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of authorities involved therein, rendering the traditional distinction between police and judicial cooperation as outdated.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

In the past decades, the European Union has made little progress with respect to disqualifications as a sanction mechanism for the violation of laws. The creation of some form of harmonization is necessary, but the complex nature of this specific sanction mechanism has caused policy initiatives to be postponed, time after time. In answer to a call from the European Commission, the contributors in this book have conducted a comparative legal analysis in the EU 27 and looked into the practical experiences with disqualifications from a domestic and a cross border perspective. To that end, academics, policy makers, and practitioners in the Member States have been consulted. Analysis reveals a wide variety in the typology of the disqualifications as a sanction measure, the typology of the persons to whom the disqualifications can be imposed, and the typology of the authorities involved. Furthermore, there are considerable differences with respect to the inclusion of disqualifications in the national criminal records databases. Linked thereto information on foreign disqualifications is scarce and rarely used in practice. To ensure a comprehensive and consistent policy approach, this book has come up with a so called disqualification triad, comprising: (1) unified EU-wide disqualifications, (2) mutual recognition of disqualifications, and (3) EU-wide equivalent effect of disqualifications. The functioning of the disqualification triad has been further elaborated on in three case studies, which are public procurement disqualifications, disqualifications from working with children, and driving disqualifications. In doing so, this book is essential reading for both EU and national policy makers, as well as for researchers and practitioners involved. (Series: Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy [IRCP] - No. 45)

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

This book develops a conceptual framework of the principle of mutual trust in EU criminal law. Mutual trust is a household term in the EU criminal law vocabulary and is widely regarded to be a prerequisite for a successful application of mutual recognition. But despite its importance, the parameters of the concept are not clear. The book demonstrates that mutual trust is multi-faceted: combining the elements essential to a successful EU criminal law, as part of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. The book approaches trust from multiple angles. First, a study of social science literature. Second, a meticulous assessment of mutual trust in EU criminal law. Third, a study of trust in US interstate criminal justice cooperation. Finally, the book identifies a comprehensive approach to tackle trust related difficulties in EU criminal law. This timely book will be of great interest to anyone looking to gain a full picture of this core principle in EU criminal law.

A leading work in the field of international criminal law, which is accessible, comprehensive and up to date.

This book offers an insight into the historical, institutional and topical development of the EU policy in the areas of justice, home affairs and security, well-embedded in a broader international context. The main part of the book, dedicated to the EU, is therefore preceded by a part on relevant cooperation on the Benelux and Schengen levels and followed by a part on cooperation in the areas concerned on Council of Europe, NATO, OSCE, G8, OECD and UN levels. Without a proper understanding of those cooperation levels, the development and functioning of the EU would be hard to fully grasp. Before addressing the actual policy dimension, all parts start with a historical introduction and a sketch of institutional structures and functioning. For students and professionals in criminology, law and political science, and every one interested in European and international criminal policy making this book will prove relevant or insightful.

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

Whereas previous studies of legitimacy and trust have mostly dealt with procedural justice and the police, this book focuses on other crucial understudied aspects of legitimacy within criminal law, policy and criminal justice. The chapters expand and develop current criminological, legal and socio-legal research by addressing conceptions of legitimacy linked to criminal law norms, criminalisation and sanctioning; by examining EU legal and policy aspects of the phenomenon; and by exploring some specific court-related issues of legitimacy and trust, hitherto neglected. With contributions from across the EU, this interdisciplinary collection presents a valuable discussion on the importance of trust in legal institutions of modern democracies and suggests ideas for future research in this area to challenge ways of thinking about legitimacy.

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

This important volume provides an up-to-date overview of the main questions currently discussed in the field of EU criminal law. It makes a stimulating addition to literature in the field, while offering its own distinctive features. It takes a four-part approach: firstly, it addresses issues of a constitutional nature, such as the EU competence in the field of criminal law, the importance of the principle of subsidiarity and the role played by the different EU institutions. Secondly, it looks at issues linked to the quest of the right balance between diversity and unity, and focuses in particular on the special relationship between approximation and mutual recognition. Thirdly, it focuses on the balance between security and freedom, or, in other words, between the shield and sword functions of EU criminal law. Special attention is given here to transatlantic cooperation, data protection, terrorism, the European Arrest Warrant and the European Investigation Order. Finally, it examines the importance of balanced relations between criminal justice actors.