'étendre le droit à l'assistance consulaire aux résidents de longue durée dans l'État d'envoi, ressortissants d'un autre État, en particulier s'ils ont le statut de réfugié. Les États membres doivent faire en sorte que le suspect ait la possibilité de bénéficier de ce type d'assistance.

[35] Rule 38 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners adopted in 1955 by the UN Congress on the Prevention of crime and the Treatment of Offenders: (1) [...]. (2) Prisoners who are nationals of States without diplomatic or consular representation in the country and refugees or stateless persons shall be allowed similar facilities to communicate with the diplomatic representative of the State which takes charge of their interests or any national or international authority whose task it is to protect such persons.

[35] Le point 38 de l'Ensemble de règles minima pour le traitement des détenus, adopté en 1955 par le premier Congrès des Nations unies pour la prévention du crime et le traitement des délinquants, dispose ce qui suit: «1) [...] 2) En ce qui concerne les détenus ressortissants des États qui n'ont pas de représentants diplomatiques ou consulaires dans le pays ainsi que les réfugiés et les apatrides, les mêmes facilités doivent leur être accordées de s'adresser au représentant diplomatique de l'État qui est chargé de leurs intérêts ou à toute autorité nationale ou internationale qui a pour tâche de les protéger.

[36] Principle 16 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of all Persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment adopted by the UN General assembly in 1988: 1.[...] 2. If a detained or imprisoned person is a foreigner, he shall also be promptly informed of his right to communicate by appropriate means with [...] the representative of the competent international organisation, if he is a refugee or is otherwise under the protection of an intergovernmental organisation.

[36] Le principe 16 de l'Ensemble de principes pour la protection de toutes les personnes soumises à une forme quelconque de détention ou d'emprisonnement, adopté par l'Assemblée générale des Nations unies en 1988, dispose ce qui suit: 1. [...] 2. S'il s'agit d'une personne étrangère, elle sera aussi informée sans délai de son droit de communiquer par des moyens appropriés avec [...] le représentant de l'organisation internationale compétente si cette personne est réfugiée ou est, d'autre façon, sous la protection d'une organisation intergouvernementale.

Article 14 - Duty to inform a suspected person of his rights in writing - Letter of Rights

Article 14 - Obligation d'informer le suspect de ses droits par écrit - Déclaration des droits

80. Article 14 sets out the duty for Member States to ensure that all detained or arrested suspects are made aware of their basic rights by giving them written notification of those rights. The Letter of Rights should be kept available in the official Community languages, either in paper form or on computer so that it can be printed when needed. Member States may assess the need to have available translations into languages commonly encountered in the locality, and the relevant authorities are best placed to know which those languages are for each locality. The Commission proposes that suspects be given a "Letter of Rights" as soon as possible after arrest. The law enforcement officer and the suspect should ideally both sign the Letter of Rights, as evidence that it has been offered, given and accepted. However the Commission is aware of possible reluctance on the part of suspects to sign anything in the police station. The Letter of Rights should be produced in duplicate, with one (signed) copy being retained by the law enforcement officer and one (signed) copy being retained by the suspect. A note should be made in the record stating that the Letter of Rights was offered, and whether or not the suspect agreed to sign it.

80. L'article 14 impose aux États membres l'obligation de veiller à ce que tous les suspects placés en détention ou arrêtés soient informés par écrit de leurs droits fondamentaux. La déclaration des droits devrait être conservée dans les langues officielles de la Communauté, soit sur papier, soit sur support informatique, de manière à pouvoir être imprimée à la demande. Les États membres peuvent apprécier dans quelle mesure la déclaration doit être traduite dans les langues couramment parlées dans la circonscription considérée, et ce sont les autorités compétentes qui sont les mieux placées pour déterminer les langues courantes dans chaque circonscription. La Commission propose la remise d'une «déclaration des droits» aux suspects dès que possible après leur arrestation. L'agent des services répressifs et le suspect doivent, de préférence, signer tous les deux la déclaration des droits, ces signatures étant la preuve que la déclaration a bien été présentée, remise et acceptée. La Commission n'ignore pas, toutefois, les réticences que les suspects peuvent avoir à signer un quelconque document dans les locaux de la police. La déclaration des droits doit être produite en double exemplaire, un exemplaire (signé) étant conservé par l'agent des services répressifs et l'autre exemplaire (signé) étant conservé par le suspect. Il doit être fait mention dans le dossier que la déclaration des droits a été présentée et que le suspect a accepté ou refusé de la signer.

81. Annex A contains a suggested form of common wording for the Letter of Rights. It states the language version so that the suspect can be given the Letter of Rights in a language he understands. It then sets out the basic rights to legal advice, to interpretation, specific attention and consular assistance, if appropriate, as headings to be completed by the Member States.

81. L'annexe A contient une proposition de formules communes à utiliser dans cette déclaration des droits. Elle indique la version linguistique, de sorte que la déclaration des droits soit remise au suspect dans une langue qu'il comprend. Elle énonce ensuite les droits fondamentaux à l'assistance d'un avocat, à l'interprétation, à bénéficier d'une attention particulière et à l'assistance consulaire, le cas échéant, ces différentes rubriques devant être complétées par les États membres.

Article 15- Evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of the Framework Decision

Article 15 - Évaluation et suivi de la bonne application de la décision-cadre

82. It is essential that this Framework Decision is fully evaluated and monitored. Apart from reporting on the proper implementation of its provisions into national legislation, the Commission proposes that regular monitoring be carried out. This is particularly important in the case of legislation that confers rights as those rights are meaningless unless they are complied with. Only regular monitoring will show that there has been full compliance. Additionally, if the Framework Decision is to achieve its stated objective of enhancing mutual trust, there must be public, verifiable statistics and reports showing that rights are complied with so that observers in other Member States (not only in government, but also lawyers, academics and NGOs) may be confident that fair trial rights are observed in each national system. The evaluation and monitoring should be carried out under the supervision of the Commission. An independent team may be employed to carry out the necessary research and analysis.

82. Il est essentiel que la présente décision-cadre fasse l'objet d'une évaluation approfondie et d'un suivi approprié. Outre les rapports sur la transposition correcte de ses dispositions dans le droit national, la Commission propose un suivi régulier. C'est d'autant plus important pour une législation conférant certains droits qui n'ont de sens que s'ils sont respectés. Seul un suivi régulier démontrera que les droits ont été pleinement respectés. De surcroît, pour que la décision-cadre atteigne l'objectif de renforcement de la confiance mutuelle qui lui a été assigné, il convient de disposer de statistiques et de rapports, publics et vérifiables, montrant que les droits sont respectés, de sorte que les observateurs d'autres États membres (non seulement des observateurs de l'administration, mais aussi des juristes, des universitaires et des ONG) puissent être certains qu'il n'est porté atteinte aux droits à un procès équitable dans aucun système national. Cet exercice d'évaluation et de suivi doit être réalisé sous le contrôle de la Commission. Une équipe indépendante peut être chargée des recherches et des analyses nécessaires.

83. In its resolution of 5 July 2001 on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union, the European Parliament recommended that "a network be set up consisting of legal experts who are authorities on human rights and jurists from each of the Member States, to ensure a high level of expertise and enable Parliament to receive an assessment of the implementation of each of the rights laid down notably in the Charter, taking account of developments in national laws, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights and any notable case law of the Member States' national and constitutional courts" [37]. A Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights ("the Network") has been set up and submitted its first report on 31 March 2003. Its tasks include preparing an annual report on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union. In this connection, it is examining compliance with Articles 47 and 48 of the CFREU [38]. Article 47 CFREU provides: "Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice." Article 48 CFREU provides "[...] Respect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed".

83. Dans sa résolution du 5 juillet 2001 sur la situation des droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne, le Parlement européen recommandait «la mise en réseau d'experts faisant autorité en matière de droits de l'homme et de juristes de chacun des États membres pour assurer un degré élevé de compétence, et afin que le Parlement puisse se voir présenter une évaluation de la mise en oeuvre de chacun des droits énoncés notamment par la Charte en tenant compte de l'évolution des législations nationales, de la jurisprudence des Cours de Luxembourg et de Strasbourg ainsi que des jurisprudences marquantes des Cours constitutionnelles et des juridictions des États membres» [37]. Un réseau d'experts indépendants en matière de droits fondamentaux (ci-après «le réseau») a été créé et a présenté son premier rapport le 31 mars 2003. Ses tâches incluent la préparation d'un rapport annuel sur la situation des droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne. À cet égard, il s'assure du respect des articles 47 et 48 de la Charte [38]. L'article 47 de la Charte dispose que «[t]oute personne a droit à ce que sa cause soit entendue équitablement, publiquement et dans un délai raisonnable par un tribunal indépendant et impartial, établi préalablement par la loi. Toute personne a la possibilité de se faire conseiller, défendre et représenter. Une aide juridictionnelle est accordée à ceux qui ne disposent pas de ressources suffisantes, dans la mesure où cette aide serait nécessaire pour assurer l'effectivité de l'accès à la justice». L'article 48 de la Charte prévoit que «[...] Le respect des droits de la défense est garanti à tout accusé».

[37] European Parliament resolution on the situation as regards fundamental rights in the European Union (2000) (2000/2231(INI)).

[37] Résolution du parlement européen sur la situation des droits fondamentaux dans l'Union européenne (2000) (2000/2231(INI)).

[38] OJ C 364 of 18.12.2000.

[38] JO C 364 du 18.12.2000.

84. It could be appropriate to make use of the evaluation carried out by the Network in respect of Articles 47 and 48 of the CFREU and to assess whether this could be a suitable long-term solution. The Commission may subsequently decide upon a different system of evaluation and monitoring. If the Network were to cease to carry out its functions, or to provide the necessary services, or the Commission were to decide upon a different system of evaluation and monitoring, another suitable body could be appointed to analyse the data and information provided by the Member States in accordance with the provisions of the Framework Decision.

84. Il pourrait être utile d'exploiter les résultats de l'évaluation réalisée par le réseau en ce qui concerne les articles 47 et 48 de la Charte et de juger de sa valeur en tant que solution à long terme. La Commission pourrait ensuite adopter un autre système d'évaluation et de suivi. Si le réseau devait cesser ses activités ou cesser de fournir les services nécessaires, ou si la Commission décidait de retenir un système d'évaluation et de suivi différent, un autre organe approprié pourrait être désigné afin d'analyser les données et les informations communiquées par les États membres conformément aux dispositions de la présente décision-cadre.

85. Evaluation and monitoring will benefit all Member States. It will enable them to show other countries that they observe fair trial rights and it will enable them to reassure those implementing the measures of the Mutual Recognition Programme in their home State, should such reassurance prove necessary, that safeguards ensuring equivalent fair trial standards are operated in other Member States. The evaluation shall be for the purpose of general assessment, and decisions of courts will not be examined.

85. L'évaluation et le suivi seront utiles à tous les États membres, en leur permettant de montrer aux pays tiers qu'ils respectent les droits à un procès équitable et de donner l'assurance, pour autant qu'elle soit nécessaire, à ceux qui mettent en oeuvre les mesures du programme de reconnaissance mutuelle dans leur pays d'origine, que les autres États membres accordent effectivement des garanties équivalentes quant à un procès équitable. L'évaluation visera à une appréciation générale, de sorte que l'examen ne portera pas sur la jurisprudence des cours et tribunaux.

Article 16 - Duty to collect data

Article 16 - Obligation de collecte de données

86. In order for the Framework Decision to be monitored, and for the necessary evaluation of compliance to be carried out, Article 16 places an obligation on Member States to collect relevant data and this data must also be analysed in order to be meaningful. Member States must provide relevant statistics, inter alia, as regards the following:

86. Afin de procéder au suivi de la décision-cadre et de s'assurer de son respect, l'article 16 impose aux États membres l'obligation de collecter les données correspondantes et de les analyser. Les États membres doivent fournir des statistiques en la matière, notamment les suivantes:

(a) the total number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal charge, the number of persons charged with a criminal offence, whether legal advice was given and in what percentage of cases it was given free or partly free,

(a) le nombre total de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale, le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction, le point de savoir si l'assistance d'un avocat a été accordée et le pourcentage d'affaires dans lesquelles cette assistance a été totalement ou partiellement gratuite,

(b) the number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal offence and whose understanding of the language of the proceedings was such as to require the services of an interpreter during police questioning. A breakdown of the nationalities should also be recorded, together with the number of persons requiring sign language interpreting,

(b) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale et dont la compréhension de la langue de la procédure était telle qu'il s'est avéré nécessaire de faire appel aux services d'un interprète au cours des interrogatoires de police. Il convient de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et de comptabiliser le nombre de personnes pour lesquelles une interprétation en langue des signes a été nécessaire,

(c) the number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal offence who were foreign nationals and in respect of whom consular assistance was sought. The number of foreign suspects refusing the offer of consular assistance should be recorded. A breakdown of the nationalities of the suspects should also be recorded,

(c) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale qui étaient des ressortissants étrangers et pour lesquelles une assistance consulaire a été demandée. Le nombre de suspects étrangers refusant l'offre d'une assistance consulaire doit être comptabilisé. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition des suspects par nationalité,

(d) the number of persons charged with a criminal offence and in respect of whom the services of an interpreter were requested before trial, at trial and/or at any appeal proceedings. A breakdown of the nationalities and the languages involved should also be recorded,

(d) le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction pénale et pour lesquelles les services d'un interprète ont été demandés avant le procès, au cours du procès et/ou au cours d'éventuelles procédures en appel. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et par langue,

(e) the number of persons charged with a criminal offence and in respect of whom the services of a translator were requested in order to translate documents before trial, at trial or during any appeal proceedings. A breakdown of the nationalities and the languages involved should also be recorded. The number of persons requiring a sign language interpreter should be recorded,

(e) le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction pénale et pour lesquelles les services d'un traducteur ont été demandés en vue de la traduction de documents avant le procès, au cours du procès ou au cours d'éventuelles procédures en appel. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et par langue, ainsi que du nombre de personnes pour lesquelles un interprète en langue des signes a été nécessaire,

(f) the number of persons questioned and/or charged in connection with a criminal offence who were deemed not to be able to understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings owing to age, mental, physical or emotional condition, together with statistics about the type of any specific attention given,

(f) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une infraction et/ou accusées d'une infraction qui ont été considérées comme incapables de comprendre ou de suivre le contenu ou la signification de la procédure en raison de leur âge ou de leur état mental, physique ou émotionnel, ainsi que le type d'attention particulière éventuellement accordée,

(g) the number of Letters of Rights issued to suspects and a breakdown of the languages in which these were issued.

(g) le nombre de déclarations des droits remises aux suspects et la répartition selon les langues dans lesquelles elles ont été remises.

Article 17 - Non-regression clause

Article 17 - Clause de non-régression

87. The purpose of this Article is to ensure that the Framework Decision does not have the effect of lowering standards in Member States. During the consultation phase, representatives of certain Member States expressed concern that this would result from setting common minimum standards. Member States remain entirely at liberty to set standards higher than those agreed in this Framework Decision.

87. Cet article a pour objectif d'éviter que la décision-cadre ait pour effet d'abaisser les niveaux de protection dans les États membres, des représentants de certains États membres ayant, pendant la phase de consultation, exprimé la crainte que la définition de normes minimales communes entraîne pareil effet. Les États membres conservent toute latitude pour définir des normes plus élevées que celles que prévoit la présente décision-cadre.

Article 18 - Implementation

Article 18 - Transposition

88. This Article requires that Member States must implement the Framework Decision by 1 January 2006 and, by the same date, send the text of the provisions transposing it into national law to the Council Secretariat General and the Commission. Six months after implementation, the Commission must submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.

88. Cet article impose aux États membres de transposer la décision-cadre et d'envoyer au secrétariat général du Conseil et à la Commission le texte des dispositions la transposant dans leur droit national avant le 1er janvier 2006. Six mois après la transposition, la Commission présentera au Parlement européen et au Conseil un rapport visant à déterminer si les États membres ont pris les dispositions nécessaires pour se conformer à la présente décision-cadre; le rapport sera accompagné, le cas échéant, de propositions législatives.

Article 19 - Entry into Force

Article 19 - Entrée en vigueur

89. This Article provides that the Framework Decision will enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

89. Cet article précise que la décision-cadre entre en vigueur le vingtième jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.

Annex A - model common wording to be used in the "Letter of Rights"

Annexe A - Formules communes types à utiliser dans la «déclaration des droits»

90. Annex A provides a model for the common wording to be used in the "Letter of rights". It sets out as headings the rights stemming from this Framework Decision and that the Commission considers to be the basic common rights that a suspect should be given on arrest (right to legal advice, right to an interpreter, decision on specific attention, right to communicate with consular authorities for foreigners).

90. L'annexe A contient les formules communes types à utiliser dans la «déclaration des droits». Elle reprend, sous différentes rubriques, les droits découlant de la présente décision-cadre et considérés par la Commission comme les droits communs fondamentaux qui devraient être accordés à tout suspect lors de son arrestation (droit à l'assistance d'un avocat, droit à un interprète, décision relative au bénéfice d'une attention particulière, droit des étrangers de communiquer avec les autorités consulaires).

2004/0113 (CNS)

2004/0113 (CNS)

Proposal for a COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union

Proposition de DÉCISION-CADRE DU CONSEIL relative à certains droits procéduraux accordés dans le cadre des procédures pénales dans l'Union européenne

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Le Conseil de l'Union européenne,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(1) (c) thereof,

vu le traité sur l'Union européenne, et notamment son article 31, paragraphe 1, point c),

Having regard to the proposal of the Commission [39],

vu la proposition de la Commission [39],

[39] OJ C [...], [...], p. [...].

[39] JO C [...], [...], p. [...].

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament [40],

vu l'avis du Parlement européen [40],

[40] OJ C [...], [...], p. [...].

[40] JO C [...], [...], p. [...].

Whereas,

considérant ce qui suit:

(1) The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice. According to the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 and in particular point 33 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.

(1) L'Union européenne s'est donné pour objectif de maintenir et de développer un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice. D'après les conclusions du Conseil européen de Tampere des 15 et 16 octobre 1999, et notamment le point 33 de celles-ci, le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle devrait devenir la pierre angulaire de la coopération judiciaire en matière tant civile que pénale au sein de l'Union.

(2) On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters [41]. The introduction to the Programme of measures states that mutual recognition is "designed to strengthen cooperation between Member States but also to enhance the protection of individual rights" [42].

(2) Le 29 novembre 2000, conformément aux conclusions de Tampere, le Conseil a adopté un programme de mesures destiné à mettre en oeuvre le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions pénales [41]. L'introduction du programme de mesures indique que la reconnaissance mutuelle «doit permettre de renforcer la coopération entre États membres, mais aussi la protection des droits des personnes» [42].

[41] OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[41] JO C 12 du 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[42] OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[42] JO C 12 du 15.1.2001, p. 10.

(3) Implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters presupposes that Member States have trust in each other's criminal justice systems. The extent of the mutual recognition exercise is very much dependant on a number of parameters which determine its effectiveness. [43] These parameters include "mechanisms for safeguarding the rights of [...] suspects" (parameter 3) and "common minimum standards necessary to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition".

(3) La mise en oeuvre du principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle des décisions en matière pénale présuppose une confiance mutuelle des États membres dans leur système respectif de justice pénale. L'étendue de la reconnaissance mutuelle dépend étroitement de plusieurs paramètres qui conditionnent l'efficacité de l'exercice [43]. Parmi ces paramètres, citons les «mécanismes de protection des droits des [...] personnes soupçonnées» (paramètre 3) et les «normes minimales communes nécessaires pour faciliter l'application du principe de reconnaissance mutuelle».

[43] OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.

[43] JO C 12 du 15.1.2001, p. 10.

(4) Mutual recognition can only operate effectively in a spirit of confidence, whereby not only the judicial authorities, but all actors in the criminal process see decisions of the judicial authorities of other Member States as equivalent to their own and do not call in question their judicial capacity and respect for fair trial rights. This is important so as to enhance a general perception of mutual recognition which is positive, and that involves "not only trust in the adequacy of one's partner's rules, but also trust that these rules are correctly applied" [44].

(4) La reconnaissance mutuelle ne peut être efficace que dans un climat de confiance, qui ne saurait être établi que si les autorités judiciaires, mais aussi tous les acteurs de la procédure pénale, considèrent les décisions des autorités judiciaires des autres États membres comme équivalentes à celles de leur propre État et ne mettent pas en cause leur compétence judiciaire et leur respect des droits garantissant un procès équitable. C'est d'autant plus important si l'on veut favoriser une perception générale positive de la reconnaissance mutuelle, ce qui implique une confiance mutuelle en ce qui concerne «non seulement le caractère approprié des règles des partenaires, mais aussi l'application correcte de ces règles» [44].

[44] COM(2000) 495 final, 26.7.2000, p. 4.

[44] COM(2000) 495 final du 26.7.2000, p. 4.

(5) All Member States are parties to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). However experience has shown that, despite the need for such confidence, there is not always sufficient trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States and this notwithstanding the fact that they are all signatories to the ECHR. The rights proposed will operate so as to strengthen mutual trust and thereby enhance the operation of mutual recognition.

(5) Tous les États membres sont parties à la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales (CEDH). L'expérience a toutefois montré qu'en dépit de la nécessité d'une telle confiance, le crédit accordé aux systèmes de justice pénale des autres États membres n'est pas toujours suffisant, bien que tous les États membres soient signataires de la CEDH. Les droits proposés seront appliqués de manière à renforcer la confiance mutuelle et, ainsi, à améliorer la mise en oeuvre de la reconnaissance mutuelle.

(6) The Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States [45] was the first concrete measure in the field of criminal law implementing the principle of mutual recognition. This has been followed by a Framework Decision on orders for freezing property or evidence [46]. Other planned measures in the Programme relate to confiscation orders, financial penalties and transmission of evidence and criminal records.

(6) La décision-cadre du Conseil du 13 juin 2002 relative au mandat d'arrêt européen et aux procédures de remise entre État membres [45] a été la première concrétisation, dans le domaine du droit pénal, du principe de la reconnaissance mutuelle. Elle a été suivie par une décision-cadre relative à l'exécution des décisions de gel de biens ou d'éléments de preuve [46]. Les autres mesures prévues dans le programme précité concernent les décisions de confiscation, les sanctions financières et la transmission d'éléments de preuve et d'extraits du casier judiciaire.

[45] OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.

[45] JO L 190 du 18.7.2002, p. 1.

[46] Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence. OJ L 196 of 2.8.2003, p. 45.

[46] Décision-cadre 2003/577/JAI du Conseil du 22 juillet 2003 relative à l'exécution dans l'Union européenne des décisions de gel de biens ou d'éléments de preuve. JO L 196 du 2.8.2003, p. 45.

(7) The principle of mutual recognition is based on a high level of confidence between Member States. In order to enhance this confidence, this Framework Decision provides certain safeguards to protect fundamental rights. These safeguards reflect the traditions of the Member States in following the provisions of the ECHR.

(7) Le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle se fonde sur un degré élevé de confiance entre les États membres. Afin d'accroître cette confiance, la présente décision-cadre prévoit certaines garanties permettant de protéger les droits fondamentaux. Ces garanties tiennent compte de la manière dont les États membres respectent les dispositions de la CEDH selon leurs propres traditions.

(8) The proposed provisions are not intended to affect specific measures in force in national legislations in the context of the fight against certain serious and complex forms of crime in particular terrorism.

(8) Les dispositions proposées ne visent pas à modifier des mesures particulières relatives à la lutte contre certaines formes graves et complexes de criminalité, notamment le terrorisme, en vigueur au niveau national.

(9) Article 31(1) (c) of the TEU provides for "ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States as may be necessary to improve [judicial co-operation in criminal matters]". If common minimum standards are applied to basic procedural safeguards throughout the European Union, this will lead to increased confidence in the criminal justice systems of all the Member States which in turn will lead to more efficient judicial cooperation in a climate of mutual trust.

(9) L'article 31, paragraphe 1, point c), du traité UE dispose ce qui suit: «assurer, dans la mesure nécessaire à l'amélioration de [la] coopération [judiciaire en matière pénale], la compatibilité des règles applicables dans les États membres». L'application de normes minimales communes aux garanties procédurales fondamentales à travers l'Union européenne permettra d'accroître la confiance dans les systèmes de justice pénale de tous les États membres, ce qui augmentera en conséquence l'efficacité de la coopération judiciaire dans un climat de confiance mutuelle.

(10) Five areas have been identified as appropriate ones in which common standards may be applied in the first instance. These are: access to legal representation, access to interpretation and translation, ensuring that persons in need of specific attention because they are unable to follow the proceedings receive it, consular assistance to foreign detainees and notifying suspects and defendants of their rights in writing.

(10) Cinq domaines ont été retenus comme étant ceux dans lesquels il conviendrait, dans un premier temps, d'appliquer des normes communes. Il s'agit des domaines suivants: accès à une représentation juridique, accès à l'interprétation et à la traduction, bénéfice d'une attention particulière pour les personnes en ayant besoin car incapables de suivre la procédure, assistance consulaire aux détenus étrangers et information par écrit des suspects et personnes mises en cause au sujet de leurs droits.

(11) The package of measures will ensure that the rights of the foreign suspect or defendant are protected even if he does not understand the language of the host country or have any knowledge of the criminal justice system. Ensuring that the rights of foreign suspects and defendants are properly respected will have the dual effect of improving each Member State's perceptions of the justice systems of the other Member States and filter-down consequences for all suspects and defendants.

(11) Grâce à cet ensemble de mesures, les droits des suspects et personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère seront protégés, même s'ils ne comprennent pas la langue du pays hôte ou n'ont aucune connaissance de son système de justice pénale. Garantir le respect en bonne et due forme des droits des suspects et personnes mises en cause d'origine étrangère permettra d'améliorer la perception qu'ont les États membres de leur système judiciaire respectif, d'une part, et aura des conséquences en aval pour tous les suspects et personnes mises en cause, d'autre part.

(12) The right to legal assistance is enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. The provisions of this Framework Decision do not impose obligations on Member States that go further than the ECHR, but merely set out common ways of complying with Article 6 of the ECHR. The moment from when the right to legal advice arises is clarified together with the circumstances in which legal advice should be free. In some cases, the requirement that proceedings be fair dictates that the defendant should receive legal advice, notwithstanding the right to defend oneself. This is laid down in the Framework Decision, together with an indication of which defendants should receive legal advice, that legal advice should be provided by suitably qualified professionals and the fact that the costs of the legal advice should not entail undue hardship for those defendants or their dependants. Member States are therefore required to ensure that the costs of providing legal advice in those circumstances is met in whole or in part by their criminal justice systems.

(12) Le droit à l'assistance d'un avocat est consacré par l'article 6 de la CEDH. Les dispositions de la présente décision-cadre n'imposent aux États membres aucune obligation allant au-delà de ce que prévoit la CEDH, mais se bornent à définir des manières communes de respecter son article 6. Elles précisent le moment à partir duquel le droit à l'assistance d'un avocat prend naissance, ainsi que les conditions auxquelles cette assistance doit être accordée gratuitement. Dans certains cas, l'exigence d'un procès équitable impose que la personne mise en cause bénéficie de l'assistance d'un avocat, indépendamment du droit de se défendre soi-même. C'est ce que consacre la décision-cadre, qui indique aussi quelles personnes mises en cause devraient bénéficier de l'assistance d'un avocat et dispose que cette assistance doit être fournie par des professionnels possédant les qualifications nécessaires et que le coût de cette assistance ne doit pas entraîner une charge excessive pour les personnes mises en cause ou les personnes à leur charge. Les États membres doivent donc veiller à ce que les coûts qu'entraîne l'octroi de l'assistance d'un avocat dans ces conditions soient pris en charge en tout ou en partie par leur système de justice pénale.

(13) The right to free and accurate linguistic assistance - interpretation and translation - for foreigners and, where necessary, for those suffering from hearing or speech impairments is also enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR. The provisions of this Framework Decision do not impose obligations on Member States that go further than the ECHR, but merely set out common ways of complying with Article 6 of the ECHR in accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and of verifying that the interpretation and translation provided is accurate.

(13) Le droit à une assistance linguistique - interprétation et traduction - gratuite et fidèle, accordé aux étrangers et, si nécessaire, aux personnes souffrant de troubles de l'audition ou de l'élocution est également inscrit à l'article 6 de la CEDH. Les dispositions de la présente décision-cadre n'imposent aux États membres aucune obligation allant au-delà de ce que prévoit la CEDH, mais se bornent à définir des manières communes de respecter l'article 6 de la CEDH conformément à la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme, et de vérifier la fidélité de l'interprétation et de la traduction fournies.

(14) The duty of care towards suspected persons unable to understand or follow the proceedings underpins a fair administration of justice. Where the suspected person is in a potentially weak position owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition, the balance of power may lie with the prosecution, the law enforcement and judicial authorities. It is appropriate therefore for those authorities to be aware of any potential vulnerability and to take any appropriate steps, thereby helping to redress that balance. Accordingly, the provisions of this Framework Decision are designed to enhance the position of those persons by laying down certain specific rights.

(14) L'obligation d'accorder une attention particulière aux suspects incapables de suivre la procédure est à la base d'une bonne administration de la justice. Lorsque le suspect se trouve dans une situation de faiblesse potentielle en raison de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel, le rapport de forces peut être favorable à l'accusation, aux services répressifs et aux services judiciaires. Il convient donc que ces services aient conscience d'une éventuelle vulnérabilité et prennent les mesures appropriées pour contribuer à rétablir l'équilibre. Les dispositions de la décision-cadre visent donc à améliorer la position de ces personnes en définissant certains droits spécifiques.

(15) The right for detained persons to have family, persons assimilated to family members and employers informed promptly of the detention is laid down where the proceedings are not jeopardised by such information being passed. The right to have any relevant consular authorities contacted is also laid down. The broader context is that of the detained person's right to have access to the outside world.

(15) Le droit des détenus d'obtenir que leur famille, les personnes assimilées aux membres de leur famille et leur employeur soient informés rapidement de leur placement en détention est prévu, pour autant que la transmission de cette information ne compromette pas la procédure. Le droit de pouvoir contacter les éventuelles autorités consulaires compétentes est également inscrit dans la présente décision-cadre. Ces droits s'inscrivent dans le contexte plus large du droit des détenus à avoir accès au monde extérieur.

(16) The right to consular assistance exists by virtue of Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations where it is a right conferred on States to have access to their nationals. The provisions of this Framework Decision confer the right on the European citizen rather than the State. They enhance its visibility and therefore its effectiveness. That said, in the longer term, the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice in which trust is reciprocated between Member States should reduce and ultimately abolish the need for consular assistance.

(16) Le droit à une assistance consulaire découle de l'article 36 de la convention de Vienne de 1963 sur les relations consulaires, qui accorde aux États le droit d'avoir accès à leurs ressortissants. Les dispositions de la présente décision-cadre confèrent ce droit au citoyen européen et non à l'État. Elles en accroissent la visibilité et, partant, l'effectivité. Cela étant, à plus long terme, la création d'un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au sein duquel la confiance entre les États membres est réciproque devrait réduire et, en définitive, supprimer la nécessité de l'assistance consulaire.

(17) Notifying suspects and defendants of their basic rights in writing is a measure that improves fairness in proceedings, and goes some way to ensuring that everyone suspected of, or charged with, a criminal offence is aware of their rights. If suspects and defendants are unaware of them, it is more difficult for them to insist upon having the benefit of those rights. Giving suspects written notification of their rights, by way of a simple "Letter of Rights", will remedy this problem.

(17) Informer par écrit les suspects et personnes mises en cause au sujet de leurs droits fondamentaux constitue un moyen d'améliorer le caractère équitable de la procédure et contribue, dans une certaine mesure, à faire en sorte que toute personne soupçonnée, prévenue ou accusée d'une infraction ait connaissance de ses droits. Si les suspects et personnes mises en cause les ignorent, il leur est plus difficile d'exiger qu'on les leur accorde. Une information par écrit des suspects au sujet de leurs droits, par l'intermédiaire d'une simple «déclaration des droits», résoudra ce problème.

(18) It is necessary to establish a mechanism to assess the effectiveness of this Framework Decision. Member States should therefore gather and record information for the purpose of evaluation and monitoring. The information gathered will be used by the Commission to produce reports that will be made publicly available. This will enhance mutual trust since each Member State will know that other Member States are complying with fair trial rights.

(18) Il convient de mettre en place un mécanisme permettant de vérifier la mise en oeuvre efficace de la présente décision-cadre. Les États membres devraient donc rassembler et consigner des informations en vue d'une évaluation et d'un suivi. Ces informations seront utilisées par la Commission pour établir des rapports qui seront publiés, ce qui accroîtra la confiance mutuelle, puisque chaque État membre saura si les autres États membres respectent les droits garantissant un procès équitable.

(19) Since the aim of achieving common minimum standards cannot be achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can only be achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this Framework Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.

(19) Comme l'objectif consistant à parvenir à des normes communes minimales ne peut être atteint par l'action unilatérale des États membres et ne peut être réalisé qu'au niveau de l'Union, le Conseil peut adopter des mesures, conformément au principe de subsidiarité tel que visé à l'article 2 du traité sur l'Union européenne et défini à l'article 5 du traité instituant la Communauté européenne. Conformément au principe de proportionnalité tel qu'énoncé par ce dernier article, la présente décision-cadre n'excède pas ce qui est nécessaire pour atteindre cet objectif.

(20) This Framework Decision aims to strengthen the fundamental rights and principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in particular its Articles 47 to 50. It cannot lead to divergent judicial interpretations of the relevant provisions of the ECHR since the reference to fundamental rights in Article 6 TEU is necessarily contingent on their interpretation in the European Court of Human Rights case-law.

(20) La présente décision-cadre vise à renforcer les droits et principes fondamentaux reconnus par l'article 6 du traité sur l'Union européenne et réaffirmés dans la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne, notamment aux articles 47 à 50. Elle ne peut donner lieu à des interprétations jurisprudentielles divergentes des dispositions y afférentes de la CEDH, puisque la référence aux droits fondamentaux à l'article 6 du traité UE suppose nécessairement que soit prise en compte la manière dont la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme les interprète dans sa jurisprudence,

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION

A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DÉCISION-CADRE

on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the european union:

relative à certains droits procéduraux accordés dans le cadre des procédures pénales dans l'Union européenne:

Article 1

Article 1

Scope of application of procedural rights

Champ d'application des droits procéduraux

1. This Framework Decision lays down the following rules concerning procedural rights applying in all proceedings taking place within the European Union aiming to establish the guilt or innocence of a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence, or to decide on the outcome following a guilty plea in respect of a criminal charge. It also includes any appeal from these proceedings.

1. La présente décision-cadre définit les règles ci-après concernant les droits procéduraux à accorder dans toutes les procédures se déroulant sur le territoire de l'Union européenne et visant à établir la culpabilité ou l'innocence d'une personne soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction, ou à statuer à la suite d'un plaider-coupable à l'égard d'une accusation pénale. Les recours formés à l'issue de ces procédures sont également inclus.

Such proceedings are referred to hereafter as "criminal proceedings".

Ces procédures sont dénommées ci-après «procédures pénales».

2. The rights will apply to any person suspected of having committed a criminal offence ("a suspected person") from the time when he is informed by the competent authorities of a Member State that he is suspected of having committed a criminal offence until finally judged.

2. Ces droits s'appliquent à toute personne soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction (ci-après, le «suspect») dès le moment où elle est informée par les autorités compétentes d'un État membre qu'elle est soupçonnée d'avoir commis une infraction et jusqu'à son jugement définitif.

Article 2

Article 2

The right to legal advice

Droit à l'assistance d'un avocat

1. A suspected person has the right to legal advice as soon as possible and throughout the criminal proceedings if he wishes to receive it.

1. Tout suspect a droit à l'assistance d'un avocat dans les meilleurs délais et tout au long de la procédure pénale s'il exprime le souhait d'en bénéficier.

2. A suspected person has the right to receive legal advice before answering questions in relation to the charge.

2. Tout suspect a le droit de bénéficier de l'assistance d'un avocat avant de répondre à des questions relatives aux accusations dirigées contre lui.

Article 3

Article 3

Obligation to provide legal advice

Obligation de fournir l'assistance d'un avocat

Notwithstanding the right of a suspected person to refuse legal advice or to represent himself in any proceedings, it is required that certain suspected persons be offered legal advice so as to safeguard fairness of proceedings. Accordingly, Member States shall ensure that legal advice is available to any suspected person who:

Nonobstant le droit de tout suspect de refuser l'assistance d'un avocat ou de se défendre en personne dans une procédure, certains suspects doivent se voir proposer l'assistance d'un avocat afin de garantir le caractère équitable de la procédure. Par conséquent, les États membres veillent à ce que l'assistance d'un avocat soit fournie au suspect qui:

- is remanded in custody prior to the trial, or

- est placé en détention provisoire avant le procès, ou

- is formally accused of having committed a criminal offence which involves a complex factual or legal situation or which is subject to severe punishment, in particular where in a Member State, there is a mandatory sentence of more than one year's imprisonment for the offence, or

- est formellement accusé d'avoir commis une infraction s'inscrivant dans une situation complexe de fait ou de droit ou passible d'une sanction sévère, notamment lorsque l'infraction est passible d'une peine obligatoire d'au moins un an d'emprisonnement dans un État membre, ou

- is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant or extradition request or other surrender procedure, or

- fait l'objet d'un mandat d'arrêt européen ou d'une demande d'extradition ou d'une autre procédure de remise, ou

- is a minor, or

- est un mineur d'âge, ou

- appears not to be able to understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition.

- semble ne pas pouvoir comprendre ou suivre le contenu ou la signification de la procédure en raison de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel.

Article 4

Article 4

Obligation to ensure effectiveness of legal advice

Obligation de garantir l'effectivité de l'assistance d'un avocat

1. Member States shall ensure that only lawyers as described in Article 1 (2) (a) of Directive 98/5/EC [47] are entitled to give legal advice in accordance with this Framework Decision.

1. Les États membres veillent à ce que seuls les avocats tels que définis à l'article 1er, paragraphe 2, point a), de la directive 98/5/CE [47] aient le droit de fournir l'assistance prévue par la présente décision-cadre.

[47] Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998

[47] Directive 98/5/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 février 1998.

2. Member States shall ensure that a mechanism exists to provide a replacement lawyer if the legal advice given is found not to be effective.

2. Les États membres veillent à l'existence d'un mécanisme prévoyant un avocat de remplacement s'il s'avère que l'assistance fournie n'est pas effective.

Article 5

Article 5

The right to free legal advice

Droit à l'assistance gratuite d'un avocat

1. Where Article 3 applies, the costs of legal advice shall be borne in whole or in part by the Member States if these costs would cause undue financial hardship to the suspected person or his dependents.

1. Lorsque l'article 3 s'applique, les frais engendrés par l'assistance d'un avocat sont supportés en tout ou en partie par les États membres si ces frais représentent une charge financière excessive pour le suspect ou les personnes à sa charge.

2. Member States may subsequently carry out enquiries to ascertain whether the suspected person's means allow him to contribute towards the costs of the legal advice with a view to recovering all or part of it.

2. Les États membres peuvent ensuite rechercher si les moyens du suspect lui permettent de contribuer aux frais de l'assistance d'un avocat en vue de récupérer ces derniers en tout ou en partie.

Article 6

Article 6

The right to free interpretation

Droit à l'assistance gratuite d'un interprète

1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected person who does not understand the language of the proceedings is provided with free interpretation in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.

1. Les États membres veillent à ce que le suspect qui ne comprend pas la langue de la procédure se voie offrir l'assistance gratuite d'un interprète, afin de garantir le caractère équitable de la procédure.

2. Member States shall ensure that, where necessary, a suspected person receives free interpretation of legal advice received throughout the criminal proceedings.

2. Le cas échéant, les États membres font en sorte que le suspect bénéficie de l'assistance gratuite d'un interprète pour les conseils qui lui sont dispensés dans le cadre de l'assistance que lui fournit un avocat pendant toute la procédure pénale.

3. The right to free interpretation applies to persons with hearing or speech impairments.

3. Le droit à l'assistance gratuite d'un interprète s'applique aux personnes présentant des troubles de l'audition ou de l'élocution.

Article 7

Article 7

The right to free translation of relevant documents

Droit à la traduction gratuite des documents utiles

1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected person who does not understand the language of the proceedings is provided with free translations of all relevant documents in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.

1. Les États membres veillent à ce que le suspect qui ne comprend pas la langue de la procédure bénéficie de la traduction de tous les documents utiles afin de garantir le caractère équitable de la procédure.

2. The decision regarding which documents need to be translated shall be taken by the competent authorities. The suspected person's lawyer may ask for translation of further documents.

2. Les autorités compétentes déterminent les documents à traduire. L'avocat du suspect peut demander la traduction de documents supplémentaires.

Article 8

Article 8

Accuracy of the translation and interpretation

Fidélité de la traduction et de l'interprétation

1. Member States shall ensure that the translators and interpreters employed are sufficiently qualified to provide accurate translation and interpretation.

1. Les États membres font en sorte que les traducteurs et interprètes auxquels il est fait appel soient suffisamment qualifiés pour assurer une traduction et une interprétation fidèles.

2. Member States shall ensure that if the translation or interpretation is found not to be accurate, a mechanism exists to provide a replacement interpreter or translator.

2. Les États membres veillent à l'existence d'un mécanisme prévoyant un interprète ou un traducteur de remplacement si la traduction ou l'interprétation ne s'avèrent pas fidèles.

Article 9

Article 9

Recording the proceedings

Enregistrement de la procédure

Member States shall ensure that, where proceedings are conducted through an interpreter, an audio or video recording is made in order to ensure quality control. A transcript of the recording shall be provided to any party in the event of a dispute. The transcript may only be used for the purposes of verifying the accuracy of the interpretation.

Les États membres font en sorte que, lorsque la procédure se déroule par le truchement d'un interprète, un enregistrement audio ou vidéo de celle-ci soit réalisé afin de garantir le contrôle de la qualité. En cas de litige, une transcription de l'enregistrement est fournie aux parties. Cette transcription ne peut être utilisée que pour vérifier la fidélité de l'interprétation.

Article 10

Article 10

The right to specific attention

Droit à une attention particulière

1. Member States shall ensure that a suspected person who cannot understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition is given specific attention in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings.

1. Les États membres veillent à ce que tout suspect incapable de comprendre ou de suivre le contenu ou la signification de la procédure en raison de son âge ou de son état mental, physique ou émotionnel bénéficie d'une attention particulière, afin de garantir le caractère équitable de la procédure.

2. Member States shall ensure that the competent authorities are obliged to consider and record in writing the need for specific attention throughout the proceedings, as soon as there is any indication that Article 10(1) applies.

2. Les États membres font en sorte que les autorités compétentes soient tenues d'examiner si le suspect a besoin d'une attention particulière pendant toute la procédure et d'en faire mention dans le dossier, dès lors que certains éléments donnent à penser que le paragraphe 1 s'applique.

3. Member States shall ensure that any step taken as a consequence of this right shall be recorded in writing.

3. Les États membres veillent à ce que toute mesure prise en vertu de ce droit soit mentionnée dans le dossier.

Article 11

Article 11

The rights of suspected persons entitled to specific attention

Droits des suspects fondés à bénéficier d'une attention particulière

1. Member States shall ensure that an audio or video recording is made of any questioning of suspected persons entitled to specific attention. A transcript of the recording shall be provided to any party in the event of a dispute.

1. Les États membres font en sorte que soit effectué un enregistrement audio ou vidéo de tout interrogatoire de suspects fondés à bénéficier d'une attention particulière. En cas de litige, une transcription de l'enregistrement est fournie aux parties.

2. Member States shall ensure that medical assistance is provided whenever necessary.

2. Les États membres veillent à ce qu'une assistance médicale soit fournie si nécessaire.

3. Where appropriate, specific attention may include the right to have a third person present during any questioning by police or judicial authorities.

3. Le cas échéant, le droit à une attention particulière peut comprendre celui d'obtenir la présence d'un tiers au cours de tout interrogatoire par les services répressifs ou judiciaires.

Article 12

Article 12

The right to communicate

Droit de communiquer

1. A suspected person remanded in custody has the right have his family, persons assimilated to his family or his place of employment informed of the detention as soon as possible.

1. Tout suspect placé en détention provisoire a le droit d'obtenir que sa famille, des personnes assimilées à sa famille ou son lieu de travail soient informés dès que possible de son placement en détention.

2. The competent authorities may communicate with the persons specified in Article 12 (1) by using any appropriate mechanisms, including consular authorities if the suspect is a national of another State and if he so wishes.

2. Les autorités compétentes peuvent informer les personnes visées au paragraphe 1 par toutes les voies appropriées, y compris par le canal des autorités consulaires si le suspect est ressortissant d'un autre État et en exprime le souhait.

Article 13

Article 13

The right to communicate with consular authorities

Droit de communiquer avec les autorités consulaires

1. Member States shall ensure that a detained suspected person who is a non-national shall have the right to have the consular authorities of his home State informed of the detention as soon as possible and to communicate with the consular authorities if he so wishes.

1. Les États membres font en sorte que tout suspect placé en détention qui est ressortissant d'un autre État ait le droit d'obtenir que les autorités consulaires de son pays d'origine soient informées dès que possible de son placement en détention et de communiquer avec elles s'il en exprime le souhait.

2. Member States shall ensure that, if a detained suspected person does not wish to have assistance from the consular authorities of his home State, the assistance of a recognised international humanitarian organisation is offered as an alternative.

2. Les États membres veillent à donner à tout suspect placé en détention qui ne souhaite pas bénéficier de l'assistance des autorités consulaires de son pays d'origine la possibilité de bénéficier de l'assistance d'une organisation internationale humanitaire reconnue.

3. Member States shall ensure that a long-term non-national resident of an EU Member State shall be entitled to have the assistance of the consular authorities of that State on the same basis as its own nationals if he has good reason for not wanting the assistance of the consular authorities of his State of nationality.

3. Les États membres font en sorte que tout résident de longue durée d'un État membre de l'Union européenne qui est ressortissant d'un autre État ait le droit de se faire assister par les autorités consulaires de cet État membre au même titre que les ressortissants de ce dernier si cette personne a une raison valable de refuser l'assistance des autorités consulaires de l'État dont elle possède la nationalité.

Article 14

Article 14

Duty to inform a suspected person of his rights in writing - Letter of Rights

Obligation d'informer le suspect de ses droits par écrit - Déclaration des droits

1. Member States shall ensure that all suspected persons are made aware of the procedural rights that are immediately relevant to them by written notification of them. This information shall include, but not be limited to, the rights set out in this Framework Decision.

1. Les États membres veillent à ce que tout suspect soit informé par écrit des droits procéduraux dont il jouit immédiatement. Cette information inclut notamment, mais pas exclusivement, les droits énoncés dans la présente décision-cadre.

2. Member States shall ensure that a standard translation exists of the written notification into all the official Community languages. The translations should be drawn up centrally and issued to the competent authorities so as to ensure that the same text is used throughout the Member State.

2. Les États membres veillent à ce que cette information écrite fasse l'objet d'une traduction type dans toutes les langues officielles de la Communauté. Les traductions doivent être établies à un niveau centralisé et délivrées aux autorités compétentes afin que le texte utilisé sur tout le territoire de l'État membre considéré soit identique.

3. Member States shall ensure that police stations keep the text of the written notification in all the official Community languages so as to be able to offer an arrested person a copy in a language he understands.

3. Les États membres veillent à ce que les commissariats de police conservent le texte de cette information écrite dans toutes les langues officielles de la Communauté afin d'être en mesure de remettre à toute personne arrêtée une copie de cette information dans une langue qu'elle comprend.

4. Member States shall require that both the law enforcement officer and the suspect, if he is willing, sign the Letter of Rights, as evidence that it has been offered, given and accepted. The Letter of Rights should be produced in duplicate, with one (signed) copy being retained by the law enforcement officer and one (signed) copy being retained by the suspect. A note should be made in the record stating that the Letter of Rights was offered, and whether or not the suspect agreed to sign it.

4. Les États membres rendent obligatoire la signature, tant par l'agent des services répressifs que par le suspect, si ce dernier le souhaite, de la déclaration des droits, ces signatures étant la preuve que la déclaration a bien été présentée, remise et acceptée. La déclaration des droits doit être produite en double exemplaire, un exemplaire (signé) étant conservé par l'agent des services répressifs et l'autre exemplaire (signé) étant conservé par le suspect. Il doit être fait mention dans le dossier que la déclaration des droits a été présentée et que le suspect a accepté ou refusé de la signer.

Article 15

Article 15

Evaluating and monitoring the effectiveness of the Framework Decision

Évaluation et suivi de la bonne application de la décision-cadre

1. Member States shall facilitate the collection of the information necessary for evaluation and monitoring of this Framework Decision.

1. Les États membres facilitent la collecte des informations nécessaires à l'évaluation et au suivi de la présente décision-cadre.

2. Evaluation and monitoring shall be carried out under the supervision of the European Commission which shall co-ordinate reports on the evaluation and monitoring exercise. Such reports may be published.

2. L'évaluation et le suivi sont réalisés sous le contrôle de la Commission européenne, qui coordonne les rapports d'évaluation et de suivi. Les rapports peuvent être publiés.

Article 16

Article 16

Duty to collect data

Obligation de collecte de données

1 In order that evaluation and monitoring of the provisions of this Framework Decision may be carried out, Member States shall ensure that data such as relevant statistics are kept and made available , inter alia, as regards the following:

1. Afin de permettre l'évaluation et le suivi des dispositions de la présente décision-cadre, les États membres prennent les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la conservation et la communication des données correspondantes, telles que des statistiques concernant notamment:

(a) the total number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal charge, the number of persons charged with a criminal offence, whether legal advice was given and in what percentage of cases it was given free or partly free,

(a) le nombre total de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale, le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction, le point de savoir si l'assistance d'un avocat a été accordée et le pourcentage d'affaires dans lesquelles cette assistance a été totalement ou partiellement gratuite,

(b) the number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal offence and whose understanding of the language of the proceedings was such as to require the services of an interpreter during police questioning. A breakdown of the nationalities should also be recorded, together with the number of persons requiring sign language interpreting,

(b) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale et dont la compréhension de la langue de la procédure était telle qu'il s'est avéré nécessaire de faire appel aux services d'un interprète au cours des interrogatoires de police. Il convient de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et de comptabiliser le nombre de personnes pour lesquelles une interprétation en langue des signes a été nécessaire,

(c) the number of persons questioned in respect of a criminal offence who were foreign nationals and in respect of whom consular assistance was sought. The number of foreign suspects refusing the offer of consular assistance should be recorded. A breakdown of the nationalities of the suspects should also be recorded,

(c) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une accusation pénale qui étaient des ressortissants étrangers et pour lesquelles une assistance consulaire a été demandée. Le nombre de suspects étrangers refusant l'offre d'une assistance consulaire doit être comptabilisé. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition des suspects par nationalité,

(d) the number of persons charged with a criminal offence and in respect of whom the services of an interpreter were requested before trial, at trial and/or at any appeal proceedings. A breakdown of the nationalities and the languages involved should also be recorded,

(d) le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction pénale et pour lesquelles les services d'un interprète ont été demandés avant le procès, au cours du procès et/ou au cours d'éventuelles procédures en appel. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et par langue,

(e) the number of persons charged with a criminal offence and in respect of whom the services of a translator were requested in order to translate documents before trial, at trial or during any appeal proceedings. A breakdown of the nationalities and the languages involved should also be recorded. The number of persons requiring a sign language interpreter should be recorded,

(e) le nombre de personnes accusées d'une infraction pénale et pour lesquelles les services d'un traducteur ont été demandés en vue de la traduction de documents avant le procès, au cours du procès ou au cours d'éventuelles procédures en appel. Il convient également de prendre acte de la répartition par nationalité et par langue, ainsi que du nombre de personnes pour lesquelles un interprète en langue des signes a été nécessaire,

(f) the number of persons questioned and/or charged in connection with a criminal offence who were deemed not to be able to understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings owing to age, mental, physical or emotional condition, together with statistics about the type of any specific attention given,

(f) le nombre de personnes interrogées au sujet d'une infraction et/ou accusées d'une infraction qui ont été considérées comme incapables de comprendre ou de suivre le contenu ou la signification de la procédure en raison de leur âge ou de leur état mental, physique ou émotionnel, ainsi que le type d'attention particulière éventuellement accordée,

(g) the number of Letters of Rights issued to suspects and a breakdown of the languages in which these were issued.

(g) le nombre de déclarations des droits remises aux suspects et la répartition selon les langues dans lesquelles elles ont été remises.

2. Evaluation and monitoring shall be carried out at regular intervals, by analysis of the data provided for that purpose and collected by the Member States in accordance with the provisions of this article.

2. L'évaluation et le suivi ont lieu à intervalles réguliers, grâce à l'analyse des données communiquées à cet effet et collectées par les États membres conformément aux dispositions du présent article.

Article 17

Article 17

Non-regression clause

Clause de non-régression

Nothing in this Framework Decision shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights and procedural safeguards that may be ensured under the laws of any Member State and which provide a higher level of protection.

Aucune disposition de la présente décision-cadre ne saurait être interprétée comme limitant les droits et les garanties procédurales qui peuvent être accordés en vertu du droit de tout État membre et procurent un niveau de protection supérieur, ni comme dérogeant à ces droits et à ces garanties procédurales.

Article 18

Article 18

Implementation

Transposition

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by 1 January 2006.

1. Les États membres adoptent les mesures nécessaires pour se conformer aux dispositions de la présente décision-cadre avant le 1er janvier 2006.

2. By the same date Member States shall transmit to the General Secretariat of the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed on them under this Framework Decision.

2. Les États membres communiquent, avant cette même date, au secrétariat général du Conseil et à la Commission le texte des dispositions transposant dans leur droit national les obligations que leur impose la présente décision-cadre.

3. The Commission shall, by 30 June 2006, submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision, accompanied, if necessary, by legislative proposals.

3. La Commission présente au Parlement européen et au Conseil, au plus tard le 30 juin 2006, un rapport visant à déterminer si les États membres ont pris les dispositions nécessaires pour se conformer à la présente décision-cadre, ce rapport étant accompagné, le cas échéant, de propositions législatives.

4. On the basis of the Commission's report the Council shall assess the extent to which the Member States have complied with this Framework Decision as regards implementation.

4. Sur la base du rapport de la Commission, le Conseil apprécie dans quelle mesure les États membres se sont conformés aux obligations de transposition prévues par la présente décision-cadre.

5. Regular evaluation and monitoring of the operation of the provisions of this Framework Decision will be carried out in accordance with Article 15 above.

5. L'évaluation et le suivi réguliers de l'application des dispositions de la présente décision-cadre sont effectués conformément à l'article 15.

Article 19

Article 19

Entry into force

Entrée en vigueur

This Framework Decision shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

La présente décision-cadre entre en vigueur le vingtième jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne.

Done at Brussels, [...]

Fait à Bruxelles, le [...]

For the Council

Par le Conseil

The President [...]

Le président [...]

Annex A

Annexe A

suspect's copy/custody record copy

exemplaire destiné au suspect/exemplaire à verser au procès-verbal de la détention provisoire

Notification of Rights in the [insert language] language

Information relative à vos droits en langue [insérer le nom de la langue]

You, [insert name], are a suspected person in connection with [X criminal offence].

Vous [insérer le nom], êtes une personne soupçonnée de [l'infraction X].

A. Notification of rights pursuant to Council Framework Decision .../.../JAI of ...

A. Information relative à vos droits en vertu de la décision-cadre .../.../JAI du Conseil du ...

European Union law requires all Member States of the Union to guarantee common minimum standards in respect of certain rights. These rights are listed below, together with the national rules which apply these rights and in some cases guarantee additional protection.

Le droit de l'Union européenne fait obligation à tous les États membres de l'Union de garantir des normes minimales communes en ce qui concerne certains droits. Ces droits sont énumérés ci-après, avec les règles nationales qui les appliquent et qui, dans certains cas, garantissent une protection supplémentaire.

1. Legal advice [See footnote [48]]

1. Assistance d'un avocat [voir note de bas de page [48]]

[48] Member States should insert their own text covering the provisions of their national law on this right, including the provisions implementing the common minimum standard under the Framework Decision and any provisions going beyond that minimum standard.

[48] Les États membres doivent insérer leur propre texte indiquant les dispositions de leur législation nationale concernant ce droit, y compris celles qui appliquent la norme commune minimale en vertu de la décision-cadre et toutes dispositions allant au-delà de cette norme minimale.

2. Right to an interpreter [See footnote]

2. Droit à un interprète [voir note de bas de page]

3. Right to translations of relevant documents [See footnote]

3. Droit à la traduction des documents utiles [voir note de bas de page]

4. Specific attention [See footnote]

4. Attention particulière [voir note de bas de page]

5. Communication [See footnote]

5. Communication [voir note de bas de page]

B. Other rights

B. Autres droits

The following rights are guaranteed to you under the national law of the Member State where you are.

Les droits suivants vous sont garantis par le droit national de l'État membre où vous vous trouvez.

[This section is for other rights than those set out in Box A. Member States should insert their own text in this section]

[La présente section concerne les droits autres que ceux qui sont énoncés dans la case A. Les États membres doivent y insérer leur propre texte.]

Signed: // .......................... the custody officer

Signature: // .......................... l'agent responsable du placement en détention provisoire

// .......................... arrested person

// .......................... la personne arrêtée

date:

date:

This letter is produced in duplicate, one copy is to be given to the suspect and one copy kept in the custody record.

La présente déclaration est établie en double exemplaire, l'un étant remis au suspect et l'autre versé au procès-verbal de la détention provisoire.

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

Proposal for a Framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

Extended Impact Assessment {COM(2004)328 final}

Proposal for a Framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union

Extended Impact Assessment {COM(2004)328 final}

1. Introduction

It is important for the judicial authorities of each Member State to have confidence in the judicial systems of the other Member States and in particular in their criminal justice systems. This will be all the more so when there are twenty-five rather than fifteen Member States after 1 May 2004. Faith in procedural safeguards and the fairness of proceedings operate so as to strengthen that confidence. It is therefore desirable to have certain minimum common standards throughout the European Union, although the means of achieving those standards must be left to the individual Member States.

1. Introduction

The Commission has spent more than two years carrying out research and consultation on how EU action in this area can improve the situation, leading to the identification of five areas of concern. The consultation process carried out prior to publication consisted of a Consultation Paper posted on DG-JHA's website in January 2002 to which about 100 responses were received, a questionnaire was sent to the Ministries of Justice of the Member States and an experts' meeting was held in October 2002. After adoption of a Green Paper in February 2003, all respondents were invited not only to submit their comments in writing, but also to attend a public hearing held in June 2003. Over 100 people attended, and there were 40 oral presentations, from practising lawyers, academics, representatives of NGOs and delegates from government departments. The following is a discussion of the Commission's assessment of the different options considered for action in this field as well as their relative merits and potential impacts.

It is important for the judicial authorities of each Member State to have confidence in the judicial systems of the other Member States and in particular in their criminal justice systems. This will be all the more so when there are twenty-five rather than fifteen Member States after 1 May 2004. Faith in procedural safeguards and the fairness of proceedings operate so as to strengthen that confidence. It is therefore desirable to have certain minimum common standards throughout the European Union, although the means of achieving those standards must be left to the individual Member States.

It must be noted however that the impact assessment process started relatively late: policy formulation in the area of procedural safeguards had being underway for more than a year when the decision to carry out this extended impact assessment was taken. Consequently, the influence of impact assessment on the choice of the scope and the alternatives to be proposed was quite limited - it did however add value to the policy design process by usefully assisting in the decision on the most appropriate instrument and on the parameters of intervention. Furthermore, the impact assessment did allow for a more careful consideration of the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposal, in the course of the extensive consultations leading to its formulation.

The Commission has spent more than two years carrying out research and consultation on how EU action in this area can improve the situation, leading to the identification of five areas of concern. The consultation process carried out prior to publication consisted of a Consultation Paper posted on DG-JHA's website in January 2002 to which about 100 responses were received, a questionnaire was sent to the Ministries of Justice of the Member States and an experts' meeting was held in October 2002. After adoption of a Green Paper in February 2003, all respondents were invited not only to submit their comments in writing, but also to attend a public hearing held in June 2003. Over 100 people attended, and there were 40 oral presentations, from practising lawyers, academics, representatives of NGOs and delegates from government departments. The following is a discussion of the Commission's assessment of the different options considered for action in this field as well as their relative merits and potential impacts.

It can therefore be concluded that the impact assessment process has helped in clarifying how could the EU best intervene in this most sensitive area, as well as what results this action would eventually bring about. The issue of where to focus this proposal specifically was influenced by the extended impact assessment to a lesser extent, and had to take other considerations into account.

It must be noted however that the impact assessment process started relatively late: policy formulation in the area of procedural safeguards had being underway for more than a year when the decision to carry out this extended impact assessment was taken. Consequently, the influence of impact assessment on the choice of the scope and the alternatives to be proposed was quite limited - it did however add value to the policy design process by usefully assisting in the decision on the most appropriate instrument and on the parameters of intervention. Furthermore, the impact assessment did allow for a more careful consideration of the potential social, economic and environmental impacts of the proposal, in the course of the extensive consultations leading to its formulation.

2. What issue/problem is the policy/proposals expected to tackle?

It can therefore be concluded that the impact assessment process has helped in clarifying how could the EU best intervene in this most sensitive area, as well as what results this action would eventually bring about. The issue of where to focus this proposal specifically was influenced by the extended impact assessment to a lesser extent, and had to take other considerations into account.

* What is the issue/problem in a given policy area expressed in economic, social and environmental terms including unsustainable trends?

2. What issue/problem is the policy/proposals expected to tackle?

* What are the risks inherent in the initial situation?

* What is the issue/problem in a given policy area expressed in economic, social and environmental terms including unsustainable trends?

* What is (are) the underlying motive force(s)?

* What are the risks inherent in the initial situation?

* Who is affected?

* What is (are) the underlying motive force(s)?

The policy proposal is expected to tackle a number of interrelated and complex issues in the field of procedural safeguards. The table in Annexe n° 1 gives an overview of the main issues to be addressed and the related challenges. It identifies a number of unsustainable economic and social trends, affecting both third-country nationals and the EU at large, which require an appropriate response at EU level.

* Who is affected?

The main challenge is to increase confidence in the criminal justice system of each Member State and to enhance perception of these systems in the eyes of the public, legal practitioners, the media and governments. In view of enlargement, this mutual trust is more important than ever. Indeed, mutual trust is a precondition for all the mutual recognition measures. One example is the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant, since surrendering an own national to another Member State for trial implies a high level of trust in that Member State's judicial system.

The policy proposal is expected to tackle a number of interrelated and complex issues in the field of procedural safeguards. The table in Annexe n° 1 gives an overview of the main issues to be addressed and the related challenges. It identifies a number of unsustainable economic and social trends, affecting both third-country nationals and the EU at large, which require an appropriate response at EU level.

Respect for the procedural rights of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings is an important aspect of mutual trust. The Member States of the EU are all signatories of the principle treaty governing those rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, as are all the acceding countries, so a mechanism for achieving mutual trust is already in place. However, practice shows that within the European Union, there is a lack of consistency in the application of these rights.

The main challenge is to increase confidence in the criminal justice system of each Member State and to enhance perception of these systems in the eyes of the public, legal practitioners, the media and governments. In view of enlargement, this mutual trust is more important than ever. Indeed, mutual trust is a precondition for all the mutual recognition measures. One example is the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant, since surrendering an own national to another Member State for trial implies a high level of trust in that Member State's judicial system.

In the broader context, the Commission has found it useful to launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial. Every Member State recognises this principle as a basic right, but the content differs in practice. We have been able to examine what the minimum requirements for a fair trial are in the minds of different actors in the criminal justice system and in the views of Member States.

Respect for the procedural rights of suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings is an important aspect of mutual trust. The Member States of the EU are all signatories of the principle treaty governing those rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, as are all the acceding countries, so a mechanism for achieving mutual trust is already in place. However, practice shows that within the European Union, there is a lack of consistency in the application of these rights.

The specific challenges in the protection of procedural rights can be classified into five major subdivisions. These are (1) the right to legal assistance and representation, (2) the right to interpretation and translation, (3) the protection of certain potentially vulnerable groups, (4) the possibility for detained persons to communicate their whereabouts to the outside world and for foreign defendants to receive consular assistance and (5) the right to written notification of rights to ensure that each suspect/defendant is aware of his rights (the "Letter of Rights"). Evaluation and monitoring of the situation in the Member States is an essential component in order to achieve common minimum standards and to promote trust.

In the broader context, the Commission has found it useful to launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial. Every Member State recognises this principle as a basic right, but the content differs in practice. We have been able to examine what the minimum requirements for a fair trial are in the minds of different actors in the criminal justice system and in the views of Member States.

Legal advice

The specific challenges in the protection of procedural rights can be classified into five major subdivisions. These are (1) the right to legal assistance and representation, (2) the right to interpretation and translation, (3) the protection of certain potentially vulnerable groups, (4) the possibility for detained persons to communicate their whereabouts to the outside world and for foreign defendants to receive consular assistance and (5) the right to written notification of rights to ensure that each suspect/defendant is aware of his rights (the "Letter of Rights"). Evaluation and monitoring of the situation in the Member States is an essential component in order to achieve common minimum standards and to promote trust.

The key issue is probably that of access to legal advice. The suspect or defendant who has a lawyer is in a far better position as regards enforcement of all his other rights, partly because his chances of being informed of those rights is greater and partly because a lawyer will assist him in having his rights respected. The right of access to legal assistance and representation is prescribed by Article 6 ECHR, and yet the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that there are instances where this right is not complied with in the Member States.

Legal advice

In the Commission's questionnaire to the Member States, there was a question about access to legal assistance and representation. The arrangements in the Member States varied considerably. Differences between Member States appear in organisation, level of qualification required and payment of lawyers.

The key issue is probably that of access to legal advice. The suspect or defendant who has a lawyer is in a far better position as regards enforcement of all his other rights, partly because his chances of being informed of those rights is greater and partly because a lawyer will assist him in having his rights respected. The right of access to legal assistance and representation is prescribed by Article 6 ECHR, and yet the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates that there are instances where this right is not complied with in the Member States.

Moreover, in some Member States, legal advice on arrest is given on a pro bono basis, sometimes by junior inexperienced lawyers, sometimes even by trainees. Lawyers giving legal advice in these circumstances must be competent in order for the proceedings to comply with the ECHR. If there are not enough qualified lawyers prepared to undertake this type of work, this could be in part because the remuneration is not attractive enough.

In the Commission's questionnaire to the Member States, there was a question about access to legal assistance and representation. The arrangements in the Member States varied considerably. Differences between Member States appear in organisation, level of qualification required and payment of lawyers.

Interpretation and translation

Moreover, in some Member States, legal advice on arrest is given on a pro bono basis, sometimes by junior inexperienced lawyers, sometimes even by trainees. Lawyers giving legal advice in these circumstances must be competent in order for the proceedings to comply with the ECHR. If there are not enough qualified lawyers prepared to undertake this type of work, this could be in part because the remuneration is not attractive enough.

Defendants who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings (either because they are non-nationals or because they come from a different linguistic region) are clearly at a disadvantage. There is every chance that they do not have any knowledge of the country's legal system or court procedures. Whatever their circumstances, they are vulnerable as a result of not knowing the language. Consequently, the right to interpretation and translation, which is enshrined in the ECHR, strikes the Commission as particularly important. The difficulty is not one of acceptance on the part of the Member States, but one of levels and means of provision, and perhaps most importantly, concern about the costs of implementation.

Interpretation and translation

Ensuring that persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings receive appropriate attention

Defendants who do not speak or understand the language of the proceedings (either because they are non-nationals or because they come from a different linguistic region) are clearly at a disadvantage. There is every chance that they do not have any knowledge of the country's legal system or court procedures. Whatever their circumstances, they are vulnerable as a result of not knowing the language. Consequently, the right to interpretation and translation, which is enshrined in the ECHR, strikes the Commission as particularly important. The difficulty is not one of acceptance on the part of the Member States, but one of levels and means of provision, and perhaps most importantly, concern about the costs of implementation.

It is part of the Commission's philosophy to try where possible to assist the most vulnerable members of society and this is reflected in its policies and instruments. In the consultation phase, the Commission asked experts whether it was appropriate to require Member States to provide suspects and defendants who were members of society's most vulnerable groups with a higher degree of protection as far as procedural safeguards were concerned. This suggestion was well received but it presents two substantial difficulties: (1) defining "vulnerable groups" and (2) establishing the mechanisms for offering this higher degree of protection. It was therefore decided to use the concept of "persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition".

Ensuring that persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings receive appropriate attention

Communication and consular assistance

It is part of the Commission's philosophy to try where possible to assist the most vulnerable members of society and this is reflected in its policies and instruments. In the consultation phase, the Commission asked experts whether it was appropriate to require Member States to provide suspects and defendants who were members of society's most vulnerable groups with a higher degree of protection as far as procedural safeguards were concerned. This suggestion was well received but it presents two substantial difficulties: (1) defining "vulnerable groups" and (2) establishing the mechanisms for offering this higher degree of protection. It was therefore decided to use the concept of "persons who are not capable of understanding or following the proceedings owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition".

As already seen above in relation to interpreters and translators, one readily identifiable vulnerable group is that of non-nationals, both nationals of other EU Member States and of third countries. Many NGOs identify this group as one that does not always receive equitable treatment. Some considerable protection would be offered by full implementation of the provisions of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Where foreign nationals refuse to see the representative of their government, for example, in the case of asylum seekers and refugees fleeing persecution in their State of origin and who therefore might not expect or want help from their Consulate, a recognised international humanitarian organisation could provide similar assistance.

Communication and consular assistance

It was also noted that detained persons should have a limited right of communication even where they were not foreigners in order to inform their family or place of employment about the detention. Accordingly, a "right to communication" should be considered with use being made of consular authorities to assist in that communication where appropriate.

As already seen above in relation to interpreters and translators, one readily identifiable vulnerable group is that of non-nationals, both nationals of other EU Member States and of third countries. Many NGOs identify this group as one that does not always receive equitable treatment. Some considerable protection would be offered by full implementation of the provisions of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Where foreign nationals refuse to see the representative of their government, for example, in the case of asylum seekers and refugees fleeing persecution in their State of origin and who therefore might not expect or want help from their Consulate, a recognised international humanitarian organisation could provide similar assistance.

Written notification of right - the "Letter of Rights"

It was also noted that detained persons should have a limited right of communication even where they were not foreigners in order to inform their family or place of employment about the detention. Accordingly, a "right to communication" should be considered with use being made of consular authorities to assist in that communication where appropriate.

The research and consultation carried out in the course of preparing this initiative clearly pointed to a problem of ensuring that all suspects have actual knowledge of their rights. It was repeatedly stated that if suspects were properly aware of their rights on arrest, during questioning and in all the phases of the procedure up to and including the trial, there would be fewer allegations of miscarriage of justice and violations of the ECHR. The Commission suggested that a simple and inexpensive way to ensure an adequate level of knowledge was to require Member States to produce an easily understood, written statement of basic rights (the "Letter of Rights") and to make it compulsory for all suspects to be given this written notification in a language they understand at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly before any questioning takes place.

Written notification of right - the "Letter of Rights"

The Letter of Rights would include both common "European" rights and also a section where specific national provisions should be listed.

The research and consultation carried out in the course of preparing this initiative clearly pointed to a problem of ensuring that all suspects have actual knowledge of their rights. It was repeatedly stated that if suspects were properly aware of their rights on arrest, during questioning and in all the phases of the procedure up to and including the trial, there would be fewer allegations of miscarriage of justice and violations of the ECHR. The Commission suggested that a simple and inexpensive way to ensure an adequate level of knowledge was to require Member States to produce an easily understood, written statement of basic rights (the "Letter of Rights") and to make it compulsory for all suspects to be given this written notification in a language they understand at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly before any questioning takes place.

Evaluation and monitoring

The Letter of Rights would include both common "European" rights and also a section where specific national provisions should be listed.

A key condition for successful policy implementation is to improve the tools available for monitoring and evaluation. In order to develop or enhance the effectiveness and credibility of strategies to improve the existing procedural safeguards at national and EU-level, monitoring and evaluation are crucial. Without accurate and comparable data and knowledge about the effectiveness of measures and the extent of the costs, the EU and the Member States are not in a position to know if their policies have the desired outcome. The principle that "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done" applies here since some Member States will be reassured by data and reports showing that Member States are complying wit their obligations. Experience has shown that even one negative report in the media can prejudice the perception of the whole of a Member State's criminal justice system.

Evaluation and monitoring

At present there is a growing demand for evaluation of Justice and Home Affairs measures. Several contributions to Working Group X ("Freedom, security and justice") of the Convention on the Future of Europe have called for evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

A key condition for successful policy implementation is to improve the tools available for monitoring and evaluation. In order to develop or enhance the effectiveness and credibility of strategies to improve the existing procedural safeguards at national and EU-level, monitoring and evaluation are crucial. Without accurate and comparable data and knowledge about the effectiveness of measures and the extent of the costs, the EU and the Member States are not in a position to know if their policies have the desired outcome. The principle that "justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done" applies here since some Member States will be reassured by data and reports showing that Member States are complying wit their obligations. Experience has shown that even one negative report in the media can prejudice the perception of the whole of a Member State's criminal justice system.

Who does the proposal address?

At present there is a growing demand for evaluation of Justice and Home Affairs measures. Several contributions to Working Group X ("Freedom, security and justice") of the Convention on the Future of Europe have called for evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

Given the diversity of the issues to be addressed, a wide range of groups is affected by the proposal, made up of all those who are directly or indirectly involved with the criminal justice system. The main group consists of suspects and defendants, their lawyers and their families, who rely on a fair treatment during the proceedings. Additionally, all the professionals involved in the proceedings will be confronted with the consequences of this policy. This includes police officers, translators and interpreters, judges, prosecutors, social workers, doctors, etc. Witnesses and victims will also be affected indirectly by the proposal. The scope of the policy is very wide, since anyone could be subject to criminal proceedings. Our research disclosed cases where ordinary law-abiding citizens found themselves unwittingly involved in criminal proceedings, occasionally as defendants. Consequently any EU national or national from a third country residing the EU territory is potentially affected, as well as temporary visitors from third countries.

Who does the proposal address?

3. What main objectives is the policy/proposals expected to reach?

Given the diversity of the issues to be addressed, a wide range of groups is affected by the proposal, made up of all those who are directly or indirectly involved with the criminal justice system. The main group consists of suspects and defendants, their lawyers and their families, who rely on a fair treatment during the proceedings. Additionally, all the professionals involved in the proceedings will be confronted with the consequences of this policy. This includes police officers, translators and interpreters, judges, prosecutors, social workers, doctors, etc. Witnesses and victims will also be affected indirectly by the proposal. The scope of the policy is very wide, since anyone could be subject to criminal proceedings. Our research disclosed cases where ordinary law-abiding citizens found themselves unwittingly involved in criminal proceedings, occasionally as defendants. Consequently any EU national or national from a third country residing the EU territory is potentially affected, as well as temporary visitors from third countries.

* What is the overall policy objective in terms of expected impacts?

3. What main objectives is the policy/proposals expected to reach?

* Has account been taken of any previously established objectives?

* What is the overall policy objective in terms of expected impacts?

The overall objectives of EU policy in this area are to enable European citizens to know that they can rely on the criminal justice systems of the Member States to offer protection to suspects and defendants by way of specific guarantees. In this respect, the aim is to ensure that throughout the EU, all persons encounter equivalent fair trial standards in the course of criminal proceedings regardless of the Member State in which those proceedings occur.

* Has account been taken of any previously established objectives?

A more general objective was to launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial and what sort of standards could be considered common to EU Member States. This objective was achieved during the preparation of this proposal: indeed, the Commission's preparation, research and consultation in this area (by way of a Consultation Paper, Green Paper, experts meeting and other debates in various fora) and the publicity these measures were given have encouraged Member States to reflect on their own criminal justice systems. This consideration may help the Commission to clarify the priorities for the future action.

The overall objectives of EU policy in this area are to enable European citizens to know that they can rely on the criminal justice systems of the Member States to offer protection to suspects and defendants by way of specific guarantees. In this respect, the aim is to ensure that throughout the EU, all persons encounter equivalent fair trial standards in the course of criminal proceedings regardless of the Member State in which those proceedings occur.

As described above, the problem to be tackled was split into five main areas for concern: the corresponding five specific objectives targeted by this initiative are set out below.

A more general objective was to launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial and what sort of standards could be considered common to EU Member States. This objective was achieved during the preparation of this proposal: indeed, the Commission's preparation, research and consultation in this area (by way of a Consultation Paper, Green Paper, experts meeting and other debates in various fora) and the publicity these measures were given have encouraged Member States to reflect on their own criminal justice systems. This consideration may help the Commission to clarify the priorities for the future action.

Legal advice

As described above, the problem to be tackled was split into five main areas for concern: the corresponding five specific objectives targeted by this initiative are set out below.

The Commission supports the idea of having national schemes in the Member States that meet common minimum standards so that the general rules on eligibility are applied uniformly throughout one Member State, although of course the details of the provision remain the responsibility of Member States. This would lead to a more equitable system, since all arresting officers would be familiar with the nationally applicable provisions. If these were also explained in writing to arrested persons (see Part 6 - The Letter of Rights - below), this would lead to a situation of greater transparency and increased general awareness of the right.

Legal advice

In the case of newly qualified lawyers or trainees giving legal assistance to arrested persons, and indeed for all lawyers undertaking this work, there should be some form of quality control. This quality control must apply also to the preparation for trial and the trial itself. It would therefore be desirable for the Member States to establish a mechanism for ensuring effectiveness and a complaints system in the event of poor standards.

The Commission supports the idea of having national schemes in the Member States that meet common minimum standards so that the general rules on eligibility are applied uniformly throughout one Member State, although of course the details of the provision remain the responsibility of Member States. This would lead to a more equitable system, since all arresting officers would be familiar with the nationally applicable provisions. If these were also explained in writing to arrested persons (see Part 6 - The Letter of Rights - below), this would lead to a situation of greater transparency and increased general awareness of the right.

The Commission recognises that schemes that provide legal assistance and representation at the State's expense are very costly. Naturally, this begs the question whether the duty extends to those who can afford to pay for some or all of their legal costs and to persons charged with minor offences only. Some Member States apply a means test, such as "earning less than twice the minimum monthly salary" as the threshold for eligibility. Others have no threshold and deem it more expensive to assess the defendant's means than to grant legal aid without a means test. In view of the costs of the system, there might be common standards regarding the level of seriousness of the offence for which free legal representation should be provided, and whether certain trivial offences can be excluded. Then the Member States would retain the discretion to provide assistance that exceeds that agreed common minimum.

In the case of newly qualified lawyers or trainees giving legal assistance to arrested persons, and indeed for all lawyers undertaking this work, there should be some form of quality control. This quality control must apply also to the preparation for trial and the trial itself. It would therefore be desirable for the Member States to establish a mechanism for ensuring effectiveness and a complaints system in the event of poor standards.

Interpretation and translation

The Commission recognises that schemes that provide legal assistance and representation at the State's expense are very costly. Naturally, this begs the question whether the duty extends to those who can afford to pay for some or all of their legal costs and to persons charged with minor offences only. Some Member States apply a means test, such as "earning less than twice the minimum monthly salary" as the threshold for eligibility. Others have no threshold and deem it more expensive to assess the defendant's means than to grant legal aid without a means test. In view of the costs of the system, there might be common standards regarding the level of seriousness of the offence for which free legal representation should be provided, and whether certain trivial offences can be excluded. Then the Member States would retain the discretion to provide assistance that exceeds that agreed common minimum.

In order to comply with the requirements of the ECHR and other international instruments, all Member States should ensure, not only that a competent interpreter is always available where the defendant does not understand the language of the proceedings but also that training, accreditation and registration of legal translators and interpreters is provided.

Interpretation and translation

Cost is often mentioned as a reason why Member States do not fulfil their ECHR obligations in this respect. Member States must make funds available for this purpose. Court interpreters and translators must be offered competitive rates of pay so as to make this career option more attractive. Professional bodies representing translators and interpreters often mentioned the lack of regulation (leading to a lower status for the profession) during the consultation phase. It was deemed important to try to enhance the status of the profession.

In order to comply with the requirements of the ECHR and other international instruments, all Member States should ensure, not only that a competent interpreter is always available where the defendant does not understand the language of the proceedings but also that training, accreditation and registration of legal translators and interpreters is provided.

Protection of persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

Cost is often mentioned as a reason why Member States do not fulfil their ECHR obligations in this respect. Member States must make funds available for this purpose. Court interpreters and translators must be offered competitive rates of pay so as to make this career option more attractive. Professional bodies representing translators and interpreters often mentioned the lack of regulation (leading to a lower status for the profession) during the consultation phase. It was deemed important to try to enhance the status of the profession.

The Commission proposes that there be a general obligation for Member States to ensure that their legal system recognises the higher degree of protection that must be offered to all categories of vulnerable suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. The Commission acknowledges that the assessment of vulnerability can be difficult to make and that simply using a category-based method is not appropriate. The ECtHR considers the legal aid awarding authorities capable of making an assessment of the "personal situation" of defendants in order to decide whether a person is especially vulnerable. Police and law enforcement officers could also be called upon to make this type of assessment. Examples of potentially vulnerable groups are children, foreigners, elderly persons, physically or mentally handicapped persons, persons with a low IQ etc. but this list is indicative and not exhaustive. The Commission suggests that specific and appropriate attention be offered to persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings. The assessment of the "physical, medical or emotional condition" must be made at all relevant stages of the proceedings from arrest onwards.

Protection of persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

Law enforcement officers should consider the question. They should be required to show, by making a written record, that they have assessed the suspect. If a finding that, owing to his age or physical, medical or emotional condition, the suspect cannot understand or follow the proceedings, they should be required to demonstrate that they have taken the appropriate steps (for example obtaining medical assistance, contacting the family, enabling the suspect to inform someone of the detention etc) to provide specific attention. They should be required to make a written note, which can be verified subsequently, of the steps they deemed it necessary to take and confirmation that those steps were actually taken.

The Commission proposes that there be a general obligation for Member States to ensure that their legal system recognises the higher degree of protection that must be offered to all categories of vulnerable suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings. The Commission acknowledges that the assessment of vulnerability can be difficult to make and that simply using a category-based method is not appropriate. The ECtHR considers the legal aid awarding authorities capable of making an assessment of the "personal situation" of defendants in order to decide whether a person is especially vulnerable. Police and law enforcement officers could also be called upon to make this type of assessment. Examples of potentially vulnerable groups are children, foreigners, elderly persons, physically or mentally handicapped persons, persons with a low IQ etc. but this list is indicative and not exhaustive. The Commission suggests that specific and appropriate attention be offered to persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings. The assessment of the "physical, medical or emotional condition" must be made at all relevant stages of the proceedings from arrest onwards.

Once the suspects is charged with a criminal offence, and becomes a defendant facing trial, any potential vulnerability, such as the need for linguistic or medical assistance, should be noted in the court record of the proceedings and in the defendant's custody record if he is kept in pre-trial detention. If it subsequently comes to light that a defendant's relevant age or physical, medical or emotional condition was either not recorded or that if a record was made, it was not acted upon, the Member State in question should provide for some recourse or remedy for the person concerned.

Law enforcement officers should consider the question. They should be required to show, by making a written record, that they have assessed the suspect. If a finding that, owing to his age or physical, medical or emotional condition, the suspect cannot understand or follow the proceedings, they should be required to demonstrate that they have taken the appropriate steps (for example obtaining medical assistance, contacting the family, enabling the suspect to inform someone of the detention etc) to provide specific attention. They should be required to make a written note, which can be verified subsequently, of the steps they deemed it necessary to take and confirmation that those steps were actually taken.

Communication and consular assistance

Once the suspects is charged with a criminal offence, and becomes a defendant facing trial, any potential vulnerability, such as the need for linguistic or medical assistance, should be noted in the court record of the proceedings and in the defendant's custody record if he is kept in pre-trial detention. If it subsequently comes to light that a defendant's relevant age or physical, medical or emotional condition was either not recorded or that if a record was made, it was not acted upon, the Member State in question should provide for some recourse or remedy for the person concerned.

In the normal course of events, a detained person should have the right to basic communication with the outside world so that his family, dependants and place of employment are aware of the detention. Where circumstances require that the detention not become public knowledge (for example where there is a risk of alerting an accomplice still at large or that evidence may disappear) the right to communication will be adapted.

Communication and consular assistance

Where the suspected person is a foreigner, use should be made of the consular authorities of his home State in order to assist with the communication. Proper implementation of the VCCR could be achieved by Member States appointing a dedicated official in each Consulate to cover cases where nationals are accused of crimes while abroad. This consular official could also assist with victims of crime, since they would be required to know the local law and criminal procedure. The consular official could assist in liasing with the family of the accused, with lawyers, with any potential witnesses, with NGOs that offer assistance to prisoners abroad and if necessary in helping to organise special procedures such as appeals for witnesses.

In the normal course of events, a detained person should have the right to basic communication with the outside world so that his family, dependants and place of employment are aware of the detention. Where circumstances require that the detention not become public knowledge (for example where there is a risk of alerting an accomplice still at large or that evidence may disappear) the right to communication will be adapted.

The attraction of this idea is that it would reduce the burden on the Host State and increase the suspect/defendant's chances of getting assistance, especially assistance in a language he understands. Where foreign nationals refuse to see the representative of their government, it should be possible to contact representatives from another State that has agreed to look after their interests or an international humanitarian organisation for this type of assistance.

Where the suspected person is a foreigner, use should be made of the consular authorities of his home State in order to assist with the communication. Proper implementation of the VCCR could be achieved by Member States appointing a dedicated official in each Consulate to cover cases where nationals are accused of crimes while abroad. This consular official could also assist with victims of crime, since they would be required to know the local law and criminal procedure. The consular official could assist in liasing with the family of the accused, with lawyers, with any potential witnesses, with NGOs that offer assistance to prisoners abroad and if necessary in helping to organise special procedures such as appeals for witnesses.

A consular official can provide:

The attraction of this idea is that it would reduce the burden on the Host State and increase the suspect/defendant's chances of getting assistance, especially assistance in a language he understands. Where foreign nationals refuse to see the representative of their government, it should be possible to contact representatives from another State that has agreed to look after their interests or an international humanitarian organisation for this type of assistance.

* a short but simple note on the local legal system covering, for example, preliminaries to trial, trial procedures and serving sentences,

A consular official can provide:

* a list of local lawyers together with details of the availability of legal aid schemes to foreigners,

* a short but simple note on the local legal system covering, for example, preliminaries to trial, trial procedures and serving sentences,

* where appropriate, information regarding interpreters and translators, including informing the detainee of their right to the free assistance of an interpreter at court hearings,

* a list of local lawyers together with details of the availability of legal aid schemes to foreigners,

* a contact point for families of detainees,

* where appropriate, information regarding interpreters and translators, including informing the detainee of their right to the free assistance of an interpreter at court hearings,

* a note on the prison system;

* a contact point for families of detainees,

* details of prisoner transfer schemes, where appropriate;

* a note on the prison system;

* details of any relevant NGO that may be able to offer support.

* details of prisoner transfer schemes, where appropriate;

Thereafter, Consular officials could visit detainees to ensure, inter alia, that the person is not being subjected to degrading or inhumane treatment, or being discriminated against because of his or her nationality.

* details of any relevant NGO that may be able to offer support.

Letter of Rights

Thereafter, Consular officials could visit detainees to ensure, inter alia, that the person is not being subjected to degrading or inhumane treatment, or being discriminated against because of his or her nationality.

It is important for both the investigating authorities and the persons being investigated to be fully aware of what rights exist. The Commission suggests that a scheme be instituted requiring Member States to provide suspects and defendants with a written note of their basic rights - a "Letter of Rights". Since such a measure would significantly improve the position of suspects and defendants, Member States should be required to ensure that they receive a Letter of Rights, and ideally to check that this has been done by way of a written note in the custody record.

Letter of Rights

The European Parliament has reacted favourably to the suggestion of a Letter of Rights and has proposed that a budget line (within the AGIS budget line) be made available for funding research projects to examine what the content of the Letter of Rights should be. The Commission has its own model "Letter of Rights" but further input at a later stage could be useful. Producing such a document should be inexpensive, especially once the initial costs of drawing it up had been met.

It is important for both the investigating authorities and the persons being investigated to be fully aware of what rights exist. The Commission suggests that a scheme be instituted requiring Member States to provide suspects and defendants with a written note of their basic rights - a "Letter of Rights". Since such a measure would significantly improve the position of suspects and defendants, Member States should be required to ensure that they receive a Letter of Rights, and ideally to check that this has been done by way of a written note in the custody record.

The Letter of Rights should have two parts, one for "European" rights under the proposed Framework Decision, and one part where MS should set out what national provisions exist to safeguard the rights of suspected persons.

The European Parliament has reacted favourably to the suggestion of a Letter of Rights and has proposed that a budget line (within the AGIS budget line) be made available for funding research projects to examine what the content of the Letter of Rights should be. The Commission has its own model "Letter of Rights" but further input at a later stage could be useful. Producing such a document should be inexpensive, especially once the initial costs of drawing it up had been met.

Evaluation and monitoring

The Letter of Rights should have two parts, one for "European" rights under the proposed Framework Decision, and one part where MS should set out what national provisions exist to safeguard the rights of suspected persons.

Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Antonio Vitorino favours "enhancing[...], evaluation and monitoring mechanisms to check the real application of Union legislation at operational level" [49]. Other suggestions are an early warning mechanism for breaches of fundamental rights [50] and evaluation together with a greater involvement on the part of the ECJ.

Evaluation and monitoring

[49] Working Group X "Freedom, Security and justice", WD 17, 15 November 2002.

Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Antonio Vitorino favours "enhancing[...], evaluation and monitoring mechanisms to check the real application of Union legislation at operational level" [49]. Other suggestions are an early warning mechanism for breaches of fundamental rights [50] and evaluation together with a greater involvement on the part of the ECJ.

[50] Working Group X "Freedom, Security and Justice", WD 13, 15 November 2002

[49] Working Group X "Freedom, Security and justice", WD 17, 15 November 2002.

This initiative must be accompanied with a thorough and reliable method of evaluation and monitoring since without that, and the concomitant reports, Member States cannot be offered the reassurance about other Member States' justice systems that forms the foundation of mutual trust.

[50] Working Group X "Freedom, Security and Justice", WD 13, 15 November 2002

4. What are the main policy options available to reach the objective?

This initiative must be accompanied with a thorough and reliable method of evaluation and monitoring since without that, and the concomitant reports, Member States cannot be offered the reassurance about other Member States' justice systems that forms the foundation of mutual trust.

* What is the basic approach to reach the objective?

4. What are the main policy options available to reach the objective?

* Which policy instruments have been considered?

* What is the basic approach to reach the objective?

* What are the trade-offs associated with the proposed option?

* Which policy instruments have been considered?

* What "designs" and "stringency levels" have been considered?

* What are the trade-offs associated with the proposed option?

* Which options have been discarded at an early stage?

* What "designs" and "stringency levels" have been considered?

* How are subsidiarity and proportionality taken into account?

* Which options have been discarded at an early stage?

Proportionality and subsidiarity

* How are subsidiarity and proportionality taken into account?

It is appropriate to consider the argument that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality dictate that Member States should be entitled to exercise autonomy in this area and that action at EU level should not go beyond what is necessary. Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (which applies here by virtue of Article 2 of the TEU) provides:

Proportionality and subsidiarity

"The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.

It is appropriate to consider the argument that the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality dictate that Member States should be entitled to exercise autonomy in this area and that action at EU level should not go beyond what is necessary. Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (which applies here by virtue of Article 2 of the TEU) provides:

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.

"The Community shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.

Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."

In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.

The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that, if action is taken at EU level, it is justified, having regard to the options available at national, regional or local level. This means that the EU should not take action unless to do so would clearly be more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the EU should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty. The measure adopted must be the least restrictive that could be adopted in the circumstances and the ends must justify the means.

Any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of this Treaty."

The Commission considers that in this area only action at the EU level can be effective in ensuring common standards. To date, the Member States have complied only on a national basis with their fair trial obligations, deriving principally from the ECHR. This has led to discrepancies in the levels of safeguards in operation in the different Member States. It has also led to speculation about standards in other Member States and on occasion, there have been accusations of deficiencies in the criminal justice system of one Member State in the press and media of another. This could be remedied by the adoption of common minimum standards. However, any Commission proposals would take account of national specificities. The Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [51] states that: "the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to all aspects of the Union's action, is of particular relevance to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice".

The subsidiarity principle is intended to ensure that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen and that, if action is taken at EU level, it is justified, having regard to the options available at national, regional or local level. This means that the EU should not take action unless to do so would clearly be more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level. It is closely bound up with the principles of proportionality and necessity, which require that any action by the EU should not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty. The measure adopted must be the least restrictive that could be adopted in the circumstances and the ends must justify the means.

[51] OJ C 19/1 of 23.1.1999

The Commission considers that in this area only action at the EU level can be effective in ensuring common standards. To date, the Member States have complied only on a national basis with their fair trial obligations, deriving principally from the ECHR. This has led to discrepancies in the levels of safeguards in operation in the different Member States. It has also led to speculation about standards in other Member States and on occasion, there have been accusations of deficiencies in the criminal justice system of one Member State in the press and media of another. This could be remedied by the adoption of common minimum standards. However, any Commission proposals would take account of national specificities. The Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice [51] states that: "the principle of subsidiarity, which applies to all aspects of the Union's action, is of particular relevance to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice".

Great care will be taken not to encroach on matters that remain best covered at the national or regional level.

[51] OJ C 19/1 of 23.1.1999

As regards the specific objectives of the TEU, which form the legal basis and the justification for this initiative, the relevant provisions are:

Great care will be taken not to encroach on matters that remain best covered at the national or regional level.

Article 31 TEU:

As regards the specific objectives of the TEU, which form the legal basis and the justification for this initiative, the relevant provisions are:

"Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:

Article 31 TEU:

(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;

"Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:

[..]

(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;

(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such co-operation;[...]" which must be balanced against:

[..]

Article 33 TEU:

(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such co-operation;[...]" which must be balanced against:

"This Title [Title VI] shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon the Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security".

Article 33 TEU:

The Commission takes the view that "ensuring compatibility" between the Member States is of paramount importance and that this can only be achieved by action at the EU level.

"This Title [Title VI] shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon the Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security".

However, some Member States informed the Commission during the consultation phase that they consider that this measure infringes the subsidiarity principle and that the organisation of the criminal justice system remains a matter of sovereignty. The Member States taking that view point to the existence of the ECHR as an instrument that sets the "common minimum standards" and argue that Member States are free to decide how to implement that convention in their domestic legislation. They consider that the European Court of Human Rights offers sufficient remedy to those whose fair trial rights have been violated. Some Member States also contend that setting common minimum standards at EU level will lead to a lowering in standards in some countries as certain countries will interpret EU legislation as authority to treat "minimum standards" as sufficient.

The Commission takes the view that "ensuring compatibility" between the Member States is of paramount importance and that this can only be achieved by action at the EU level.

Policy options

However, some Member States informed the Commission during the consultation phase that they consider that this measure infringes the subsidiarity principle and that the organisation of the criminal justice system remains a matter of sovereignty. The Member States taking that view point to the existence of the ECHR as an instrument that sets the "common minimum standards" and argue that Member States are free to decide how to implement that convention in their domestic legislation. They consider that the European Court of Human Rights offers sufficient remedy to those whose fair trial rights have been violated. Some Member States also contend that setting common minimum standards at EU level will lead to a lowering in standards in some countries as certain countries will interpret EU legislation as authority to treat "minimum standards" as sufficient.

1) No policy change

Policy options

The first option considered would be to do nothing and carry on with the existing, purely nationally based safeguards and the safety net of the ECHR and European Court of Human Rights.

1) No policy change

More and more people are travelling, living or studying abroad and are therefore potential suspects and defendants and also potential victims of crimes committed in a country other than their own. Given the tendency towards greater movement of persons, the no-policy change option would lead to the increased involvement of foreigners in criminal proceedings and the concomitant potentially insufficient protection of foreign suspects and defendants. A lack in consistency of procedural safeguards and the lack of a relevant instrument means that the EU would be unable to protect them adequately against unfair treatment. Since any EU citizen or third country national could, even unwittingly, become involved in criminal proceedings while residing in another country, it is important to ensure that he receives treatment equivalent to that received in his home country.

The first option considered would be to do nothing and carry on with the existing, purely nationally based safeguards and the safety net of the ECHR and European Court of Human Rights.

Consequently, the no-policy change option could also have negative economic impact for the EU as whole. People might be deterred from moving to other Member States for employment purposes (or to a lesser extent, tourism) if they risk criminal procedures which they fear would not be equivalent to their own, should they find themselves involved in criminal proceedings. Moreover, the perceived potential negative impacts stemming from the measures in the Mutual Recognition Programme, and the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in particular, would stay unsolved. (See section 5.1. below.)

More and more people are travelling, living or studying abroad and are therefore potential suspects and defendants and also potential victims of crimes committed in a country other than their own. Given the tendency towards greater movement of persons, the no-policy change option would lead to the increased involvement of foreigners in criminal proceedings and the concomitant potentially insufficient protection of foreign suspects and defendants. A lack in consistency of procedural safeguards and the lack of a relevant instrument means that the EU would be unable to protect them adequately against unfair treatment. Since any EU citizen or third country national could, even unwittingly, become involved in criminal proceedings while residing in another country, it is important to ensure that he receives treatment equivalent to that received in his home country.

The EU has sometimes been accused of being too "prosecution oriented" and of emphasising the "security" side of the equation at the expense of the "justice" side. It is important to dispel this misconception. A no-policy option in this specific field would give the wrong message. It should be noted that this is not a cosmetic exercise to answer the Commission's critics. There has been a very real commitment to a measure of this sort, and to ensuring a fair balance between prosecution and defence since Tampere. This measure has involved a lot of research and consultation, which is why it has taken longer than some "prosecution oriented" measures but this does not illustrate a lesser commitment to protecting defence rights.

Consequently, the no-policy change option could also have negative economic impact for the EU as whole. People might be deterred from moving to other Member States for employment purposes (or to a lesser extent, tourism) if they risk criminal procedures which they fear would not be equivalent to their own, should they find themselves involved in criminal proceedings. Moreover, the perceived potential negative impacts stemming from the measures in the Mutual Recognition Programme, and the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant in particular, would stay unsolved. (See section 5.1. below.)

Finally, enthusiasm in the media, from practitioners' organisations, the European Parliament and other quarters was such that the no-policy option could have led to charges of the EU, having floated the idea of this measure, defaulting on its duty if the Commission did not follow up with a proposal.

The EU has sometimes been accused of being too "prosecution oriented" and of emphasising the "security" side of the equation at the expense of the "justice" side. It is important to dispel this misconception. A no-policy option in this specific field would give the wrong message. It should be noted that this is not a cosmetic exercise to answer the Commission's critics. There has been a very real commitment to a measure of this sort, and to ensuring a fair balance between prosecution and defence since Tampere. This measure has involved a lot of research and consultation, which is why it has taken longer than some "prosecution oriented" measures but this does not illustrate a lesser commitment to protecting defence rights.

Hence, for all the reasons set out above, the no-policy change scenario was ruled out.

Finally, enthusiasm in the media, from practitioners' organisations, the European Parliament and other quarters was such that the no-policy option could have led to charges of the EU, having floated the idea of this measure, defaulting on its duty if the Commission did not follow up with a proposal.

2) A wide-ranging proposal

Hence, for all the reasons set out above, the no-policy change scenario was ruled out.

A second option consists in creating a wide-ranging instrument that covers all the different aspects tackled in the initial Consultation Paper (about 20 different potential components of a "fair trial"). This would embrace the standards to be applied throughout the EU in criminal proceedings, from the moment an individual first becomes a suspect, throughout the investigation, trial and the post-trial period (detention or other sanction, and any appeal). As well as procedural safeguards, it could cover very wide-ranging issues such as the right to bail, fairness in handling evidence, the ne bis in idem principle and the protection of victims.

2) A wide-ranging proposal

However, the wide scope of the instrument would make it unwieldy. Owing to the breadth and the potential scope of such a proposal, the necessary policy design and indeed decision-making processes would be extremely lengthy. Moreover, the subjects would be too disparate to unite in one instrument. In the same way that several instruments are needed to implement the prosecution oriented measures of the Mutual Recognition Programme, it is also the case that defence rights need to be tackled in a logical and structured way, taking topics that are related to each other in a single instrument, and topics that stand alone separately. Explaining why action is justified at EU level for each of the different areas of defence rights can involve different arguments. It is therefore politically easier as well as logistically simpler to make the proposals in a series of stages with rights that are consistent with each other presented in a single instrument and unrelated rights presented separately.

A second option consists in creating a wide-ranging instrument that covers all the different aspects tackled in the initial Consultation Paper (about 20 different potential components of a "fair trial"). This would embrace the standards to be applied throughout the EU in criminal proceedings, from the moment an individual first becomes a suspect, throughout the investigation, trial and the post-trial period (detention or other sanction, and any appeal). As well as procedural safeguards, it could cover very wide-ranging issues such as the right to bail, fairness in handling evidence, the ne bis in idem principle and the protection of victims.

Finally, wide-ranging legislation is very difficult for the Member States to implement in one go.

However, the wide scope of the instrument would make it unwieldy. Owing to the breadth and the potential scope of such a proposal, the necessary policy design and indeed decision-making processes would be extremely lengthy. Moreover, the subjects would be too disparate to unite in one instrument. In the same way that several instruments are needed to implement the prosecution oriented measures of the Mutual Recognition Programme, it is also the case that defence rights need to be tackled in a logical and structured way, taking topics that are related to each other in a single instrument, and topics that stand alone separately. Explaining why action is justified at EU level for each of the different areas of defence rights can involve different arguments. It is therefore politically easier as well as logistically simpler to make the proposals in a series of stages with rights that are consistent with each other presented in a single instrument and unrelated rights presented separately.

Consequently, it is clear that this is not an option either.

Finally, wide-ranging legislation is very difficult for the Member States to implement in one go.

3) Proposal initially limited to "basic" safeguards in the first instance, with a commitment to cover all the areas mentioned in the Consultation Paper as part of a programme over the next few years.

Consequently, it is clear that this is not an option either.

Some of the areas which could have been covered in a wide-ranging proposal warrant separate measures of their own in order to do them justice. These are primarily the right to bail (provisional release pending trial), the right to have evidence handled fairly, the question of jurisdiction and the related ne bis in idem principle and default judgments. Additionally, the protection of victims has already been covered in a separate instrument [52] and in the area of judicial co-operation in civil matters, work is underway on compensation to victims of crime.

3) Proposal initially limited to "basic" safeguards in the first instance, with a commitment to cover all the areas mentioned in the Consultation Paper as part of a programme over the next few years.

[52] Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings OJ L 82/1 of 22.3.2001

Some of the areas which could have been covered in a wide-ranging proposal warrant separate measures of their own in order to do them justice. These are primarily the right to bail (provisional release pending trial), the right to have evidence handled fairly, the question of jurisdiction and the related ne bis in idem principle and default judgments. Additionally, the protection of victims has already been covered in a separate instrument [52] and in the area of judicial co-operation in civil matters, work is underway on compensation to victims of crime.

The work on the right to bail (which also covers detention conditions) is an important and substantial area, which requires separate consideration: it was separated from the work on other safeguards at an early stage. It forms the subject-matter of a measure in the Mutual Recognition Programme (measure 10) and would be more appropriately dealt with as a single issue - a Green Paper in this area is forthcoming.

[52] Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings OJ L 82/1 of 22.3.2001

Also expected this year is a Green Paper on approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the EU. This is designed to ensure equality of treatment for convicted persons throughout the EU so that, for example, those sentenced in a Member State other than their own are not discriminated against by virtue of their foreign nationality.

The work on the right to bail (which also covers detention conditions) is an important and substantial area, which requires separate consideration: it was separated from the work on other safeguards at an early stage. It forms the subject-matter of a measure in the Mutual Recognition Programme (measure 10) and would be more appropriately dealt with as a single issue - a Green Paper in this area is forthcoming.

Fairness in handling evidence actually covers many rights and many aspects of the proceedings. It soon became clear that all evidence based safeguards should be covered together in a separate measure as the subject of evidence was too vast to cover in a Green Paper that already proposed several rights. The Commission therefore decided to devote more time and a specific study to this topic as soon as the first stage of the procedural safeguards work was completed. We have now started work on a study of safeguards in fairness in gathering and handling of evidence. This will cover, inter alia, the right to silence, the right to have witnesses heard, the problem of anonymous witnesses, the right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, how the presumption of innocence is to be understood (whether there are circumstances where the burden of proof may be reversed) and many other aspects of the law of evidence.

Also expected this year is a Green Paper on approximation, mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions in the EU. This is designed to ensure equality of treatment for convicted persons throughout the EU so that, for example, those sentenced in a Member State other than their own are not discriminated against by virtue of their foreign nationality.

As far as the protection of victims is concerned, several actions have already been carried out. In May 1999, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled 'Crime victims in the European Union - standards and action' to improve access to justice for victims of crime in the European Union and to protect their rights. This Communication deals with the prevention of victimisation, assistance to victims, the standing of victims in the criminal procedure and compensation. On 15 March 2001, the Council adopted a Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings with a view to harmonising basic rights for victims of crime within the all territory of the EU. On 16 October 2002, the Commission issued a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims.

Fairness in handling evidence actually covers many rights and many aspects of the proceedings. It soon became clear that all evidence based safeguards should be covered together in a separate measure as the subject of evidence was too vast to cover in a Green Paper that already proposed several rights. The Commission therefore decided to devote more time and a specific study to this topic as soon as the first stage of the procedural safeguards work was completed. We have now started work on a study of safeguards in fairness in gathering and handling of evidence. This will cover, inter alia, the right to silence, the right to have witnesses heard, the problem of anonymous witnesses, the right to disclosure of exculpatory evidence, how the presumption of innocence is to be understood (whether there are circumstances where the burden of proof may be reversed) and many other aspects of the law of evidence.

Given the fact that these issues are very substantial, and warrant separate measures owing to the extent of their impact, it makes sense not to deal with them in this proposal.

As far as the protection of victims is concerned, several actions have already been carried out. In May 1999, the Commission adopted a Communication entitled 'Crime victims in the European Union - standards and action' to improve access to justice for victims of crime in the European Union and to protect their rights. This Communication deals with the prevention of victimisation, assistance to victims, the standing of victims in the criminal procedure and compensation. On 15 March 2001, the Council adopted a Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings with a view to harmonising basic rights for victims of crime within the all territory of the EU. On 16 October 2002, the Commission issued a proposal for a Council Directive on compensation to crime victims.

Another important factor was the limitations imposed by the legal basis for the measure, namely Article 31 TEU which provides as follows:

Given the fact that these issues are very substantial, and warrant separate measures owing to the extent of their impact, it makes sense not to deal with them in this proposal.

"Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:

Another important factor was the limitations imposed by the legal basis for the measure, namely Article 31 TEU which provides as follows:

(a)facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;

"Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:

(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;

(a)facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;

(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;

(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;

(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;

(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;

(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking."

(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;

This provision, upon which the Commission relies as justification for this action, is open to interpretation and it became clear that there was no agreement that this was a sufficient legal basis for a proposal on procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Commission decided to make a fairly modest, realistic proposal that would be more readily acceptable.

(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking."

The choice was therefore made to start with a proposal covering basic rights that was capable of being the subject of unanimous agreement, and to cover all the other relevant areas piecemeal at a later date.

This provision, upon which the Commission relies as justification for this action, is open to interpretation and it became clear that there was no agreement that this was a sufficient legal basis for a proposal on procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Commission decided to make a fairly modest, realistic proposal that would be more readily acceptable.

Within this policy alternative, a choice had to be made between the different instruments foreseen in Article 34 TEU. This question is important in the light of their different levels of constraint (that is to say, how binding are they on Member States?) and mechanisms for ensuring compliance. The Commission's underlying concerns were to achieve a concrete result, in the shortest possible time, which would be consistent with the philosophy of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the Tampere Conclusions.

The choice was therefore made to start with a proposal covering basic rights that was capable of being the subject of unanimous agreement, and to cover all the other relevant areas piecemeal at a later date.

a Common position

Within this policy alternative, a choice had to be made between the different instruments foreseen in Article 34 TEU. This question is important in the light of their different levels of constraint (that is to say, how binding are they on Member States?) and mechanisms for ensuring compliance. The Commission's underlying concerns were to achieve a concrete result, in the shortest possible time, which would be consistent with the philosophy of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice and the Tampere Conclusions.

Common positions are binding on the Member States, who "shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions". Nevertheless, no enforcement mechanism is foreseen when a Member State neglects its obligations. Moreover, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction regarding this type of instrument. Hence, the option to adopt a common position was discarded.

a Common position

b Convention

Common positions are binding on the Member States, who "shall ensure that their national policies conform to the common positions". Nevertheless, no enforcement mechanism is foreseen when a Member State neglects its obligations. Moreover, the European Court of Justice has no jurisdiction regarding this type of instrument. Hence, the option to adopt a common position was discarded.

When how to achieve adoption of the European Arrest Warrant was considered, the option of using a convention was considered. Likewise, a convention might have been a way to achieve common minimum standards for procedural safeguards. However, since this instrument requires ratification by the Member States, it does not guarantee early implementation, and Member States that do not agree with it could refuse to ratify it. It could take a long time to come into force and might fail to achieve uniformity of standards. Consequently it was deemed inappropriate here.

b Convention

c Framework Decision

When how to achieve adoption of the European Arrest Warrant was considered, the option of using a convention was considered. Likewise, a convention might have been a way to achieve common minimum standards for procedural safeguards. However, since this instrument requires ratification by the Member States, it does not guarantee early implementation, and Member States that do not agree with it could refuse to ratify it. It could take a long time to come into force and might fail to achieve uniformity of standards. Consequently it was deemed inappropriate here.

A Framework Decision has the advantage that recourse to the European Court of Justice is possible on the basis of Art. 35 TEU. Secondly, only implementation in national legislation is required. The Commission retains a role in supervising and monitoring the implementation in national legislation.

c Framework Decision

It also seemed logical to use the same type of instrument as that used for the European Arrest Warrant. The arguments had been rehearsed in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the Framework Decision was the instrument of choice for that measure.

A Framework Decision has the advantage that recourse to the European Court of Justice is possible on the basis of Art. 35 TEU. Secondly, only implementation in national legislation is required. The Commission retains a role in supervising and monitoring the implementation in national legislation.

5. What are the impacts - positive and negative - expected from the different options?

It also seemed logical to use the same type of instrument as that used for the European Arrest Warrant. The arguments had been rehearsed in the context of the European Arrest Warrant and the Framework Decision was the instrument of choice for that measure.

* What are the expected positive and negative impacts of the options selected, particularly in terms of economic, social and environmental consequences, including impacts on management of risks? Are there potential conflicts and inconsistencies between economic, social and environmental impacts that may lead to trade-offs and related policy decisions?

5. What are the impacts - positive and negative - expected from the different options?

* How large are the additional ('marginal') effects that can be attributed to the policy proposal, i.e. those effects over and above the "no policy change" scenario?

* What are the expected positive and negative impacts of the options selected, particularly in terms of economic, social and environmental consequences, including impacts on management of risks? Are there potential conflicts and inconsistencies between economic, social and environmental impacts that may lead to trade-offs and related policy decisions?

* Are there especially forceful impacts on any social group, economic sector (including size-class of enterprises) or region?

* How large are the additional ('marginal') effects that can be attributed to the policy proposal, i.e. those effects over and above the "no policy change" scenario?

* Are there impacts outside the European Union on the Acceding Countries and/or other countries ("external impacts")?

* Are there especially forceful impacts on any social group, economic sector (including size-class of enterprises) or region?

* What are the impacts over time?

* Are there impacts outside the European Union on the Acceding Countries and/or other countries ("external impacts")?

5.1. The impacts of the different policy options

* What are the impacts over time?

5.1.1. No policy option:

5.1. The impacts of the different policy options

As pointed out in point 4 above, in the context of the implementation of the EAW, concerns about the level of protection of fundamental rights in EU Member States are bound to increase. Indeed, the EAW presupposes a high level of trust between Member States in their criminal justice systems, and ensuring that criminal procedures safeguard individual rights would certainly contribute to increased trust. It can be said therefore that if no proposal was put forward in this area, the implementation of the EAW would be rendered more difficult and could be undermined by lack of trust between Member States.

5.1.1. No policy option:

Moreover, the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice, needs to assure its citizens that their rights will be adequately protected if they are subject to criminal proceedings in other Member States. If no policy is proposed in this field, and different levels of protection between Member States prevail, citizens may perceive the EU more as an area of "security" rather than of "freedom and justice". These negative perceptions could lead to negative reactions to European integration in this area and also generally. Ultimately, it could affect the sense of belonging to the EU and the emergence of a true European citizenship.

As pointed out in point 4 above, in the context of the implementation of the EAW, concerns about the level of protection of fundamental rights in EU Member States are bound to increase. Indeed, the EAW presupposes a high level of trust between Member States in their criminal justice systems, and ensuring that criminal procedures safeguard individual rights would certainly contribute to increased trust. It can be said therefore that if no proposal was put forward in this area, the implementation of the EAW would be rendered more difficult and could be undermined by lack of trust between Member States.

Negative perceptions and lack of trust could in turn affect free movement of people across the EU, labour mobility would be constrained and leisure and business travel could decrease. The economic impacts of such phenomena are difficult to assess, but they seem nevertheless to be significant, in particular they could affect the functioning of the Single Market.

Moreover, the EU as an area of freedom, security and justice, needs to assure its citizens that their rights will be adequately protected if they are subject to criminal proceedings in other Member States. If no policy is proposed in this field, and different levels of protection between Member States prevail, citizens may perceive the EU more as an area of "security" rather than of "freedom and justice". These negative perceptions could lead to negative reactions to European integration in this area and also generally. Ultimately, it could affect the sense of belonging to the EU and the emergence of a true European citizenship.

Finally, it can be said that the current level of judicial errors (erroneous convictions, miscarriages of justice) could increase in the future, owing to the increasing number of criminal proceedings involving non-nationals in the EU. This increase has been noted in the recent past, brought about by a number of factors (transborder transport and better communication making transnational crime easier to commit, increased travelling, increased numbers of resident non-nationals in every Member State, etc.) - it can therefore be said that the implementation of the EAW might contribute to increased criminal proceedings involving non-nationals. If no policy or initiative is put forward to protect fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, the increase in the number of cases, and the inevitable judicial errors could lead to the malfunctioning of criminal justice systems and to an increased backlog of cases, including appeals. This situation would lead to an overload of national justice systems, affecting their credibility and causing a waste of resources. It would also have a knock-on effect of submerging the already overloaded European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with applications.

Negative perceptions and lack of trust could in turn affect free movement of people across the EU, labour mobility would be constrained and leisure and business travel could decrease. The economic impacts of such phenomena are difficult to assess, but they seem nevertheless to be significant, in particular they could affect the functioning of the Single Market.

5.1.2. A wide-ranging proposal, covering all the safeguards

Finally, it can be said that the current level of judicial errors (erroneous convictions, miscarriages of justice) could increase in the future, owing to the increasing number of criminal proceedings involving non-nationals in the EU. This increase has been noted in the recent past, brought about by a number of factors (transborder transport and better communication making transnational crime easier to commit, increased travelling, increased numbers of resident non-nationals in every Member State, etc.) - it can therefore be said that the implementation of the EAW might contribute to increased criminal proceedings involving non-nationals. If no policy or initiative is put forward to protect fundamental rights in criminal proceedings, the increase in the number of cases, and the inevitable judicial errors could lead to the malfunctioning of criminal justice systems and to an increased backlog of cases, including appeals. This situation would lead to an overload of national justice systems, affecting their credibility and causing a waste of resources. It would also have a knock-on effect of submerging the already overloaded European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg with applications.

If all the elements identified as safeguarding individual rights were to be addressed by a single proposal, one could consider that it would be an effective manner to design and implement policy in this field. Indeed, coherence and consistency would be easily ensured across the different areas and practitioners would have a single framework to refer to. It would also favour transparency during the decision-making process.

5.1.2. A wide-ranging proposal, covering all the safeguards

This policy option however would also have negative impacts. As we saw above in point 4, such a proposal would cover a wide range of issues, cutting across different aspects of criminal justice systems. A single proposal would then target a vast subject matter and audience, which would only result in a complex instrument, difficult to understand and implement.

If all the elements identified as safeguarding individual rights were to be addressed by a single proposal, one could consider that it would be an effective manner to design and implement policy in this field. Indeed, coherence and consistency would be easily ensured across the different areas and practitioners would have a single framework to refer to. It would also favour transparency during the decision-making process.

As stated in point 4, the different elements that could have been included in such a wide-ranging proposal are already at various stages of development. Some of them, such as the right to bail, have evolved in recent months; others still require more thought, research, consultation and data collection (e.g. the fair handling of evidence). If the alternative of proposing a single proposal was selected, then action would have to be delayed until all the different aspects had been satisfactorily developed at European level. This alternative would then mean delaying the proposal of such an instrument for a number of months or even years, which would be difficult to achieve so as to be compatible with the schedule for implementation of the EAW. This alternative would risk failing to address the main challenge at the outset.

This policy option however would also have negative impacts. As we saw above in point 4, such a proposal would cover a wide range of issues, cutting across different aspects of criminal justice systems. A single proposal would then target a vast subject matter and audience, which would only result in a complex instrument, difficult to understand and implement.

It can be concluded that the costs associated with proposing a single instrument covering all the safeguards, in terms of decision-making, responding to the challenges identified and actual implementation would certainly outweigh the advantages listed in the first paragraph of this section.

As stated in point 4, the different elements that could have been included in such a wide-ranging proposal are already at various stages of development. Some of them, such as the right to bail, have evolved in recent months; others still require more thought, research, consultation and data collection (e.g. the fair handling of evidence). If the alternative of proposing a single proposal was selected, then action would have to be delayed until all the different aspects had been satisfactorily developed at European level. This alternative would then mean delaying the proposal of such an instrument for a number of months or even years, which would be difficult to achieve so as to be compatible with the schedule for implementation of the EAW. This alternative would risk failing to address the main challenge at the outset.

5.1.3. Instrument limited to the basic safeguards

It can be concluded that the costs associated with proposing a single instrument covering all the safeguards, in terms of decision-making, responding to the challenges identified and actual implementation would certainly outweigh the advantages listed in the first paragraph of this section.

As detailed in point 4, this alternative seems to be the most appropriate and feasible given the challenges to be addressed. Consequently, thorough consideration was given to the potential impacts of such a proposal, at different levels: on the EU economy and society as a whole, on suspects and defendants, including particularly vulnerable groups, on professionals working in the criminal justice systems and finally on victims in criminal proceedings. Economic and social impacts have been identified, both in direct and indirect terms. Adequate descriptors are given whenever possible and available quantitative evidence presented. As regards environmental impacts, it has been difficult to identify them for all the different levels of impact. Indirect impacts in this area have been included whenever relevant.

5.1.3. Instrument limited to the basic safeguards

The tables annexed to this report present a schematic overview of the potential impacts, which are detailed below (section 5.2.). It must be underlined however that assessing impacts of a proposal safeguarding fundamental rights is extremely difficult and more often than not amounts to educated guesses and estimates. To try to pin down these impacts, a number of descriptors are provided, but again quantification is a difficult exercise.

As detailed in point 4, this alternative seems to be the most appropriate and feasible given the challenges to be addressed. Consequently, thorough consideration was given to the potential impacts of such a proposal, at different levels: on the EU economy and society as a whole, on suspects and defendants, including particularly vulnerable groups, on professionals working in the criminal justice systems and finally on victims in criminal proceedings. Economic and social impacts have been identified, both in direct and indirect terms. Adequate descriptors are given whenever possible and available quantitative evidence presented. As regards environmental impacts, it has been difficult to identify them for all the different levels of impact. Indirect impacts in this area have been included whenever relevant.

5.2. Levels of impact

The tables annexed to this report present a schematic overview of the potential impacts, which are detailed below (section 5.2.). It must be underlined however that assessing impacts of a proposal safeguarding fundamental rights is extremely difficult and more often than not amounts to educated guesses and estimates. To try to pin down these impacts, a number of descriptors are provided, but again quantification is a difficult exercise.

The tables enclosed in the report give an overview of the main potential impacts at different levels. These impacts have been identified through a series of consultations with stakeholders and brainstorming meetings - whenever possible descriptors are included, but we would like to highlight that the measurement and quantification of these impacts is rather difficult. On the basis of this conclusion, it has been decided to include the development of methods and tools for measuring impact on the monitoring and evaluation provisions (see point 6), in particular as regards the costs of implementation.

5.2. Levels of impact

5.2.1. EU economy and society

The tables enclosed in the report give an overview of the main potential impacts at different levels. These impacts have been identified through a series of consultations with stakeholders and brainstorming meetings - whenever possible descriptors are included, but we would like to highlight that the measurement and quantification of these impacts is rather difficult. On the basis of this conclusion, it has been decided to include the development of methods and tools for measuring impact on the monitoring and evaluation provisions (see point 6), in particular as regards the costs of implementation.

The proposal is intended to impact at this level in terms of EU citizens' improved perceptions of the degree of protection of individual rights across different Member States, which should lead to more trust in their law enforcement and judicial systems. It is hoped this will trickle down in terms of increased mobility and free movement within the EU, with all the associated benefits in terms of economic activity.

5.2.1. EU economy and society

More transparency in the judicial system will on the one hand lead to more efficiency, and on the other contribute to a better protection of individual rights. This can in turn facilitate the creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice which must be supported by a true civic citizenship and which European citizens must believe in.

The proposal is intended to impact at this level in terms of EU citizens' improved perceptions of the degree of protection of individual rights across different Member States, which should lead to more trust in their law enforcement and judicial systems. It is hoped this will trickle down in terms of increased mobility and free movement within the EU, with all the associated benefits in terms of economic activity.

5.2.2. Suspects and defendants

More transparency in the judicial system will on the one hand lead to more efficiency, and on the other contribute to a better protection of individual rights. This can in turn facilitate the creation of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice which must be supported by a true civic citizenship and which European citizens must believe in.

This target group is directly affected by the proposal in terms of the protection of their individual rights. In particular, the right to legal advice will have immediate impacts for this group, both in terms of a decrease in costs associated with criminal procedures and in terms of a perception of fairer access to justice. Furthermore, this impact can extend to the suspects' and defendants' families: indeed, one of the criterion to decide on granting this legal aid is that paying for legal advice would cause undue financial hardship to the family. It is clear therefore that the proposal can have direct economic impacts on the situation of suspects and defendants and their families. This perception can contribute to a feeling of belonging in the society and can thus limit the sense of exclusion suspects and defendants or even their families often experience.

5.2.2. Suspects and defendants

Another area which will impact significantly on this target group is the provision of full translation and interpretation during criminal proceedings. In cases where suspects and defendants are not own nationals and / or do not master sufficiently the language of the proceedings or the criminal justice system, access to full interpretation and translation is vital to the equitable administration of justice. It has been reported that, on occasion, the defendant's family or acquaintances have been asked to provide interpretation, with all the risks this implies for the accurate representation of the facts and the protection of the interests of the defendant. (See for example the ECtHR case of Cuscani v. UK - judgment of 24 September 2002; where the trial Court relied on the defendant's brother to interpret and which was held to be a violation of Art. 6). If the criminal justice system provides for proper interpretation, it will serve the interests of justice, and it will increase the trust of suspects and defendants, and also of victims, in the criminal justice system. Particularly disadvantaged groups can benefit more from the provision of interpretation and translation. For example, women from certain cultural backgrounds will probably find it easier to address themselves to an interpreter, in particular if the interpreter is also a woman, rather than having to rely on male members of the family for interpretation. When minors are involved, a properly trained interpreter may also be able to interpret more accurately for them than relatives or acquaintances.

This target group is directly affected by the proposal in terms of the protection of their individual rights. In particular, the right to legal advice will have immediate impacts for this group, both in terms of a decrease in costs associated with criminal procedures and in terms of a perception of fairer access to justice. Furthermore, this impact can extend to the suspects' and defendants' families: indeed, one of the criterion to decide on granting this legal aid is that paying for legal advice would cause undue financial hardship to the family. It is clear therefore that the proposal can have direct economic impacts on the situation of suspects and defendants and their families. This perception can contribute to a feeling of belonging in the society and can thus limit the sense of exclusion suspects and defendants or even their families often experience.

5.2.3. Professionals working in the criminal justice system

Another area which will impact significantly on this target group is the provision of full translation and interpretation during criminal proceedings. In cases where suspects and defendants are not own nationals and / or do not master sufficiently the language of the proceedings or the criminal justice system, access to full interpretation and translation is vital to the equitable administration of justice. It has been reported that, on occasion, the defendant's family or acquaintances have been asked to provide interpretation, with all the risks this implies for the accurate representation of the facts and the protection of the interests of the defendant. (See for example the ECtHR case of Cuscani v. UK - judgment of 24 September 2002; where the trial Court relied on the defendant's brother to interpret and which was held to be a violation of Art. 6). If the criminal justice system provides for proper interpretation, it will serve the interests of justice, and it will increase the trust of suspects and defendants, and also of victims, in the criminal justice system. Particularly disadvantaged groups can benefit more from the provision of interpretation and translation. For example, women from certain cultural backgrounds will probably find it easier to address themselves to an interpreter, in particular if the interpreter is also a woman, rather than having to rely on male members of the family for interpretation. When minors are involved, a properly trained interpreter may also be able to interpret more accurately for them than relatives or acquaintances.

Will the policy have an impact on the main professional target groups?

5.2.3. Professionals working in the criminal justice system

>TABLE POSITION>

Will the policy have an impact on the main professional target groups?

Nature of the impact on the main professional target groups

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

>TABLE POSITION>

Nature of the impact on the main professional target groups

+ : increase - : decrease 0 : neutral

>EMPLACEMENT TABLE>

From the tables above, it is clear that the Commission considers that the proposed policy will have an impact on the main professions working in the criminal justice systems. It must be noted that these impacts are greater for three groups: translators, interpreters and lawyers. Overall, these impacts are positive: increases in social status and remuneration, for example.

+ : increase - : decrease 0 : neutral

One negative impact must however be underlined: the workload of these professionals will probably increase across the board. This is bound to impact on the capacity of criminal judicial systems on the whole, and may in fact cause some backlog at the start of the implementation of these safeguards. In the long term, this should be absorbed by the system, and it is expected that the added transparency and reduced numbers of judicial mistakes will in fact decrease the judicial backlog.

From the tables above, it is clear that the Commission considers that the proposed policy will have an impact on the main professions working in the criminal justice systems. It must be noted that these impacts are greater for three groups: translators, interpreters and lawyers. Overall, these impacts are positive: increases in social status and remuneration, for example.

An additional impact of this proposal in these professional groups will be the increased training needs almost every area.

One negative impact must however be underlined: the workload of these professionals will probably increase across the board. This is bound to impact on the capacity of criminal judicial systems on the whole, and may in fact cause some backlog at the start of the implementation of these safeguards. In the long term, this should be absorbed by the system, and it is expected that the added transparency and reduced numbers of judicial mistakes will in fact decrease the judicial backlog.

Given current levels of provision of qualified legal translators and interpreters and the demand for these professionals that this proposal may create, training needs are expected to be greater for these professional groups. These training needs would be at two levels:

An additional impact of this proposal in these professional groups will be the increased training needs almost every area.

- initial training, as the specialised training for legal translator/ interpreter is not always available as part of the standard third-degree diploma;

Given current levels of provision of qualified legal translators and interpreters and the demand for these professionals that this proposal may create, training needs are expected to be greater for these professional groups. These training needs would be at two levels:

- continuous professional development and on-the-job training for current professionals to bring them up to standard and to ensure that they keep up to date with changes in legislation and court practices.

- initial training, as the specialised training for legal translator/ interpreter is not always available as part of the standard third-degree diploma;

It is difficult to provide estimates for the increased costs of training but the monitoring provisions of this proposal will include considering the costs associated with its implementation.

- continuous professional development and on-the-job training for current professionals to bring them up to standard and to ensure that they keep up to date with changes in legislation and court practices.

5.2.4. Victims

It is difficult to provide estimates for the increased costs of training but the monitoring provisions of this proposal will include considering the costs associated with its implementation.

Impacts of this proposal on victims are harder to assess, given that they will be more indirect in nature. For example, the fact that the proposal contributes to a better application of justice, with fewer appeals and hence shorter proceedings, will impact favourably on victims, who will be released from the burden of the trial earlier. Studies show victims recover from the trauma faster once there is "closure" (after the trial). Shorter proceedings also reduce costs for victims. Another possible positive indirect impact is linked to the better use (and consequent training) of consular officials, which will benefit victims of crimes who are foreigners. The consular official may provide the victim with information about the local legal system, including any compensation scheme, details of any relevant NGO which may be able to offer him support and information regarding interpreters and translators.

5.2.4. Victims

It should perhaps be pointed out that the proposal may also have indirect negative impacts on this target group - indeed, in a context of set resources for the criminal justice system, the costs of implementing the different safeguards put forward in this proposal may be to the detriment of the budget allocated to the protection of the interest of victims (opportunity costs). Given the necessary balance between the different interests at stake, this is a very remote possibility, but should however be flagged up.

Impacts of this proposal on victims are harder to assess, given that they will be more indirect in nature. For example, the fact that the proposal contributes to a better application of justice, with fewer appeals and hence shorter proceedings, will impact favourably on victims, who will be released from the burden of the trial earlier. Studies show victims recover from the trauma faster once there is "closure" (after the trial). Shorter proceedings also reduce costs for victims. Another possible positive indirect impact is linked to the better use (and consequent training) of consular officials, which will benefit victims of crimes who are foreigners. The consular official may provide the victim with information about the local legal system, including any compensation scheme, details of any relevant NGO which may be able to offer him support and information regarding interpreters and translators.

6. How to monitor and evaluate the results and impacts of the proposals after implementation?

It should perhaps be pointed out that the proposal may also have indirect negative impacts on this target group - indeed, in a context of set resources for the criminal justice system, the costs of implementing the different safeguards put forward in this proposal may be to the detriment of the budget allocated to the protection of the interest of victims (opportunity costs). Given the necessary balance between the different interests at stake, this is a very remote possibility, but should however be flagged up.

* How will the policy be implemented?

6. How to monitor and evaluate the results and impacts of the proposals after implementation?

* How will the policy be monitored?

* How will the policy be implemented?

* What are the arrangements for any ex-post evaluation of the policy?

* How will the policy be monitored?

The implementation of the initiative on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union will take due account of the ECHR - indeed, it is hoped that as a result of this initiative, Member States will achieve better standards of compliance with the ECHR. The ECtHR cannot be relied upon as a safety net to remedy all breaches of the ECHR. This is unrealistic in view of a number of factors. The ECtHR is a court of last resort and additionally the ECtHR itself has expressed concern over its ability to handle its ever-increasing caseload. If there are repeated allegations of violations of the ECHR, the Member States should have the means to remedy them of their own motion, or better still, to reduce the chances of them occurring at all. Since the principle of mutual recognition may only be implemented efficiently where there is mutual trust, it is important that these common minimum standards be complied with for this reason also.

* What are the arrangements for any ex-post evaluation of the policy?

The level of compliance should be demonstrably high. In order for each Member State to be certain of the level of compliance in other Member States, there should be some form of reliable evaluation. Mutual trust must go beyond the perceptions of governments of the Member States - it must also be established in the minds of representatives of the media, practitioners, law enforcement officers and all those that will administer decisions based on mutual recognition on a daily basis. This cannot be achieved overnight, and cannot be achieved at all unless there is some reliable means of assessing compliance with common minimum standards across the European Union. This will be all the more so in the light of enlargement.

The implementation of the initiative on procedural safeguards for suspects and defendants in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union will take due account of the ECHR - indeed, it is hoped that as a result of this initiative, Member States will achieve better standards of compliance with the ECHR. The ECtHR cannot be relied upon as a safety net to remedy all breaches of the ECHR. This is unrealistic in view of a number of factors. The ECtHR is a court of last resort and additionally the ECtHR itself has expressed concern over its ability to handle its ever-increasing caseload. If there are repeated allegations of violations of the ECHR, the Member States should have the means to remedy them of their own motion, or better still, to reduce the chances of them occurring at all. Since the principle of mutual recognition may only be implemented efficiently where there is mutual trust, it is important that these common minimum standards be complied with for this reason also.

The Commission considers it appropriate that it should play a major role in the evaluation and monitoring process. It needs to be informed of how measures are being implemented in practice.

The level of compliance should be demonstrably high. In order for each Member State to be certain of the level of compliance in other Member States, there should be some form of reliable evaluation. Mutual trust must go beyond the perceptions of governments of the Member States - it must also be established in the minds of representatives of the media, practitioners, law enforcement officers and all those that will administer decisions based on mutual recognition on a daily basis. This cannot be achieved overnight, and cannot be achieved at all unless there is some reliable means of assessing compliance with common minimum standards across the European Union. This will be all the more so in the light of enlargement.

It would therefore seem appropriate for the Commission to extend its task of collecting information on the transposition of EU obligations into national legislation to a regular monitoring exercise on compliance. This should be on the basis of Member States themselves submitting data or statistics compiled by their national authorities and submitted to be collated and analysed by the Commission. The Commission could use the services of independent experts to analyse the data and assist with the drawing up of reports. One possible team of independent experts is the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. It was commissioned by DG-Justice and Home Affairs "to assess how each of the rights listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is applied at both national and Community levels...[taking] account of developments in national legislation, the case law of constitutional courts [...] as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights". The tasks of this network include the production of an annual report summarising the situation of fundamental rights in the context of both European Union law and national legal orders [53]. The network will report to the Commission and to the European Parliament. Since Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU provide for the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence, the network is already mandated to consider many of the provisions included in this proposal. In any event, evaluation of common minimum standards for procedural safeguards should be carried out on a continuous basis at regular intervals rather than as a once-off or on an ad hoc basis.

The Commission considers it appropriate that it should play a major role in the evaluation and monitoring process. It needs to be informed of how measures are being implemented in practice.

[53] Network of experts on the Charter appointed in July 2002, Unit A5, DG-JHA; its terms of reference are set out in Contract notice 2002/S60 - 046435, OJ S60 of 26.3.2002.

It would therefore seem appropriate for the Commission to extend its task of collecting information on the transposition of EU obligations into national legislation to a regular monitoring exercise on compliance. This should be on the basis of Member States themselves submitting data or statistics compiled by their national authorities and submitted to be collated and analysed by the Commission. The Commission could use the services of independent experts to analyse the data and assist with the drawing up of reports. One possible team of independent experts is the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights. It was commissioned by DG-Justice and Home Affairs "to assess how each of the rights listed in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is applied at both national and Community levels...[taking] account of developments in national legislation, the case law of constitutional courts [...] as well as the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the European Court of Human Rights". The tasks of this network include the production of an annual report summarising the situation of fundamental rights in the context of both European Union law and national legal orders [53]. The network will report to the Commission and to the European Parliament. Since Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU provide for the right to a fair trial and the rights of the defence, the network is already mandated to consider many of the provisions included in this proposal. In any event, evaluation of common minimum standards for procedural safeguards should be carried out on a continuous basis at regular intervals rather than as a once-off or on an ad hoc basis.

In this way, any persistent breaches will come to light, together with any patterns of standards falling below the agreed minimum.

[53] Network of experts on the Charter appointed in July 2002, Unit A5, DG-JHA; its terms of reference are set out in Contract notice 2002/S60 - 046435, OJ S60 of 26.3.2002.

7. Stakeholder consultation

In this way, any persistent breaches will come to light, together with any patterns of standards falling below the agreed minimum.

* Which interested parties were consulted, when in the process, and for what purpose?

7. Stakeholder consultation

* What were the results of the consultation?

* Which interested parties were consulted, when in the process, and for what purpose?

For the past two years, the Commission has been carrying out a review of procedural safeguards. To this end, it published a broad Consultation Paper in several languages on the Justice and Home Affairs website in January and February 2002. That paper set out the areas that might become the focus of subsequent measures and asked for comments and responses from interested parties.

* What were the results of the consultation?

At the same time, a questionnaire on various aspects of trial procedures under their own existing domestic system was sent to the Member States, to be answered by their Ministries of Justice. Using the responses to those two documents, the Commission identified the following areas as appropriate for immediate consideration:

For the past two years, the Commission has been carrying out a review of procedural safeguards. To this end, it published a broad Consultation Paper in several languages on the Justice and Home Affairs website in January and February 2002. That paper set out the areas that might become the focus of subsequent measures and asked for comments and responses from interested parties.

- access to legal representation, both before the trial and at trial,

At the same time, a questionnaire on various aspects of trial procedures under their own existing domestic system was sent to the Member States, to be answered by their Ministries of Justice. Using the responses to those two documents, the Commission identified the following areas as appropriate for immediate consideration:

- access to interpretation and translation,

- access to legal representation, both before the trial and at trial,

- ensuring that vulnerable suspects and defendants in particular are properly protected,

- access to interpretation and translation,

- consular assistance to foreign detainees,

- ensuring that vulnerable suspects and defendants in particular are properly protected,

- notifying suspects and defendants of their rights (the "Letter of Rights").

- consular assistance to foreign detainees,

(The Council of the European Union has sent this questionnaire to acceding countries on its own initiative.)

- notifying suspects and defendants of their rights (the "Letter of Rights").

Additionally the Commission's desk officer attended numerous conferences relating to these topics, both as speaker and listener. In order to get a clear view of the problem, several bilateral meetings were organised with various organisations. The organisations consulted include Amnesty International, the Law Society of England and Wales, JUSTICE, the Bar Council of England and Wales, Fair Trials Abroad, the European Criminal Bar Association, the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, several Members of the European Parliament and the UK Liberal Democrat Party. Although it may appear that consultation centred largely on UK based NGOs, the desk officer noted that in any open consultation procedure, UK based NGOs often responded in much greater numbers than their counterparts in other Member States. All relevant bodies who sought an audience were heard and their views noted.

(The Council of the European Union has sent this questionnaire to acceding countries on its own initiative.)

After an experts meeting held on 7 and 8 October 2002 on the appropriateness of EU action in this area, a Green Paper was adopted and published on 19 February 2003, focussing on the five areas mentioned above. The Green Paper listed a number of specific questions and requested comments and observations to be received by 15 May 2003. The Commission ensured that translations into English, French and German were obtained of all the responses received before 16 May 2003. The responses that were sent between 16 May 2003 and 10 June 2003 were translated where possible. Over 70 replies were received and have been published on the JHA website at: .

Additionally the Commission's desk officer attended numerous conferences relating to these topics, both as speaker and listener. In order to get a clear view of the problem, several bilateral meetings were organised with various organisations. The organisations consulted include Amnesty International, the Law Society of England and Wales, JUSTICE, the Bar Council of England and Wales, Fair Trials Abroad, the European Criminal Bar Association, the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union, several Members of the European Parliament and the UK Liberal Democrat Party. Although it may appear that consultation centred largely on UK based NGOs, the desk officer noted that in any open consultation procedure, UK based NGOs often responded in much greater numbers than their counterparts in other Member States. All relevant bodies who sought an audience were heard and their views noted.

In June 2003, when the Commission's services had a clearer view of the policy options available and their impacts, a public hearing was organised. All persons and organisations that had responded to the Green Paper were invited to attend, as well as representatives from the Ministries of all Member States and acceding countries. The meeting was publicised on the EU official website, giving anyone the possibility to attend if they so wished. At the hearing, national experts and NGOs concerned made a number of general observations and comments, which have been taken into consideration in the drafting of the proposal.

After an experts meeting held on 7 and 8 October 2002 on the appropriateness of EU action in this area, a Green Paper was adopted and published on 19 February 2003, focussing on the five areas mentioned above. The Green Paper listed a number of specific questions and requested comments and observations to be received by 15 May 2003. The Commission ensured that translations into English, French and German were obtained of all the responses received before 16 May 2003. The responses that were sent between 16 May 2003 and 10 June 2003 were translated where possible. Over 70 replies were received and have been published on the JHA website at: .

8. Commission draft proposals and justification

In June 2003, when the Commission's services had a clearer view of the policy options available and their impacts, a public hearing was organised. All persons and organisations that had responded to the Green Paper were invited to attend, as well as representatives from the Ministries of all Member States and acceding countries. The meeting was publicised on the EU official website, giving anyone the possibility to attend if they so wished. At the hearing, national experts and NGOs concerned made a number of general observations and comments, which have been taken into consideration in the drafting of the proposal.

* What is the final policy choice and why?

8. Commission draft proposals and justification

* Why was a more/less ambitious option not chosen?

* What is the final policy choice and why?

* Which are the trade-offs associated to the chosen option?

* Why was a more/less ambitious option not chosen?

* If current data or knowledge are of poor quality, why should a decision be taken now rather than be put off until better information is available?

* Which are the trade-offs associated to the chosen option?

* Have any accompanying measures to maximise positive impacts and minimise negative impacts been taken?

* If current data or knowledge are of poor quality, why should a decision be taken now rather than be put off until better information is available?

There were many reasons why the European Commission launched an initiative on procedural safeguards. Important ones are freedom of movement, setting standards for an enlarged Europe and perhaps most important of all, facilitating the operation of Mutual Recognition by enhancing the mutual trust in which it is based. The rights of the defence have not suddenly appeared on the Commission's programme. They were explicitly mentioned in the Tampere conclusions [54] and have always been seen as an integral part of the Justice and Home Affairs agenda.

* Have any accompanying measures to maximise positive impacts and minimise negative impacts been taken?

[54] Points 33 and 40, and implicitly in points 35 and 37.

There were many reasons why the European Commission launched an initiative on procedural safeguards. Important ones are freedom of movement, setting standards for an enlarged Europe and perhaps most important of all, facilitating the operation of Mutual Recognition by enhancing the mutual trust in which it is based. The rights of the defence have not suddenly appeared on the Commission's programme. They were explicitly mentioned in the Tampere conclusions [54] and have always been seen as an integral part of the Justice and Home Affairs agenda.

The aim is to achieve an equivalence of protection between the Member States and not the same standards although the starting point will be "common minimum standards" leaving the Member States free to build on those in order to ensure a fair trial system within their jurisdiction. As the Commission indicated in its Communication of 14 July 1998, Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice "procedural rules should respond broadly to the same guarantees ensuring that people will not be treated unevenly according to the jurisdiction dealing with their case".

[54] Points 33 and 40, and implicitly in points 35 and 37.

As regards, freedom of movement - the EU encourages its citizens to move around freely, for work or other reasons. Employment and social security provisions make it easier to find work. European citizens and residents should reasonably be entitled to expect to encounter equivalent standards in respect of safeguards in criminal proceedings wherever they go in the EU.

The aim is to achieve an equivalence of protection between the Member States and not the same standards although the starting point will be "common minimum standards" leaving the Member States free to build on those in order to ensure a fair trial system within their jurisdiction. As the Commission indicated in its Communication of 14 July 1998, Towards an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice "procedural rules should respond broadly to the same guarantees ensuring that people will not be treated unevenly according to the jurisdiction dealing with their case".

Options considered included attempting to cover all fair trial rights in one instrument but on reflection, this was deemed too complicated, too unwieldy and less likely to achieve the stated aim. There were also the "third pillar" constraints of putting forward a realistic proposal that could be justified under Art 31 TEU and that would be realistic in view of the unanimity rule. Consequently, a stage by stage approach was adopted, with is proposal being the first of several measures to reach the stage of a draft Framework Decision. It is important to press ahead with this measure now so that agreed safeguards are in place as soon as possible (in view, inter alia, of the timetable for implementation of the European Arrest Warrant). Any follow up and subsequent proposals may be under a new regime if the EU draft Constitution is adopted (affecting the legal basis and unanimity requirements).

As regards, freedom of movement - the EU encourages its citizens to move around freely, for work or other reasons. Employment and social security provisions make it easier to find work. European citizens and residents should reasonably be entitled to expect to encounter equivalent standards in respect of safeguards in criminal proceedings wherever they go in the EU.

To conclude, the Commission sees this measure as necessary in order to ensure the mutual trust which forms the basis of the measures set out in the Mutual Recognition programme, of which the European Arrest Warrant was the first to reach political agreement. However, a common set of minimum standards on safeguards will be necessary for all the Mutual Recognition measures, to allay anxieties about the perceived "lower standards" in other Member States and maybe in the acceding States after enlargement and to counter criticism of certain criminal justice systems in the EU. It will ensure that the fundamental rights of the European citizen are respected uniformly in this important area.

Options considered included attempting to cover all fair trial rights in one instrument but on reflection, this was deemed too complicated, too unwieldy and less likely to achieve the stated aim. There were also the "third pillar" constraints of putting forward a realistic proposal that could be justified under Art 31 TEU and that would be realistic in view of the unanimity rule. Consequently, a stage by stage approach was adopted, with is proposal being the first of several measures to reach the stage of a draft Framework Decision. It is important to press ahead with this measure now so that agreed safeguards are in place as soon as possible (in view, inter alia, of the timetable for implementation of the European Arrest Warrant). Any follow up and subsequent proposals may be under a new regime if the EU draft Constitution is adopted (affecting the legal basis and unanimity requirements).

To conclude, the Commission sees this measure as necessary in order to ensure the mutual trust which forms the basis of the measures set out in the Mutual Recognition programme, of which the European Arrest Warrant was the first to reach political agreement. However, a common set of minimum standards on safeguards will be necessary for all the Mutual Recognition measures, to allay anxieties about the perceived "lower standards" in other Member States and maybe in the acceding States after enlargement and to counter criticism of certain criminal justice systems in the EU. It will ensure that the fundamental rights of the European citizen are respected uniformly in this important area.

ANNEX 1 -

Problem identification:

ANNEX 1 -

Main challenges (not in order of priority):

Problem identification:

* Need to build trust between MS in each other's criminal justice systems, especially in the light of the European Arrest Warrant so that law enforcement and judicial authorities respect each other's decisions and procedures

Main challenges (not in order of priority):

* Need to protect individual rights to a common minimum standard

* Need to build trust between MS in each other's criminal justice systems, especially in the light of the European Arrest Warrant so that law enforcement and judicial authorities respect each other's decisions and procedures

* Need to take account of right to freedom of movement

* Need to protect individual rights to a common minimum standard

* Need to reinforce citizens' trust in other Member States owing to increased mobility including for employment purposes, transport companies (e.g. lorry drivers at risk of unwittingly carrying illegal cargo), tourism (e.g. road accidents and other "innocent activities" can inadvertently lead to criminal proceedings)

* Need to take account of right to freedom of movement

* Need to deal with mobility and increasing numbers of third-country nationals in the Member States

* Need to reinforce citizens' trust in other Member States owing to increased mobility including for employment purposes, transport companies (e.g. lorry drivers at risk of unwittingly carrying illegal cargo), tourism (e.g. road accidents and other "innocent activities" can inadvertently lead to criminal proceedings)

* Need to enhance the public understanding of the different criminal justice systems

* Need to deal with mobility and increasing numbers of third-country nationals in the Member States

* Enlargement will introduce 10 new countries into the system - it is harder to have a basic degree of uniformity as regards common standards with 25 than with 15

* Need to enhance the public understanding of the different criminal justice systems

* ECHR implemented (and interpreted ?) differently in different Member States

* Enlargement will introduce 10 new countries into the system - it is harder to have a basic degree of uniformity as regards common standards with 25 than with 15

* Avoid "naming and shaming" (which already goes on between the 15, especially in the media) but concentrate on agreeing common standards

* ECHR implemented (and interpreted ?) differently in different Member States

Related challenges:

* Avoid "naming and shaming" (which already goes on between the 15, especially in the media) but concentrate on agreeing common standards

1. General

Related challenges:

* Launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial

1. General

* Ascertain what common standards already exist

* Launch a debate on what constitutes a fair trial

2. Legal advice

* Ascertain what common standards already exist

* Uneven implementation of the provisions of Article 6 ECHR as regards access to legal representation throughout the EU (not only basic provision of lawyers but when suspect first has access to lawyer - e.g. before or after first police questioning?)

2. Legal advice

* Differences in access to free legal representation for those who cannot afford to pay

* Uneven implementation of the provisions of Article 6 ECHR as regards access to legal representation throughout the EU (not only basic provision of lawyers but when suspect first has access to lawyer - e.g. before or after first police questioning?)

* Differences in how much legal representation is provided (lawyer present for all court appearances? Prison visits from lawyer to prepare case?)

* Differences in access to free legal representation for those who cannot afford to pay

* Substantial differences between Member States in organisation, level of qualification required and payment of lawyers (e.g. reduce reliance on pro bono work, ensure that all defendants represented) NB - different systems of provision may work equally well - e.g. "public defender" system v. own lawyer so not the intention to investigate what system is best, merely to ensure minimum levels of provision

* Differences in how much legal representation is provided (lawyer present for all court appearances? Prison visits from lawyer to prepare case?)

3. Interpretation and translation

* Substantial differences between Member States in organisation, level of qualification required and payment of lawyers (e.g. reduce reliance on pro bono work, ensure that all defendants represented) NB - different systems of provision may work equally well - e.g. "public defender" system v. own lawyer so not the intention to investigate what system is best, merely to ensure minimum levels of provision

* Inadequate provision of competent, qualified language professionals in criminal proceedings in which the defendant is a foreigner and/or doesn't understand the language of the proceedings. Substantial differences between Member States in remuneration of interpreters and translators

3. Interpretation and translation

* Substantial differences between Member States in training of interpreters and translators

* Inadequate provision of competent, qualified language professionals in criminal proceedings in which the defendant is a foreigner and/or doesn't understand the language of the proceedings. Substantial differences between Member States in remuneration of interpreters and translators

* Insufficient numbers of legal translators and interpreters (especially for the more unusual languages); not "attractive" profession, highly technical, low status (in most MS, translation and interpretation not considered a "profession"), rare for translators and interpreters to be employees - usually employed on a freelance basis so no job security, no holiday or sick pay, no pension and other rights that go with an employment contract

* Substantial differences between Member States in training of interpreters and translators

* Many respondents to Green Paper, especially those representing professional organisations of translators and interpreters called for proper training/accreditation/recognition of diplomas/continuous professional education for translators and interpreters - with both language professionals and lawyers/judges involved in the accreditation process.

* Insufficient numbers of legal translators and interpreters (especially for the more unusual languages); not "attractive" profession, highly technical, low status (in most MS, translation and interpretation not considered a "profession"), rare for translators and interpreters to be employees - usually employed on a freelance basis so no job security, no holiday or sick pay, no pension and other rights that go with an employment contract

* Judges and lawyers not trained in how to deal with court translators and interpreters - need to provide for training of judges, lawyers and court personnel

* Many respondents to Green Paper, especially those representing professional organisations of translators and interpreters called for proper training/accreditation/recognition of diplomas/continuous professional education for translators and interpreters - with both language professionals and lawyers/judges involved in the accreditation process.

4. Specific attention for persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

* Judges and lawyers not trained in how to deal with court translators and interpreters - need to provide for training of judges, lawyers and court personnel

* Disadvantaged situation of certain people who are in an especially vulnerable position during criminal proceedings. Suspects who for physical, medical, emotional or other reasons (such as but not limited to age, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, state of health, educational level etc) are in a weaker position than the average person.

4. Specific attention for persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

* Difficulties in identifying these groups of especially vulnerable people - some categories are obvious (e.g. children) but for others the vulnerability is not immediately obvious (e.g. low IQ, certain health problems etc).

* Disadvantaged situation of certain people who are in an especially vulnerable position during criminal proceedings. Suspects who for physical, medical, emotional or other reasons (such as but not limited to age, nationality, race, gender, sexual orientation, state of health, educational level etc) are in a weaker position than the average person.

* Once a suspect or defendant has been identified as needing specific attention, certain steps have to be taken. For a child, the parents or a social worker must be alerted, for someone with a health problem, a doctor may be needed.

* Difficulties in identifying these groups of especially vulnerable people - some categories are obvious (e.g. children) but for others the vulnerability is not immediately obvious (e.g. low IQ, certain health problems etc).

5. Communication and consular assistance

* Once a suspect or defendant has been identified as needing specific attention, certain steps have to be taken. For a child, the parents or a social worker must be alerted, for someone with a health problem, a doctor may be needed.

* A detained person should be entitled to have family members, persons assimilated to family members and any employer informed of the detention. This can be achieved by having the relevant information communicated on behalf of the detained person if there are concerns about preserving any evidence.

5. Communication and consular assistance

* Where the detained person is a foreigner, use should be made of the consular authorities to assist with the communication.

* A detained person should be entitled to have family members, persons assimilated to family members and any employer informed of the detention. This can be achieved by having the relevant information communicated on behalf of the detained person if there are concerns about preserving any evidence.

* Problems with lack of compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - law enforcement officials do not always contact the Consulate of the detained person; some detained persons choose not to have assistance even if it is offered owing to poor perception of the assistance.

* Where the detained person is a foreigner, use should be made of the consular authorities to assist with the communication.

6. Knowing of the existence of rights/ a "Letter of Rights"

* Problems with lack of compliance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations - law enforcement officials do not always contact the Consulate of the detained person; some detained persons choose not to have assistance even if it is offered owing to poor perception of the assistance.

* Other problems may arise if the detained person is a refugee or asylum seeker fleeing persecution in his home State and does not want assistance from consular officials - entitlement to have the assistance of a representative of an international humanitarian organisation

6. Knowing of the existence of rights/ a "Letter of Rights"

* Low awareness of the existing rights available to suspects and defendants during criminal proceedings, and as early on as arrest, (e.g. rights during police questioning)

* Other problems may arise if the detained person is a refugee or asylum seeker fleeing persecution in his home State and does not want assistance from consular officials - entitlement to have the assistance of a representative of an international humanitarian organisation

* Difficulty in informing foreign defendants and/or those who do not speak the language of their basic rights, including the important right to a lawyer and an interpreter

* Low awareness of the existing rights available to suspects and defendants during criminal proceedings, and as early on as arrest, (e.g. rights during police questioning)

* Lack of equivalence between MS in terms of protection of individual rights.

* Difficulty in informing foreign defendants and/or those who do not speak the language of their basic rights, including the important right to a lawyer and an interpreter

7. Evidence

* Lack of equivalence between MS in terms of protection of individual rights.

* The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is at stake where the burden of proof is reversed in the definition of offences in a Member State

7. Evidence

* The right to have someone informed of the detention is not always respected (anxiety that evidence will be destroyed, that suspect will alert accomplice etc.)

* The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is at stake where the burden of proof is reversed in the definition of offences in a Member State

* Substantial differences between Member States in criteria and conditions governing self-incrimination (right to silence varies from one Member State to another)

* The right to have someone informed of the detention is not always respected (anxiety that evidence will be destroyed, that suspect will alert accomplice etc.)

* Cultural differences can lead to very different uses and interpretations of practices such as plea bargaining or the use of informers (e.g. pentiti in Italy)

* Substantial differences between Member States in criteria and conditions governing self-incrimination (right to silence varies from one Member State to another)

* Discrepancies in rules governing admissibility of evidence

* Cultural differences can lead to very different uses and interpretations of practices such as plea bargaining or the use of informers (e.g. pentiti in Italy)

* Problems with prosecution failing to disclose all evidence, especially exculpatory evidence - rules vary from one Member State to another

* Discrepancies in rules governing admissibility of evidence

8. Detention

* Problems with prosecution failing to disclose all evidence, especially exculpatory evidence - rules vary from one Member State to another

* Substantial differences between Member States in criteria and conditions of bail

8. Detention

* Discrepancies between the Member States in relation to the right for a national of another Member State to serve any period of detention in their own Member State

* Substantial differences between Member States in criteria and conditions of bail

* High number of persons in pre-trial detention, especially foreign defendants since they are perceived as presenting a higher risk of absconding (no community ties).

* Discrepancies between the Member States in relation to the right for a national of another Member State to serve any period of detention in their own Member State

9. Ne bis in idem and lis pendens

* High number of persons in pre-trial detention, especially foreign defendants since they are perceived as presenting a higher risk of absconding (no community ties).

* Lack of clarity in Article 54 Schengen Implementing Convention

9. Ne bis in idem and lis pendens

* Disparities between Article 54 Schengen Implementing Convention and Article 50 Charter of Fundamental Rights

* Lack of clarity in Article 54 Schengen Implementing Convention

* Adapt current rules to the objective of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

* Disparities between Article 54 Schengen Implementing Convention and Article 50 Charter of Fundamental Rights

10. Evaluation and Monitoring

* Adapt current rules to the objective of an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice

* Difficulties in obtaining accurate, objective information about the actual situation in a country

10. Evaluation and Monitoring

* Need to have information at regular intervals so that it may be updated, and any improvement or deterioration noted

* Difficulties in obtaining accurate, objective information about the actual situation in a country

* Need to have information at regular intervals so that it may be updated, and any improvement or deterioration noted

ANNEX 2

How to overcome these challenges? Objectives of the proposal

ANNEX 2

Global // * Create specific guarantees to ensure the protection of individual rights

How to overcome these challenges? Objectives of the proposal

* Ensure that a person encounters equivalent standards in respect of safeguards in criminal proceedings across the EU as those in his or her Member State

Global // * Create specific guarantees to ensure the protection of individual rights

* Improve trust between Member States in their criminal justice systems as well as public perceptions thereof

* Ensure that a person encounters equivalent standards in respect of safeguards in criminal proceedings across the EU as those in his or her Member State

* New instrument will highlight existing rights

* Improve trust between Member States in their criminal justice systems as well as public perceptions thereof

Specific // Legal advice

* New instrument will highlight existing rights

* Create a more equivalent situation as regards legal advice in all the Member States

Specific // Legal advice

* Agree common rules about when (at what point in the proceedings) the suspected person should be entitled to legal advice and in which situations that legal advice should be free (in whole or in part)

* Create a more equivalent situation as regards legal advice in all the Member States

* Encourage Member States to create a mechanism for ensuring effectiveness of defence lawyers

* Agree common rules about when (at what point in the proceedings) the suspected person should be entitled to legal advice and in which situations that legal advice should be free (in whole or in part)

Interpretation and translation

* Encourage Member States to create a mechanism for ensuring effectiveness of defence lawyers

* Strengthen compliance with ECHR requirements in this field.

Interpretation and translation

* Enhance the social situation of translators and interpreters

* Strengthen compliance with ECHR requirements in this field.

* Aim for an equivalent level of training in Member States

* Enhance the social situation of translators and interpreters

* Encourage Member States to create a mechanism for ensuring competence of interpreters and translators

* Aim for an equivalent level of training in Member States

Specific attention for persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

* Encourage Member States to create a mechanism for ensuring competence of interpreters and translators

Ensure a higher level of protection by:

Specific attention for persons who, owing to their age or their physical, medical or emotional condition, cannot understand or follow the proceedings

* Identifying the suspects who need specific attention

Ensure a higher level of protection by:

* Raising awareness of the vulnerable position of these people

* Identifying the suspects who need specific attention

* Ensuring a better training of the police officers and other actors in the criminal process

* Raising awareness of the vulnerable position of these people

* Requiring a written record to be made of what specific attention was needed and record the fact that it was given

* Ensuring a better training of the police officers and other actors in the criminal process

Communication and consular assistance

* Requiring a written record to be made of what specific attention was needed and record the fact that it was given

* Agreeing that there should be a basic right to communication with the outside world where a person is detained (unless circumstances dictate that this is not appropriate)

Communication and consular assistance

* Ensuring that detained persons have the possibility of communicating with their family, dependants and/or place of employment (if necessary through a third party if direct communication is contraindicated). Where the defendant is a foreigner, ensuring that use is made of the consular authorities to assist with such communication.

* Agreeing that there should be a basic right to communication with the outside world where a person is detained (unless circumstances dictate that this is not appropriate)

* Ensuring that consular officials in each Member State are prepared to offer such assistance and have the necessary knowledge of criminal proceedings in the host State.

* Ensuring that detained persons have the possibility of communicating with their family, dependants and/or place of employment (if necessary through a third party if direct communication is contraindicated). Where the defendant is a foreigner, ensuring that use is made of the consular authorities to assist with such communication.

* Ensuring an appropriate training of police officers

* Ensuring that consular officials in each Member State are prepared to offer such assistance and have the necessary knowledge of criminal proceedings in the host State.

Knowing of the existence of rights/Letter of Rights

* Ensuring an appropriate training of police officers

* Would a "Letter of Rights" with equivalent contents throughout the Member States, which police stations would have ready in all languages, present a simple, inexpensive solution? Text of L/R could also be available on internet in numerous languages so readily available

Knowing of the existence of rights/Letter of Rights

* Require Member States to ensure all suspects receive Letter of Rights

* Would a "Letter of Rights" with equivalent contents throughout the Member States, which police stations would have ready in all languages, present a simple, inexpensive solution? Text of L/R could also be available on internet in numerous languages so readily available

* During the preparatory phase, all interested groups are invited to take part in the debate about what the contents of the Letter of Rights should be (budget available for experts meeting to be held in 2004 so can involve outside experts).

* Require Member States to ensure all suspects receive Letter of Rights

* The Letter of Rights should cover both common "European" and specific national rights where relevant.

* During the preparatory phase, all interested groups are invited to take part in the debate about what the contents of the Letter of Rights should be (budget available for experts meeting to be held in 2004 so can involve outside experts).

Evidence

* The Letter of Rights should cover both common "European" and specific national rights where relevant.

* To include proposals for safeguards relating to evidence at this stage would be inefficient, as the proposal would be too broad and attempt to cover too many areas. The Commission plans to start work on a separate initiative covering all safeguards relating to evidence in 2004 and will develop a relevant strategy nearer the time

Evidence

Detention

* To include proposals for safeguards relating to evidence at this stage would be inefficient, as the proposal would be too broad and attempt to cover too many areas. The Commission plans to start work on a separate initiative covering all safeguards relating to evidence in 2004 and will develop a relevant strategy nearer the time

* Create equivalent standards on pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention throughout the European Union

Detention

* Enable control, supervision or preventive measures ordered by a judicial authority pending the trial to be recognised and immediately enforced in another Member State

* Create equivalent standards on pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention throughout the European Union

* Reduce the number of persons in pre-trial detention by covering alternatives to pre-trial detention

* Enable control, supervision or preventive measures ordered by a judicial authority pending the trial to be recognised and immediately enforced in another Member State

* Commission plans separate Green Paper on this topic, to be adopted late 2003 or early 2004.

* Reduce the number of persons in pre-trial detention by covering alternatives to pre-trial detention

Ne bis in idem and lis pendens

* Commission plans separate Green Paper on this topic, to be adopted late 2003 or early 2004.

* Guarantee that citizens are not prosecuted or tried for the same acts several times

Ne bis in idem and lis pendens

* Avoid duplication of work for prosecuting and law enforcement authorities

* Guarantee that citizens are not prosecuted or tried for the same acts several times

Horizontal // Evaluation and Monitoring

* Avoid duplication of work for prosecuting and law enforcement authorities

Extend the Commission's task of collecting information on the transposition into national legislation of the relevant EU obligations to a regular monitoring exercise on compliance

Horizontal // Evaluation and Monitoring

Extend the Commission's task of collecting information on the transposition into national legislation of the relevant EU obligations to a regular monitoring exercise on compliance

ANNEX 3. Potential impacts

Expected impact on the EU economy and society if the suggested policy is implemented

ANNEX 3. Potential impacts

Target : EU economy and society

Expected impact on the EU economy and society if the suggested policy is implemented

Qualitative // Descriptors

Target : EU economy and society

Economic impact:

Qualitative // Descriptors

Positive Indirect

Economic impact:

* Enhanced mobility and freedom of movement owing to increased trust on the part of citizens in their freedom to move across Europe, (benefits for employment purposes, transport companies (e.g. lorry drivers), tourism

Positive Indirect

* More transparency leads to more efficiency (unnecessary appeals and people in custody, reduce backlog in courts, etc.)

* Enhanced mobility and freedom of movement owing to increased trust on the part of citizens in their freedom to move across Europe, (benefits for employment purposes, transport companies (e.g. lorry drivers), tourism

* Reduce expense of holding foreign nationals in detention (pre-trial and following conviction) , reduce miscarriages of justice

* More transparency leads to more efficiency (unnecessary appeals and people in custody, reduce backlog in courts, etc.)

Negative Direct/Indirect

* Reduce expense of holding foreign nationals in detention (pre-trial and following conviction) , reduce miscarriages of justice

* Associated implementation costs (to be included in the monitoring and evaluation measure)

Negative Direct/Indirect

* MS with no centralised systems for lawyers and translation will have to set them up; market levels of pay for lawyers and translators; Letter of Rights; training for police officers, consular services, lawyers, translators, social workers...

* Associated implementation costs (to be included in the monitoring and evaluation measure)

* Abuses of these guarantees may cause undue delay in procedures.

* MS with no centralised systems for lawyers and translation will have to set them up; market levels of pay for lawyers and translators; Letter of Rights; training for police officers, consular services, lawyers, translators, social workers...

//

* Abuses of these guarantees may cause undue delay in procedures.

* National motoring and touring organisations report the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards for their members when involved as suspects or defendants in cross border criminal proceedings across the EU

//

* Negative reports in the press about "unfair" criminal proceedings in other Member States (e.g. "plane-spotters' case)

* National motoring and touring organisations report the absence of sufficient procedural safeguards for their members when involved as suspects or defendants in cross border criminal proceedings across the EU

* Negative reports in the press about "unfair" criminal proceedings in other Member States (e.g. "plane-spotters' case)

Social impact:

Positive Direct

Social impact:

* Better respect for fundamental rights - citizens reinforced in their value system and in validity of democracy (important especially in the light of fight against terrorism)

Positive Direct

* Increased trust between MS - can lead to more active cooperation in the judicial area, increased social cohesion and a sense of belonging

* Better respect for fundamental rights - citizens reinforced in their value system and in validity of democracy (important especially in the light of fight against terrorism)

* More transparency can lead to more respect for fundamental rights, which enhances mutual recognition

* Increased trust between MS - can lead to more active cooperation in the judicial area, increased social cohesion and a sense of belonging

* Reduce feelings of helplessness of individuals against a system perceived to be unfair

* More transparency can lead to more respect for fundamental rights, which enhances mutual recognition

* Increased faith in channels of communication between actors in the criminal justice system

* Reduce feelings of helplessness of individuals against a system perceived to be unfair

Indirect

* Increased faith in channels of communication between actors in the criminal justice system

* Increased sense of belonging in society, of being a stakeholder

Indirect

* Concept of civic citizenship, may bring the EU closer to the citizens

* Increased sense of belonging in society, of being a stakeholder

Negative Direct/Indirect

* Concept of civic citizenship, may bring the EU closer to the citizens

//

Negative Direct/Indirect

//

Environmental impact:

* More effective judicial systems will lead to more efficient use of resources.

Environmental impact:

* More fluent functioning of the criminal justice system leads to a greater efficiency in the prosecution of environmental crimes.

* More effective judicial systems will lead to more efficient use of resources.

//

* More fluent functioning of the criminal justice system leads to a greater efficiency in the prosecution of environmental crimes.

//

Expected impact on suspects and defendants if the suggested policy is implemented

Target group: suspects and defendants

Expected impact on suspects and defendants if the suggested policy is implemented

NB: All these potential impacts apply to own nationals and foreigners alike. However, it must be noted that some aspects of the proposal target mainly foreign suspects and defendants, and hence impacts on this subgroup are multiplied.

Target group: suspects and defendants

NB: All these potential impacts apply to own nationals and foreigners alike. However, it must be noted that some aspects of the proposal target mainly foreign suspects and defendants, and hence impacts on this subgroup are multiplied.

Qualitative // Descriptors

Economic impact:

Qualitative // Descriptors

Positive Direct

Economic impact:

* Ensure better representation hence lower costs for suspects, automatic right to free assistance of translators and interpreters

Positive Direct

* Reduce miscarriages of justice whereby innocent person wrongly convicted - economic costs (e.g. loss of job, loss of trust from employers)

* Ensure better representation hence lower costs for suspects, automatic right to free assistance of translators and interpreters

Positive Indirect

* Reduce miscarriages of justice whereby innocent person wrongly convicted - economic costs (e.g. loss of job, loss of trust from employers)

* Increased awareness of rights not only on the part of suspects and defendants but also increased awareness on the part of all actors in the criminal justice system

Positive Indirect

* Better knowledge of rights and better compliance with them may lead to speedier procedures

* Increased awareness of rights not only on the part of suspects and defendants but also increased awareness on the part of all actors in the criminal justice system

Negative Direct/Indirect

* Better knowledge of rights and better compliance with them may lead to speedier procedures

//

Negative Direct/Indirect

Social impact:

//

Positive Direct

Social impact:

* Equal access to justice in the broad sense (e.g. financial, linguistic, medical, etc.)

Positive Direct

* Awareness of their existing rights: better protection of their fundamental rights

* Equal access to justice in the broad sense (e.g. financial, linguistic, medical, etc.)

* Increase of independence of suspects/defendants with regards to their family

* Awareness of their existing rights: better protection of their fundamental rights

* Reduce miscarriages of justice

* Increase of independence of suspects/defendants with regards to their family

Negative

* Reduce miscarriages of justice

* Ability for suspect or defendant in bad faith to misuse the guarantees provided

Negative

* Abuses of the system may cause undue delay in procedures

* Ability for suspect or defendant in bad faith to misuse the guarantees provided

//

* Abuses of the system may cause undue delay in procedures

//

Environmental impact:

No direct or indirect impacts

Environmental impact:

// Not applicable

No direct or indirect impacts

Expected impact on suspects and defendants' families if the suggested policy is implemented

// Not applicable

Target group: suspects' and defendants' families

Expected impact on suspects and defendants' families if the suggested policy is implemented

Qualitative // Descriptors

Target group: suspects' and defendants' families

Economic impact:

Qualitative // Descriptors

Positive Direct

Economic impact:

* Increased faith in the criminal justice systems of all Member States so more trust both at home and abroad - reduced need to employ lawyer privately or to pay for translator or other assistance

Positive Direct

* Fewer miscarriages of justice will lead to fewer people in prison for offences they did not commit - therefore fewer families losing potentially main breadwinner

* Increased faith in the criminal justice systems of all Member States so more trust both at home and abroad - reduced need to employ lawyer privately or to pay for translator or other assistance

* Legal aid: should be granted where the legal costs would cause the family undue financial hardship

* Fewer miscarriages of justice will lead to fewer people in prison for offences they did not commit - therefore fewer families losing potentially main breadwinner

Positive Indirect

* Legal aid: should be granted where the legal costs would cause the family undue financial hardship

* Greater labour mobility may be achieved, people more prepared to look for work abroad

Positive Indirect

Negative Direct/Indirect

* Greater labour mobility may be achieved, people more prepared to look for work abroad

* Costs of implementing the measures may lead to increased taxes or changes in financial priorities which could have a negative impact on families of suspects and defendants

Negative Direct/Indirect

//

* Costs of implementing the measures may lead to increased taxes or changes in financial priorities which could have a negative impact on families of suspects and defendants

Social impact:

//

Positive Direct

Social impact:

* Increased faith in the criminal justice system

Positive Direct

* Increased trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States

* Increased faith in the criminal justice system

Negative

* Increased trust in the criminal justice systems of other Member States

* //

Negative

* Family members may be asked to assist, for example to stand surety for bail , to help trace witnesses, even to translate and bear other burdens during the proceedings

* //

Environmental impact:

* Family members may be asked to assist, for example to stand surety for bail , to help trace witnesses, even to translate and bear other burdens during the proceedings

No direct or indirect impacts

Environmental impact:

// Not applicable

No direct or indirect impacts

Expected impact on professionals working in the criminal justice system if the suggested policy is implemented

// Not applicable

Target group: translators/interpreters/police officers/lawyers/court officers/judges/social workers etc.

Expected impact on professionals working in the criminal justice system if the suggested policy is implemented

Qualitative // Descriptors

Target group: translators/interpreters/police officers/lawyers/court officers/judges/social workers etc.

Economic impact:

Qualitative // Descriptors

Positive Direct

Economic impact:

* Enhanced social status

Positive Direct

* Greater recognition of qualifications of translators and interpreters and assistance with obtaining continuous professional development

* Enhanced social status

* Greater recognition for the work of translators and interpreters

* Greater recognition of qualifications of translators and interpreters and assistance with obtaining continuous professional development

Positive Indirect:

* Greater recognition for the work of translators and interpreters

* Better remuneration for lawyers working under criminal legal aid schemes

Positive Indirect:

* Better remuneration for legal translators and interpreters

* Better remuneration for lawyers working under criminal legal aid schemes

* Increased number of qualified lawyers willing to accept pro bono cases

* Better remuneration for legal translators and interpreters

* Increased numbers of legal translators and interpreters available to courts and police stations

* Increased number of qualified lawyers willing to accept pro bono cases

Negative:

* Increased numbers of legal translators and interpreters available to courts and police stations

* Increased costs in terms of training.

Negative:

* Increased workload for all actors in the criminal justice system

* Increased costs in terms of training.

//

* Increased workload for all actors in the criminal justice system

* In some Member States legal advice on arrest is given on a pro bono basis by trainees and students, or under the "commis d'office" system

//

* The GROTIUS Programme PROJECT 2001/GRP/015 has pointed out the lack of legal interpreters and translators because of the comparative unattractiveness and low status of these professions

* In some Member States legal advice on arrest is given on a pro bono basis by trainees and students, or under the "commis d'office" system

* The GROTIUS Programme PROJECT 2001/GRP/015 has pointed out the lack of legal interpreters and translators because of the comparative unattractiveness and low status of these professions

Social impact:

Positive Direct

Social impact:

* Reduced criticism of criminal justice will improve the morale of all those working in the system

Positive Direct

* Efficient working of the judicial system in and out of court as a consequence of an appropriate training and awareness of courts and legal services to interpreters and translators during interdisciplinary training

* Reduced criticism of criminal justice will improve the morale of all those working in the system

Positive Indirect

* Efficient working of the judicial system in and out of court as a consequence of an appropriate training and awareness of courts and legal services to interpreters and translators during interdisciplinary training

* Higher social status for translators and interpreters working in the criminal justice system

Positive Indirect

Negative Direct

* Higher social status for translators and interpreters working in the criminal justice system

//

Negative Direct

* See above GROTIUS Programme PROJECT 2001/GRP/015

//

* The International Federation of Interpreters reports that judges and lawyers are unfamiliar or not trained to work with interpreters and translators which can slow down the procedure

* See above GROTIUS Programme PROJECT 2001/GRP/015

* The International Federation of Interpreters reports that judges and lawyers are unfamiliar or not trained to work with interpreters and translators which can slow down the procedure

Environmental impact:

No direct or indirect impacts

Environmental impact:

// Not applicable

No direct or indirect impacts

Expected impact on victims in the criminal justice system if the suggested policy is implemented

// Not applicable

Target group: victims and related pressure groups

Expected impact on victims in the criminal justice system if the suggested policy is implemented

Qualitative // Descriptors

Target group: victims and related pressure groups

Economic impact:

Qualitative // Descriptors

Positive Direct/Indirect

Economic impact:

* Better justice leads to fewer contested decisions. Fewer appeals lead to a quicker procedure which can help victims recover and reduce tangential costs for the victim

Positive Direct/Indirect

Negative Direct

* Better justice leads to fewer contested decisions. Fewer appeals lead to a quicker procedure which can help victims recover and reduce tangential costs for the victim

* The costs of implementing the policy is chargeable to the justice budget - spending priorities relating to suspects and defendants means less available for compensation to victims

Negative Direct

Negative Indirect

* The costs of implementing the policy is chargeable to the justice budget - spending priorities relating to suspects and defendants means less available for compensation to victims

* The budget invested in the suggested policy will not be used for other victim centred purposes (opportunity costs)

Negative Indirect

//

* The budget invested in the suggested policy will not be used for other victim centred purposes (opportunity costs)

Social impact:

//

Positive Direct/Indirect

Social impact:

* Fewer appeals (see above) should lead to more expeditious procedures. This has a positive impact on the situation of the victim who is released from the burden of the trial. Studies show victims recover from the trauma faster once there is "closure" (after the trial)

Positive Direct/Indirect

* The proposal raises awareness of the situation of victims

* Fewer appeals (see above) should lead to more expeditious procedures. This has a positive impact on the situation of the victim who is released from the burden of the trial. Studies show victims recover from the trauma faster once there is "closure" (after the trial)

* The proposals for making better use of consular officials will also be to the advantage of victims of crimes who are foreigners. The consular official may provide the victim with information about the local legal system, including any compensation scheme, details of any relevant NGO that may be able to offer him support and information regarding interpreters and translators.

* The proposal raises awareness of the situation of victims

Negative Direct

* The proposals for making better use of consular officials will also be to the advantage of victims of crimes who are foreigners. The consular official may provide the victim with information about the local legal system, including any compensation scheme, details of any relevant NGO that may be able to offer him support and information regarding interpreters and translators.

//

Negative Direct