Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.

com/abstract=1371511







unlverslLy of Ldlnburgh
School of Law

Worklng aper Serles
2009]10

Mutua| 1rust |n Luropean Cr|m|na| Law
Masslmo llchera






Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1371511



































































MU1UAL 1kUS1 IN LUkCLAN CkIMINAL LAW






MASSIMC IICnLkA

hu CandldaLe
School of Law
unlverslLy of Ldlnburgh


































1hls LexL may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any addlLlonal reproducLlon for
oLher purposes, wheLher ln hard copy or elecLronlcally, requlres Lhe consenL of Lhe auLhor(s). lf
clLed or quoLed, reference should be made Lo Lhe name of Lhe auLhor(s), Lhe LlLle, Lhe number,
and Lhe worklng paper serles.







































2009 Masslmo llchera
Ldlnburgh School of Law Worklng aper Serles
Ceneral LdlLor: uanlel AugensLeln
unlverslLy of Ldlnburgh

Abstract: 1hls paper alms Lo go Lhrough Lhe maln sLeps ln Lhe evoluLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual
recognlLlon of [udlclal declslon ln crlmlnal maLLers ln order Lo ldenLlfy Lhe maln feaLures and flaws
of Lhe newly born Luropean crlmlnal law. WhaL ls Lhe purpose of Lhls branch of law? ls lL rlghL Lo
Lalk abouL lL and where does lL draw lLs leglLlmacy from? lL ls suggesLed LhaL one of Lhe maln
lssues LhaL need Lo be dealL wlLh ls LhaL of LrusL. An aLLempL ls made Lo deflne Lhe laLLer ln non-
legal Lerms and Lo vlew lL as a prerequlslLe of cooperaLlon. undersLandlng lLs lmpllcaLlons as well
as Lhe consequences of non-LrusL can be helpful Lo beLLer clarlfy whaL Lhe dlrecLlon of Luropean
crlmlnal law can be. ln parLlcular, lL ls essenLlal Lo llnk LrusL Lo leglLlmacy of crlmlnal law, because
Lhe more leglLlmaLe auLhorlLles are or appear Lo be, Lhe more Lhey are wllllng Lo LrusL each oLher.


keywords: Lu crlmlnal law, muLual LrusL, muLual recognlLlon
















































1
Mutua| 1rust |n Luropean Cr|m|na| Law


Introduct|on

1hls paper alms Lo go Lhrough Lhe maln sLeps ln Lhe evoluLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual
recognlLlon of [udlclal declslon ln crlmlnal maLLers ln order Lo ldenLlfy Lhe maln feaLures and flaws
of Lhe newly born Luropean crlmlnal law. WhaL ls Lhe purpose of Lhls branch of law? ls lL rlghL Lo
Lalk abouL lL and where does lL draw lLs leglLlmacy from? lL ls suggesLed LhaL one of Lhe maln
lssues LhaL need Lo be dealL wlLh ls LhaL of LrusL. An aLLempL ls made Lo deflne Lhe laLLer ln non-
legal Lerms and Lo vlew lL as a prerequlslLe of cooperaLlon. undersLandlng lLs lmpllcaLlons as well
as Lhe consequences of non-LrusL can be helpful Lo beLLer clarlfy whaL Lhe dlrecLlon of Luropean
crlmlnal law can be. ln parLlcular, lL ls essenLlal Lo llnk LrusL Lo leglLlmacy of crlmlnal law, because
Lhe more leglLlmaLe auLhorlLles are or appear Lo be, Lhe more Lhey are wllllng Lo LrusL each oLher.


1. Mutua| recogn|t|on archetypes and regenerat|on as motors of LU cooperat|on |n cr|m|na|
matters

WhaL we deflne nowadays as Luropean crlmlnal law ls probably sLlll a form of lnLer-sLaLe
cooperaLlon, alLhough lL ls gradually bulldlng up lLs own prlnclples and caLegorles. lL ls useful Lo
look aL one of lLs mosL lmporLanL prlnclples, l.e. muLual recognlLlon and lLs prevlous relncarnaLlon
wlLhln Lhe framework of Lhe Councll of Lurope.

2
Lxamples of Lhese are: Lhe Luropean ConvenLlon on Lhe Supervlslon of CondlLlonally SenLenced or
CondlLlonally 8eleased Cffenders and Lhe Luropean ConvenLlon on Lhe unlshmenL of 8oad 1rafflc
Cffences, boLh of Lhem of 30 november 1964,
1
Lhe Luropean ConvenLlon on Lhe lnLernaLlonal
valldlLy of Crlmlnal !udgmenLs, agreed aL 1he Pague ln May 1970, Lhe Luropean ConvenLlon on
Lhe 1ransfer of roceedlngs ln Crlmlnal MaLLers of 13 May 1972, Lhe ConvenLlon on Lhe 1ransfer of
SenLenced ersons of 21 March 1983. 1here ls also a ConvenLlon beLween Lhe Member SLaLes of
Lhe Luropean CommunlLles on Lhe LnforcemenL of lorelgn Crlmlnal SenLences of 13 november
1991. All Lhe ConvenLlons menLloned above have a reglonal or sub-reglonal scope.
2


Common polnLs of Lhese ConvenLlons are: Lhe general rule LhaL enforcemenL ls governed by Lhe
law of Lhe requesLed SLaLe, Lhe provlslon of a number of grounds of refusal, ln some of Lhem, Lhe
posslblllLy for Lhe SLaLe of enforcemenL Lo arresL Lhe offender upon requesL of anoLher SLaLe and
Lo selze hls asseLs (sub[ecL Lo condlLlons and llmlLs), Lhe posslblllLy glven Lo Lhe SLaLe of
enforcemenL of converLlng Lhe penalLy lssued ln anoLher SLaLe lnLo a penalLy provlded for by lLs
naLlonal law for Lhe same or comparable offences, provlded LhaL Lhe penal slLuaLlon of Lhe
senLenced person ls noL aggravaLed. 1hey all presumed LhaL a sufflclenL level of confldence
exlsLed, as ls posslble Lo ascerLaln ln Lhelr reambles. Powever, Lhls confldence dld noL go as far as
Lo ellmlnaLe Lhe hlgh number of grounds for non-execuLlon.


1
L1S n. 31 and n. 32. 1hey enLered lnLo force, respecLlvely, on 22/8/1973 and 18/7/1972.
2
See respecLlvely 1he Pague, 28/3/1970, L1S n. 70, SLrasbourg, 13/3/1972, L1S n. 73, SLrasbourg, 21/3/1983, L1S n.
112. See also L. Muller-8appard, 'lnLer-SLaLe CooperaLlon ln enal MaLLers WlLhln Lhe Councll of Lurope lramework'
ln M. C. 8asslounl (ed.), lotetootloool ctlmlool low, ltoceJotol ooJ ofotcemeot Mecboolsms (2
nd
ed. 1ransnaLlonal
ubllshers 1999) 331.
3
As ls well known, Lhe ldea of muLual recognlLlon as moLor of Lhe new Lu sysLem of cooperaLlon ln
crlmlnal maLLers was launched aL Lhe Cardlff and 1ampere Luropean Councll.
3
A reporL on Lhe flrsL
sLeps of Lhe muLual recognlLlon agenda ls conLalned ln Lhe CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon
on Lhe MuLual 8ecognlLlon of llnal ueclslons ln Crlmlnal MaLLers ln !uly 2000.
4
1hls documenL
polnLed ouL LhaL no one of Lhe prevlous lnLernaLlonal lnsLrumenLs would be sufflclenL Lo esLabllsh
a full reglme of muLual recognlLlon and LhaL LradlLlonal [udlclal cooperaLlon ln crlmlnal maLLers,
based on Lhe requesL" prlnclple, was slow and cumbersome and led Lo uncerLaln resulLs. lndeed,
common rules on [urlsdlcLlon were necessary and Lhe number of grounds for refusal was Loo hlgh.
Pence Lhe need for a Luropean reglsLry of crlmlnal senLences and of crlmlnal proceedlngs, whlch
would avold problems connecLed Lo Lhe oe bls lo lJem prlnclple and confllcLs of [urlsdlcLlon,
ensurlng aL Lhe same Llme daLa proLecLlon.
3
1he Commlsslon also suggesLed LhaL a seL of common
rules on [urlsdlcLlon, ldenLlfylng only one Member SLaLe as havlng compeLence, could be agreed,
slmllarly Lo whaL already exlsLs ln Lhe area of clvll and commerclal maLLers. ln Lhls conLexL,
however, Lhe Commlsslon recognlsed LhaL muLual recognlLlon cannoL be undersLood ln absoluLe
Lerms, as a sysLem wlLh no form of exepootot procedure aL all ls noL feaslble. Mlnlmum rules
should aL leasL provlde for a LranslaLlon of Lhe LexL and a conLrol as Lo wheLher Lhe declslon has
been lssued by a compeLenL auLhorlLy. We can Lherefore summarlse Lhe maln feaLures of Lhls new
form of lnLernaLlonal cooperaLlon: more rapldlLy, more cerLalnLy, less dlscreLlon.


3
Cardlff Luropean Councll (13-16 !une 1998) resldency Concluslons, par. 39, 1ampere Luropean Councll (13-16
CcLober 1999) resldency Concluslons, par. 33, boLh avallable aL
hLLp://europa.eu/european_councll/concluslons/lndex_en.hLm
4
CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL- MuLual 8ecognlLlon of llnal
ueclslons ln Crlmlnal MaLLers CCM(2000) 493 flnal
3
1he vlenna AcLlon lan, polnL 49(e), already requlred, as one of Lhe measures Lo be Laken wlLhln flve years of Lhe
enLry lnLo force of Lhe AmsLerdam 1reaLy, an examlnaLlon of Lhe posslblllLy Lo creaLe a reglsLer of pendlng cases.
4
ln order Lo flx prlorlLles and assess Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe measures ln Lhe fleld of freedom,
securlLy and [usLlce, Lhe ldea of a mulLl-annual programme, whlch had been lnauguraLed wlLh Lhe
1ampere rogramme, was furLher developed wlLh Lhe Pague rogramme, aL Lhe Luropean Councll
of 4-3 november 2004. 1hls programme ldenLlfles Lhe ob[ecLlves of sLrengLhenlng freedom,
securlLy and [usLlce as well as Len prlorlLles for Lhe perlod 2003-2009. Accordlng Lo rlorlLy n. 9, .
ApproxlmaLlon wlll be pursued, ln parLlcular Lhrough Lhe adopLlon of rules ensurlng a hlgh degree
of proLecLlon of persons, wlLh a vlew Lo bulldlng muLual LrusL and sLrengLhenlng muLual
recognlLlon, whlch remalns Lhe cornersLone of [udlclal cooperaLlon".
6
A more deLalled llsL of
measures ls provlded for ln Lhe AcLlon lan,
7
whlch ls consldered as parL of a framework lncludlng
Lhe urugs AcLlon lan, Lhe AcLlon lan on CombaLlng 1errorlsm and Lhe SLraLegy on Lhe exLernal
aspecLs of Lhe area of freedom, securlLy and [usLlce. An annual reporL on Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of
Lhe Pague rogramme (called Lhe Scoreboard plus") ls requlred, ln order Lo evaluaLe Lhe progress
achleved ln Lhe adopLlon of Lhe leglslaLlve acLs and ln Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe measures aL Lhe
naLlonal level. 1he flrsL Scoreboard plus" has already been presenLed ln 2006.
8


All Lhe leglslaLlve measures adopLed so far have Laken Lhe form of a lramework ueclslon, whlch ls
Lhe maln lnsLrumenL wlLhln Lhe 1hlrd lllar.
9
1he flrsL lnsLrumenL of muLual recognlLlon Lo be
creaLed (ln 2002) was Lhe Luropean ArresL WarranL,
10
whlch ls appllcable boLh Lo flnal [udgmenLs

6
CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL- 1he Pague rogramme: 1en
rlorlLles for Lhe nexL flve years- CCM (2003) 184 flnal
7
Councll and Commlsslon AcLlon lan lmplemenLlng Lhe Pague rogramme on sLrengLhenlng freedom, securlLy and
[usLlce ln Lhe Luropean unlon (C! C 198/01 12/8/2003)
8
CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL - lmplemenLlng Lhe Pague
rogramme: Lhe way forward CCM (2006) 331 flnal, CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe
Luropean arllamenL - LvaluaLlon of Lu ollcles on lreedom, SecurlLy and !usLlce CCM (2006) 332 flnal,
CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL CCM (2006) 333 flnal
9
1he reasons why Lhls lnsLrumenL was chosen and lLs many flaws cannoL be analysed here. See for lnsLance A. kllp
and P. van der WllL sopto.
10
Councll lramework ueclslon 2002/384/!PA on Lhe Luropean ArresL WarranL and Lhe surrender procedure beLween
Member SLaLes, C! L 190 18/07/2002.
3
and Lhe pre-Lrlal phase. CLher lnsLrumenLs wlLhln Lhe MuLual 8ecognlLlon rogramme followed
afLerwards. 1hey can all be grouped accordlng Lo Lhe phase of crlmlnal proceedlngs Lo whlch Lhey
apply. 1he execuLlon of orders freezlng properLy or evldence, conflscaLlon orders, non-cusLodlal
pre-Lrlal supervlslon measures and Lhe Luropean Lvldence WarranL
11
all belong Lo Lhe pre-Lrlal
phase. A proposal for a lramework ueclslon on Laklng accounL of prevlous convlcLlons ln Lhe
course of new crlmlnal proceedlngs ls also on Lhe Lable.
12
llnally, a general approach has been
agreed on Lhe muLual recognlLlon of [udgemenLs lmposlng cusLodlal senLences or measures
lnvolvlng deprlvaLlon of llberLy for Lhe purpose of Lhelr enforcemenL ln Lhelr Luropean unlon.
13


1he flrsL of Lhe lnsLrumenLs menLloned above alms aL securlng evldence, whlch can Lhen be used
by Lhe lssulng Member SLaLe, lL can also be lssued for Lhe purpose of conflscaLlon, whlch ls dealL
wlLh by anoLher lramework ueclslon. 8ecognlLlon of freezlng orders musL occur wlLhouL formallLy
and Lhe execuLlon musL be 'lmmedlaLe'. ln any case, Lhe [udlclal auLhorlLy of Lhe execuLlng SLaLe
musL observe Lhe formallLles and procedures lndlcaLed by Lhe compeLenL [udlclal auLhorlLy of Lhe
lssulng SLaLe.
14
1he non-cusLodlal pre-Lrlal supervlslon measures can be applled Lo persons ln Lhelr
counLry of orlgln. More speclflcally, Lhe Luropean supervlslon order ls a declslon lssued by a
[udlclal auLhorlLy ln one Member SLaLe LhaL musL be recognlsed by a compeLenL auLhorlLy ln
anoLher Member SLaLe. 1he purpose ls Lo guaranLee Lhe suspecL a pre-Lrlal supervlslon measure ln

11
Councll lramework ueclslon 2003/377/!PA on Lhe execuLlon ln Lhe Luropean unlon of orders freezlng properLy or
evldence C! L 196 02/08/2003, Councll lramework ueclslon 2003/212/!PA on ConflscaLlon of Crlme-8elaLed
roceeds, lnsLrumenLallLles and roperLy concernlng mlnlmum harmonlsaLlon of conflscaLlon procedures ln Member
SLaLes, C! L 68 13/03/2003, Councll lramework ueclslon 2006/783/!PA on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual
recognlLlon Lo conflscaLlon orders, C! L 328 24/11/2006, roposal for a Councll lramework ueclslon on Lhe Luropean
supervlslon order ln pre-Lrlal procedures beLween Member SLaLes of Lhe Luropean unlon, 8russels, 13 uecember 2007
uoc. 16494/07 CCLn 181, roposal for a Councll lu on Lhe Luropean Lvldence WarranL, 8russels, 14.11.2003 CCM
(2003) 688 flnal.
12
urafL lramework ueclslon on Laklng accounL of convlcLlons ln Lhe Member SLaLes of Lhe Luropean unlon ln Lhe
course of new crlmlnal proceedlngs, 8russels, 11 !une 2008 uoc. 9960/08 CCLn 103.
13
urafL Councll lramework ueclslon on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual recognlLlon Lo [udgemenLs ln
crlmlnal maLLers lmposlng cusLodlal senLences or measures lnvolvlng deprlvaLlon of llberLy for Lhe purpose of Lhelr
enforcemenL ln Lhe Luropean unlon, 8russels, 22 May 2007, uoc. 9688/07 CCLn 68.
14
ArL. 3(1) of Lhe lramework ueclslon.
6
hls or her naLural envlronmenL (l.e. hls or her resldence). 1he Luropean Lvldence WarranL, on
whlch pollLlcal agreemenL on Lhe general approach Lo be adopLed was reached ln Lhe !PA Councll
of !une 2006,
13
can be lssued, as menLloned ln Lhe prevlous secLlon, for Lhe purpose of obLalnlng
ob[ecLs, documenLs and daLa for use ln crlmlnal proceedlngs. 1he double crlmlnallLy requlremenL
ls llfLed for a llsL of LhlrLy-Lwo crlmes, [usL as ln Lhe case of Lhe Luropean ArresL WarranL, alLhough
Cermany may reserve lLs rlghL Lo malnLaln lL for some offences.
16
1he negoLlaLlon of Lhls
lramework ueclslon was exLremely lengLhy and pollLlcal agreemenL was hard Lo achleve.
17


Concernlng flnal [udgmenLs, one of Lhe maln lnsLrumenLs ls Lhe lramework ueclslon on Lhe muLual
recognlLlon of flnanclal penalLles.
18
lL applles Lo flnal declslons requlrlng a flnanclal penalLy Lo be
pald followlng a crlmlnal offence. Pere agaln we may observe LhaL declslons musL be recognlsed
wlLhouL formallLy and lmmedlaLely execuLed. 1he llsL of offences for whlch double crlmlnallLy ls
excluded ls broader Lhan ln prevlous lramework ueclslons. lmplemenLaLlon by all Member SLaLes
should have been compleLed by March 2007.

lL ls posslble Lo noLe some common polnLs ln all Lhese measures: Lhe provlslon of a cerLlflcaLe Lo
be compleLed by Lhe lssulng SLaLe as well as of a sLandard form, Lhe speedlng up of Lhe procedures
for recognlLlon and execuLlon of declslons, a llmlLed llsL of mandaLory and opLlonal grounds for
refusal. 1he non-lncluslon of Lhe proLecLlon of human rlghLs among Lhe speclflc grounds for refusal

13
!usLlce and Pome Affalrs Councll, Luxembourg, 1-2 !une 2006, see Councll of Lhe Luropean unlon uocumenL
10081/06 resse 168. 1he laLesL documenL avallable ls: 8russels, 21 uecember 2007, uoc. 13076/07 CCLn 132.
16
1hey are: Lerrorlsm, rackeLeerlng and exLorLlon, swlndllng, raclsm and xenophobla, saboLage, envlronmenLal crlme,
compuLer-relaLed crlme. See uocumenL 9409/06 resse 144.
17
lor lnsLance, Lhe neLherlands pushed for a parLlal appllcaLlon of Lhe LerrlLorlallLy prlnclple, Lo allow lL Lo refuse Lo
comply wlLh an LLW relaLlng Lo offences commlLLed wholly or parLly ln lLs LerrlLory.
18
Councll lramework ueclslon 2003/214/!PA on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual recognlLlon Lo flnanclal
penalLles C! L 76 22/03/2003.1he oLhers are Lhe Luropean ArresL WarranL, and Lhe proposals on conflscaLlon orders
and on Lhe Laklng accounL of prevlous convlcLlons. A proposal on Lhe oe bls lo lJem prlnclple ls expecLed ln Lhe near
fuLure. See lnlLlaLlve of Lhe Pellenlc 8epubllc for Lhe adopLlon of a lramework declslon of Lhe Councll on Lhe
appllcaLlon of Lhe oe bls lo lJem prlnclple, Councll doc. 6336/03 8russels 13 lebruary 2003.
7
has already bullL up some frlcLlons and amblgulLles whlch are llkely Lo conLlnue ln Lhe fuLure,
perhaps unLll Lhe Luropean CourL of !usLlce lnLervenes Lo clarlfy Lhe scope of proLecLlon Lo human
rlghLs whlch Member SLaLes can offer.
19


As regards Lhe muLual recognlLlon of [udgemenLs lmposlng cusLodlal senLences or measures
resLrlcLlng lndlvldual llberLy, lL ls deslgned Lo allow enforcemenL of a senLence ln Lhe execuLlng
SLaLe lnsLead of Lhe lssulng SLaLe, whenever Lhls ls consldered Lo faclllLaLe Lhe soclal relnLegraLlon
of Lhe senLenced person. ConLrary Lo Lhe 1983 ConvenLlon on Lhe 1ransfer of SenLenced erson
(and relaLed 1997 roLocol), Lhe recognlLlon of Lhe [udgemenL and Lhe enforcemenL of Lhe
senLence dellvered ln one SLaLe ls compulsory.
20
Powever, Lhls may only occur followlng Lhe
consenL of Lhe senLenced person glven under Lhe law of Lhe lssulng SLaLe, unless Lhe [udgemenL
and relaLed cerLlflcaLe are senL Lo Lhe SLaLe of naLlonallLy where he llves or ls deporLed or Lhe
SLaLe Lo whlch he has fled or oLherwlse reLurned.
21
Moreover, a relaLlvely hlgh number of grounds
for refusal ls provlded for, lncludlng cases where less Lhan slx monLhs of Lhe senLence remaln Lo be
served or where Lhe senLence conLalns measures of psychlaLrlc or healLh care or oLher resLrlcLlng
measures whlch cannoL be execuLed ln Lhe legal sysLem of Lhe execuLlng SLaLe.
22
llnally, lL ls worLh
noLlng LhaL reclLal 1 of Lhe preamble Lo Lhe lramework ueclslon Llmldly suggesLs LhaL muLual

19
ArLlcle 1(3) of Lhe lramework ueclslon on Lhe LAW for lnsLance speclfles LhaL noLhlng ln Lhls lnsLrumenL has Lhe
effecL of modlfylng Lhe obllgaLlon Lo respecL fundamenLal rlghLs and fundamenLal legal prlnclples under ArL. 6 1Lu.
8eclLal 12 ln Lhe reamble of Lhe same lramework ueclslon also pays aLLenLlon Lo Lhe proLecLlon of human rlghLs.
Powever, Lhe problem ls LhaL Lhe former, albelL noL llsLed among Lhe grounds for refusal, mlghL be glven Lhe same
effecL ln pracLlce.
20
urafL Councll lramework ueclslon on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual recognlLlon Lo [udgemenLs ln
crlmlnal maLLers lmposlng cusLodlal senLences sopto ArLlcle 3 (1). lor Lhe ConvenLlon on Lhe 1ransfer of SenLenced
ersons, see sopto.
21
urafL Councll lramework ueclslon on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual recognlLlon Lo [udgemenLs ln
crlmlnal maLLers lmposlng cusLodlal senLences sopto ArLlcle 3(1) and (1) (a). When Lhe person ls sLlll ln Lhe lssulng
SLaLe, he musL be glven Lhe opporLunlLy Lo sLaLe hls oplnlon and Lhls oplnlon musL be Laken lnLo accounL. Moreover,
Lhe provlslon noL requlrlng consenL when Lhe [udgemenL ls senL Lo Lhe SLaLe of naLlonallLy where Lhe person llves ls no
appllcable Lo oland where Lhe [udgemenL has been lssued wlLhln flve years of Lhe daLe by whlch Member SLaLes are
requlred Lo comply wlLh Lhe lramework ueclslon: see par. 2 and 4 of Lhe same ArLlcle.
22
urafL Councll lramework ueclslon on Lhe appllcaLlon of Lhe prlnclple of muLual recognlLlon Lo [udgemenLs ln
crlmlnal maLLers lmposlng cusLodlal senLences sopto ArLlcle 9.
8
recognlLlon ... sboolJ become Lhe cornersLone of [udlclal cooperaLlon", whereas prlorlLy n. 9 of
Lhe CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL on 1he
Pague rogramme clalmed LhaL Lhe prlnclple ... bos become Lhe cornersLone of [udlclal
cooperaLlon".
23


1o sum up, Lhe maln obsLacle faclng Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe muLual recognlLlon programme aL
Lhe momenL appears Lo be a growlng lack of enLhuslasm on Lhe parL of cerLaln Member SLaLes.
Whereas Lhe lramework ueclslon on Lhe Luropean ArresL WarranL was approved wlLhln a
relaLlvely shorL Llmeframe, Lhe procedure for Lhe approval of all oLher measures was qulLe
lengLhy, especlally wlLh respecL Lo Lhe Luropean Lvldence WarranL, as already seen.

Powever, even Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe lramework ueclslon on Lhe LAW has faced obsLacles
and presenLs some flaws. AmongsL oLhers, we can menLlon Lhe fallure Lo brlng lL lnLo force on
Llme and Lhe lncluslon of furLher grounds of refusal, boLh opLlonal and mandaLory, ln Lhe Member
SLaLes' lmplemenLlng leglslaLlon. ulfflculLles were also encounLered aL Lhe consLlLuLlonal level ln
Cermany, oland and Cyprus, whose respecLlve ConsLlLuLlonal CourLs declared null Lhe Luropean
ArresL WarranL whenever Lhls lnvolves naLlonals of Lhelr counLrles.
24
ln Lhe same perlod, Lhe
8elglan ConsLlLuLlonal CourL referred Lo Lhe Luropean CourL of !usLlce Lhe prellmlnary quesLlon of
Lhe compaLlblllLy of Lhe lramework ueclslon wlLh arL. 34(2)(b) 1Lu as well as arL. 6(2) 1Lu (whlch
sLaLes Lhe prlnclples of legallLy, equallLy and non-dlscrlmlnaLlon). 1he appllcanL, whlch had
submlLLed an annulmenL acLlon of Lhe 8elglan leglslaLlon enacLlng Lhe LAW before Lhe 8elglan

23
CommunlcaLlon from Lhe Commlsslon Lo Lhe Councll and Lhe Luropean arllamenL on 1he Pague rogramme: 1en
rlorlLles for Lhe nexL flve years, sopto.
24
ollsh ConsLlLuLlonal CourL, !udgmenL 1/03 of 27 Aprll 2003, Cerman ConsLlLuLlonal CourL 8verfC, 2 8v8 2236/04
of 18 !uly 2003, Cyprus ConsLlLuLlonal CourL !udgmenL of 7 november 2003. ln Cermany, a new law was lssued ln !uly
2006, Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe CourL's declslon. See 8ooJesqesetzblott Iobtqooq 2006 1ell l o.J6, 25 Ioll 2006.
9
coot Jotblttoqe, also argued LhaL lnLernaLlonal cooperaLlon ln crlmlnal maLLers should be
regulaLed by ConvenLlon and noL by lramework ueclslon.
23
1hls reflecLs Lhe vlew of Lhose who
belleve LhaL, under ArLlcle 29, 31(e) and 34 (2)(b) 1Lu, lramework ueclslons only have Lhe
purpose of adopLlng mlnlmum rules relaLlng Lo Lhe consLlLuenL elemenLs of crlmlnal acLs and
penalLles (and only ln Lhe flelds of organlsed crlme, Lerrorlsm and llllclL drug Lrafflcklng).
26
1he
Luropean CourL of !usLlce has neverLheless declded LhaL Lhe lramework ueclslon does noL vlolaLe
Lhe prlnclples of legallLy and non-dlscrlmlnaLlon and LhaL Lhe Councll ls free Lo selecL a lramework
ueclslon raLher Lhan a ConvenLlon as Lhe mosL approprlaLe lnsLrumenL even ouLslde Lhe scope
deflned by ArL. 31 (1) (e) 1Lu.
27


1he lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe lramework ueclslon on Lhe freezlng of asseLs and evldence was also
dlfflculL. AnoLher example ls represenLed by Lhe Luropean Lvldence WarranL, whose LexL has been
agreed on 1 !une 2006 aL Lhe Luxembourg !PA Councll, afLer Lhree years of lengLhy negoLlaLlons.
28


AL Lhe same Llme, Lhe falled approval of Lhe lramework ueclslon on procedural rlghLs
29
ls a
warnlng slgn: whlle, on Lhe one hand, Lhe prosecuLlon and enforcemenL slde of Lhe 1hlrd lllar has
been developed conslderably ln Lhe lasL years, much more ls requlred Lo sLrengLhen human rlghLs

23
See 8elglan coot Jotblttoqe, !udgmenL n. 124/2003 of 13 !uly 2003.
26
C. vermeulen, 'Where do we currenLly sLand wlLh harmonlsaLlon ln Lurope?', ln A.kllp, P. van der WllL (eds.), sopto
68.
27
LC! C-303/03 AJvocoteo voot Je wetelJ v leJeo voo Je MlolstettooJ, 3 May 2007.
28
Councll of Lhe Luropean unlon, 10081/06 (resse 168) Luropean Lvldence WarranL: Councll reached a general
approach. lor lnsLance, Lhe neLherlands pushed for a parLlal appllcaLlon of Lhe LerrlLorlallLy prlnclple, Lo allow lL Lo
refuse Lo comply wlLh an LLW relaLlng Lo offences commlLLed wholly or parLly ln lLs LerrlLory. Cermany has Lhe
posslblllLy by means of a declaraLlon Lo make execuLlon of a LLW condlLlonal on Lhe verlflcaLlon of double crlmlnallLy
for slx caLegorles of offences: Lerrorlsm, compuLer-relaLed crlme, raclsm and xenophobla, saboLage, rackeLeerlng and
exLorLlon, swlndllng. 1hls does noL apply when Lhe lssulng auLhorlLy has declared LhaL Lhe offence concerned under lLs
own naLlonal law ls covered by Lhe crlLerla deflned ln Lhe declaraLlon.
29
roposal for a Councll lramework ueclslon on cerLaln procedural rlghLs ln crlmlnal proceedlngs LhroughouL Lhe
Luropean unlon, 8russels, 28/04/2004, CCM (2004) 328 flnal. See M. !lmeno-8ulnes, '1he roposal for a Councll
lramework ueclslon on CerLaln rocedural 8lghLs ln Crlmlnal roceedlngs LhroughouL Lhe Luropean unlon' ln L. Culld,
l. Ceyer (eds.), 5ecotlty vetsos Iostlce? lollce ooJ IoJlclol coopetotloo lo tbe otopeoo uoloo (AshgaLe, AldershoL
2008).
10
proLecLlon. ln addlLlon, Lhe safeguards envlsaged by Lhe proposal, even ln lLs orlglnal verslon, were
sLlll largely lncompleLe,
30
as Lhey dld noL lnclude, for lnsLance, rules on Lhe presumpLlon of
lnnocence, rlghL Lo ball, double [eopardy or admlsslon of evldence.
31


More ln general, Lhe maln flaws of muLual recognlLlon ln crlmlnal maLLers can be ldenLlfled ln:
slow negoLlaLlon process, declslon-maklng ln Lhe Lhlrd plllar (whlch has been, lotet ollo, blamed for
lack of Lransparency), lack of rules on confllcLs of [urlsdlcLlon and oe bls lo lJem, lack of rules on
procedural guaranLees, presumpLlon of lnnocence, mlnlmum sLandards for evldence-gaLherlng,
problems ln deflnlng Lhe grounds for refusal, Lhe requlremenL of double crlmlnallLy and Lhe
offences Lo whlch Lhe measures should apply. ln addlLlon, lL seems LhaL Lhe varlous lnsLrumenLs of
muLual recognlLlon presenL dlfferenL feaLures ln Lerms, for lnsLance, of dual crlmlnallLy and
grounds for refusal. More coherence would be deslrable. 1hese lssues are all connecLed Lo Lhe
quesLlon of Lhe compeLence of Lhe Luropean CommunlLy ln crlmlnal law. 1he Luropean CourL of
!usLlce, ln a confllcL of compeLence beLween Lhe Councll and Lhe Commlsslon over Lhe sub[ecL of
envlronmenLal proLecLlon, conflrmed lLs vlew LhaL boLh subsLanLlve and procedural crlmlnal law
are noL lncluded ln Lhe Luropean CommunlLy's compeLence. Powever, measures may sLlll be Laken
when Lhe appllcaLlon of effecLlve, proporLlonaLe and dlssuaslve penalLles by Lhe compeLenL

30
1he orlglnal proposal lncluded: rlghL Lo legal advlce, rlghL Lo free lnLerpreLaLlon and LranslaLlon, rlghL Lo recelve
approprlaLe aLLenLlon lf noL able Lo undersLand or follow Lhe proceedlngs, rlghL Lo communlcaLe, lotet ollo, wlLh
forelgn auLhorlLles ln Lhe case of forelgn suspecLs, rlghL Lo be noLlfled of one's own rlghLs by means of a wrlLLen
LeLLer of 8lghLs". lnLeresLlngly, durlng Lhe consulLaLlon process precedlng Lhe adopLlon of Lhe Creen aper, many
more rlghLs were consldered. See M. !lmeno-8ulnes, '1he roposal for a Councll lramework ueclslon on CerLaln
rocedural 8lghLs' sopto 174-173.
31
1he rlghL Lo ball ls supposed Lo be Lhe sub[ecL of a fuLure Creen aper. Cn Lhe presumpLlon of lnnocence, see
Luropean Commlsslon Creen aper: 1he resumpLlon of lnnocence, 8russels, 26/04/2006, CCM (2006) 174 flnal. Cn
double [eopardy, see Luropean Commlsslon Creen aper on confllcLs of [urlsdlcLlon and Lhe prlnclple of oe bls lo lJem
ln crlmlnal proceedlngs, 8russels, 23/12/2003, CCM (2003) 696 flnal. A Creen aper on Lhe handllng of evldence and a
roposal on mlnlmum sLandards relaLlng Lo Lhe Laklng of evldence were lnlLlally envlsaged ln Lhe Councll and
Commlsslon AcLlon lan lmplemenLlng Lhe Pague rogramme on sLrengLhenlng freedom, securlLy and [usLlce ln Lhe
Luropean unlon, C! C 198 12/08/2003.

11
naLlonal auLhorlLles ls necessary ln Lhe flghL agalnsL serlous envlronmenLal offences.
32
Slnce Lhe
quesLlon ls general and Louches upon Lhe very naLure of Lhe Luropean unlon, dlspuLes ln oLher
secLors have been emerglng recenLly.
33
uo Lhe powers of Lhe CommunlLy exLend Lo Lhe posslblllLy
of prescrlblng penalLles and deflnlng Lhe offences and Lo all oLher aspecLs of crlmlnal law or are
Lhey llmlLed Lo Lhe ldenLlflcaLlon of cases ln whlch crlmlnal penalLles are necessary ln order Lo
provlde an effecLlve, proporLlonaLe and dlssuaslve sancLlon?

1he llnnlsh resldency of Lhe Councll of Lhe Luropean unlon, whlch sLarLed on 1 !uly 2006, puL as
one of Lhe prlorlLles of lLs agenda Lhe need Lo explore ways of relnforclng declslon-maklng on
crlmlnal law and pollce cooperaLlon".
34
An lnformal !PA MlnlsLerlal MeeLlng was held ln 1ampere,
on 20-22 SepLember 2006. lrom LhaL meeLlng lL emerged LhaL, whlle Lhe Commlsslon and Lhe
arllamenL Lended Lo favour Lhe use of Lhe brldglng" clause, among Lhe Member SLaLes only
llnland and lrance clearly supporLed Lhls vlew, wlLh Cermany, lreland, Lhe neLherlands and
Slovakla more lncllned Lo reLaln Lhelr veLo power. 1he uk was reporLed Lo lmpllclLly oppose Lhe
new proposal
33
. Some suggesLed, as a compromlse, Lo apply Lhe so-called emergency brake"
procedure, already provlded for by ArL. lll-270 and 271 of Lhe Luropean ConsLlLuLlon, whlch (prlor
Lo Lhe slgnlng of Lhe Llsbon 1reaLy) would have allowed Member SLaLes Lo opL ouL of Lhose
proposals whlch affecL Lhe naLure of Lhelr naLlonal penal sysLems.
36



32
LC! C-176/03, commlssloo v. cooocll.
33
See e.g. LC! C-440/03 commlssloo v. cooocll (Shlp source polluLlon).
34
llnnlsh rlme MlnlsLer's Cfflce ress 8elease - 30 !une 2006-
hLLp://www.eu2006.fl/news_and_documenLs/press_releases/vko26_/en_C8/162630/?u4.hlghllghL
33
Assemblee naLlonale- 8apporL d'lnformaLlon n. 2829 sur les consequences de l'arrL de la Cour de !usLlce 13
sepLembre 2003, 23 [anvler 2006, Pouse of Lords Luropean unlon CommlLLee, 42
nd
8eporL of Sesslon 2003-06, 28 !uly
2006, p. 33, LuCbserver.com- Lu wanLs more powers ln crlmlnal maLLers, 8 May 2006, LuollLlx.com-Lu Lo clash on
naLlonal [usLlce veLoes, 20 SepLember 2006
36
lnLervlew wlLh lranco lraLLlnl, LuollLlx.com, 26 !une 2006, llnanclal 1lmes, urlve Lo glve Luropean courL a role ln
seLLllng asylum cases, 28 !une 2006. See also 1reaLy LsLabllshlng a ConsLlLuLlon for Lurope, C! C 310 16/12/2004.
12
lL ls noL wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhls paper Lo deal wlLh how muLual recognlLlon ls dealL wlLh ln Lhe
Llsbon 1reaLy.
37
lLs purpose ls raLher Lo assess muLual LrusL as a fundamenLal concepL of Luropean
crlmlnal law. 1hls wlll be done ln Lhe followlng secLlon.

2. An attempt to e|aborate a not|on of mutua| trust |n cr|m|na| matters

1here ls a hosL of sLudles on Lhe deflnlLlon of (muLual) LrusL and ln parLlcular lLs relaLlon Lo
cooperaLlon.
38
Whlle some of Lhem argue LhaL cooperaLlon may evolve wlLhouL LrusL, l subscrlbe
Lo Lhose models posLulaLlng a degree of mlnlmum LrusL ln order for cooperaLlon Lo funcLlon
effecLlvely, alLhough Lhey also refer Lo consLralnLs (l.e. a seL of rules almed aL lncreaslng Lhe
predlcLablllLy of a behavlour) and common lnLeresLs Lowards achlevlng a speclflc goal as
concurrlng facLors LhaL enhance cooperaLlon beLween lndlvlduals and/or groups of lndlvlduals.
39

1hls can be also expressed ln legal Lerms, as Lhe basls of muLual LrusL and muLual recognlLlon ls Lo
be locaLed ln Lhe prlnclple of loyal cooperaLlon under ArLlcle 10 1LC, whlch operaLes ln Lhe 1hlrd
lllar as well.
40
Powever, Lhls concepL can only be properly deflned ouLslde sLrlcLly legal caLegorles
and resLralnLs. lf Lhls ls Lrue, lL ls surprlslng LhaL Lhe CourL of !usLlce has referred Lo lL wlLhouL
quallfylng lL.
41


37
See M. llchera, 'MuLual 8ecognlLlon ln Crlmlnal MaLLers from lLs CreaLlon Lo Lhe new uevelopmenLs ln Lhe Llsbon
1reaLy', paper presenLed aL Lhe uACLS Conference xcbooqloq lJeos oo otope 2008- ketblokloq tbe otopeoo uoloo,
Ldlnburgh, 1-3 SepLember 2008.
38
See e.g. ln Lhe soclal sclences !. LlsLer, xplololoq 5oclol 8ebovloot (Cambrldge unlverslLy ress, new ?ork 2007) 344,
C. A. 8lgley, !. L. earce, 'SLralnlng for Shared Meanlng ln CrganlsaLlonal Sclence: roblems of 1rusL and ulsLrusL'
(1998) 23 AcoJemy of Moooqemeot kevlew 403, u. CambeLLa (ed.) 1tost. Mokloq ooJ 8teokloq coopetotlve kelotloos
(8lackwell, Cxford 1988), 8. Axelrod, 1be volotloo of coopetotloo (8aslc 8ooks, new ?ork 1984).
39
u. CambeLLa, 'Can We 1rusL 1rusL?' ln u. CambeLLa (ed.) sopto 213.
40
LC! C-103/03 loploo.
41
LC! !olned Cases C-187/01 and C-383/01 Cozotok ooJ 8toqqe. Accordlng Lo Lhe CourL, Lhere ls ...a necessary
lmpllcaLlon LhaL Lhe Member SLaLes have muLual LrusL ln Lhelr crlmlnal [usLlce sysLems and LhaL each of Lhem
recognlses Lhe crlmlnal law ln force ln Lhe oLher Member SLaLes even when Lhe ouLcome would be dlfferenL lf lLs own
naLlonal law were applled" (par. 33).
13
ConsequenLly, muLual LrusL can be lnLended as Lhe reclprocal bellef LhaL oLhers' behavlour wlll noL
vlolaLe Lhe baslc common prlnclples LhaL lay aL Lhe hearL of Lhe Lu legal sysLems. More
parLlcularly, as far as cooperaLlon ln crlmlnal maLLers ls concerned, muLual LrusL can be furLher
reflned ln connecLlon wlLh boLh lLs sobjects and lLs object. 1he sub[ecLs can be Member SLaLes or
[udlclal auLhorlLles. 1he ob[ecL wlll vary accordlngly. ln Lhe flrsL case, a SLaLe musL LrusL anoLher
SLaLe's behavlour accordlng Lo Lhe agreed rules and Lhe general prlnclples of Lhe Lu. 1hls form of
LrusL ls more slgnlflcanL ln Lhe conLexL of lnLergovernmenLal cooperaLlon (and, ln parLlcular,
exLradlLlon and muLual legal asslsLance). ln Lhe second case (whlch ls more relevanL for our
purposes), a [udlclal auLhorlLy wlLhln a SLaLe wlll have Lo LrusL a forelgn legal sysLem and more
speclflcally: a) Lhe producL of LhaL legal sysLem, for lnsLance a LAW or a measure freezlng Lhe
asseLs of an offender and all addlLlonal lnformaLlon aLLached Lo Lhem and, dependlng on Lhe case,
b) Lhe capaclLy of elLher Lhe lssulng or Lhe execuLlng auLhorlLy and all oLher compeLenL auLhorlLles
Lo perform Lhelr Lasks ln llne wlLh whaL ls sLaLed ln Lhe muLual recognlLlon lnsLrumenL and noL
radlcally dlfferenLly from whaL would be done ln analogous clrcumsLances ln lLs own legal sysLem.

lrom Lhls follows LhaL LrusL ln Lhls case ls noL bllnd (absoluLe LrusL") buL cooJltloool upon Lhe
respecL of Lhe rules, such as, for lnsLance, Lhe absence of elemenLs whlch would be deemed so
exLraneous as Lo obllge Lhe execuLlng auLhorlLy Lo re[ecL a requesL. Powever, because LrusL ls
muLual, lL ls necessary LhaL Lhe condlLlons are muLually agreed. Moreover, slnce LrusL presumes
qooJ foltb, and lLs level ls supposed Lo be sufflclenLly hlgh, only excepLlonal cases would [usLlfy
wlLhdrawlng lL unllaLerally or bllaLerally. 1hls lmplles, for lnsLance, LhaL a deLalled examlnaLlon of
Lhe facLs behlnd a surrender case or a requesL for evldence should noL be allowed, because lt
14
sboolJ oot be oecessoty. Moreover, relaLlve (culLural, legal, pollLlcal) homogenelLy and shared
values are Lo be consldered as precondlLlons of LrusL.
42


As a resulL, Lhe maln parameLers LhaL can be used Lo assess wheLher muLual LrusL really exlsLs are:
compllance wlLh agreed rules and common lnLeresLs. l wlll assume as a sLarLlng polnL LhaL Lhe
currenL Lu Member SLaLes are sufflclenLly slmllar Lo each oLher from Lhe legal, pollLlcal and
culLural polnL of vlew, alLhough Lhere are dlfferences ln relaLlon Lo some speclflc aspecLs (e.g. of
subsLanLlve crlmlnal law). A common lnLeresL ln prosecuLlng cerLaln Lypes of crlmes cerLalnly exlsL,
more so ln relaLlon Lo Lerrorlsm or organlsed crlme. As far as a seL of agreed rules (especlally aL
Lhe procedural level) ls concerned, Lhey are sLlll mlsslng.
43
Cbvlously, pasL experlence ls normally a
relevanL facLor ln bulldlng up LrusL: eplsodes of good pracLlce wlLh a parLlcular SLaLe wlll relnforce
Lhe bellef ln LhaL SLaLe's LrusLworLhlness and wlll resulL ln a general lmprovemenL of cooperaLlon.
1hls ls why anecdoLal evldence ls helpful. 1he lnLervlews l carrled ouL wlLh a small sample of
pracLlLloners from Lhe unlLed klngdom and lLaly ln relaLlon Lo Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe LAW
have shown LhaL, generally speaklng, Lhere ls a hlgher degree of LrusL ln Lhe former counLry,
alLhough [udlclal auLhorlLles normally expecL a very hlgh sLandard ln respecL of LAWs lssued by
oLher SLaLes, whlch resulLs ln a hlgh number of requesLs for addlLlonal lnformaLlon. lLallan [udges
(someLlmes regardless of pasL experlence) Lend Lo be wary of forelgn [udlclal auLhorlLles
lrrespecLlve of Lhe naLlonallLy and Lype of legal sysLem. Cn Lhe oLher hand, uk [udges Lend Lo
regard Lhe LAW as a poslLlve developmenL ln respecL of exLradlLlon, alLhough Lhey polnL ouL

42
Some comparaLlve sLudles lndeed show LhaL LrusL ls much hlgher ln Lhe nordlc Luropean counLrles, l.e. norway,
Sweden, uenmark and llnland because of lotet ollo hlgher homogenelLy. See !. uelhey, k. newLon, 'redlcLlng Cross-
naLlonal Levels of Soclal 1rusL: Clobal aLLern or nordlc LxcepLlonallsm?' (2003) 21 otopeoo 5ocloloqlcol kevlew 311.
lL would be lnLeresLlng Lo verlfy Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhls may be causally relaLed Lo Lhe adopLlon of Lhelr speclal
surrender scheme.
43
See sopto p. 8.

13
frequenL problems wlLh LasLern Luropean counLrles (ln parLlcular oland), whlch do noL always
lnclude all Lhe requlred lnformaLlon when lssulng a LAW or lssue requesLs for Lrlvlal offences.
44


1he comparlson of Lhe uk and lLallan sysLem and Lhe brlef analysls of Lhe leglslaLlon ln Lhe oLher
Member SLaLes ln relaLlon Lo Lhe LAW lndlcaLe LhaL, whlle a mlnlmum degree of muLual LrusL
exlsLs, lL ls noL evenly dlsLrlbuLed ln aL leasL Lwo SLaLes and Lhere are elemenLs lndlcaLlng LhaL Lhe
same could be sald of Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween Lhose SLaLes and oLher legal sysLems. lL ls
Lherefore posslble LhaL repeaLed negaLlve eplsodes ln Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe LAW beLween
counLrles wlll prevenL LrusL from belng sLrengLhened, Lhus undermlnlng cooperaLlon ln crlmlnal
maLLers aL a more general level.

1hls shows LhaL desplLe Lhe undenlable success of Lhe flrsL years of lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe LAW, as
lndlcaLed by Lhe Commlsslon sLaLlsLlcs
43
a number of flaws can be deLecLed whlch were mosL
probably noL expecLed by Lhe orlglnal drafLers of Lhe lramework ueclslon.

1hls ls reflecLed ln one of Lhe mosL slgnlflcanL feaLures of Lhe LAW and of oLher muLual recognlLlon
lnsLrumenLs: Lhe llsL of caLegorles of offences for whlch double crlmlnallLy has been abollshed.
uouble crlmlnallLy ls Lhe prlnclple whereby a [udlclal declslon lssued by one SLaLe ls only execuLed
by anoLher SLaLe lf lL ls based on an acL whlch ls punlshed as an offence ln Lhe former SLaLe's legal
sysLem.

44
CLher problems wlLh oland arose from Lhe lack of dlrecL fllghLs wlLhln a perlod of Lhree weeks afLer Lhe flnal
declslon Lo surrender was Laken.
43
8eporL from Lhe Commlsslon, sopto. ln 2003, 6900 LAWs were lssued, mosLly Lhrough lnLerpol or Lhe SlS, more Lhan
8300 were recelved, more Lhan 1770 lndlvlduals were arresLed and almosL all of Lhem (86, l.e. 1332 persons) were
surrendered. 1he average Llme for execuLlng a requesL ls 43 days, as opposed Lo one year ln Lhe case of old
exLradlLlon. Accordlng Lo Lhe Commlsslon, Lhere has been a slgnlflcanL lmprovemenL ln respecL of 2004.

16
1he parLlal removal of dual crlmlnallLy obvlously draws on a saLlsfacLory degree of muLual LrusL.
1he requesLed SLaLe has Lo LrusL LhaL Lhe acL for whlch (for lnsLance) a requesL of evldence ls an
acL LhaL ls worLh punlshlng. lL also has Lo conflde ln Lhe facL LhaL Lhe crlLerla of crlmlnallsaLlon and
punlshmenL comply wlLh Lhe baslc prlnclples of legallLy, speclflclLy and equallLy. lL could Lherefore
be argued LhaL here more Lhan ever a common plaLform of shared values and common lnLeresLs ls
needed.

Whlle Lhe Lwo elemenLs menLloned above can be deemed Lo exlsL ln Lhe case of Lerrorlsm,
organlsed crlme, money launderlng, LhefL, fraud, Lhere are problems ln oLher cases. Lven ln
relaLlon Lo murder Lhere are currenLly problems wlLh euLhanasla and aborLlon. Concernlng drug
Lrafflcklng, some llmlLed concerns relaLe Lo Lhe quallflcaLlon of possesslon of drugs as an offence.

Powever, Lhe maln problems emerge ln relaLlon Lo such offences as rackeLeerlng and exLorLlon,
raclsm and xenophobla, swlndllng, saboLage, compuLer-relaLed crlme. 1he problems are flrsL of all
deflnlLlonal, as Lhere ls no clear agreemenL on whaL octos teos and meos teo are. lor lnsLance,
whaL ls Lhe relaLlonshlp beLween swlndllng and fraud and whaL exacLly should be lncluded ln Lhe
deflnlLlon of compuLer-relaLed crlme? A second concern relaLes Lo Lhe lack of shared values, whlch
ls parLlcularly sLrlklng ln Lhe case of raclsm and xenophobla, whlch noL all SLaLes are prepared Lo
punlsh. lans for a lramework ueclslon on raclsm and xenophobla replaclng Lhe !olnL AcLlon were
dropped ln 2003 and agaln ln 2003, only Lo be resumed ln 2007: yeL, a flnal LexL sLlll needs Lo be
agreed upon.
46
1he laLesL verslon resLrlcLs punlshmenL Lo lnLenLlonal conducL and crlmlnallses also
publlcly condonlng, denylng or grossly Lrlvlallslng" genoclde, crlmes agalnsL humanlLy and war

46
See lotet ollo Councll doc. 8403/03, 29 Aprll 2003 and doc. 3118/07, 13 !anuary 2007.
17
crlmes only lnsofar as Lhey are llkely Lo lnclLe Lo vlolence or haLred.
47
uesplLe Lhls llmlLaLlon, Lhls ls
exacLly one of Lhe cases where naLlonal approaches vary conslderably, from noL punlshlng Lhe acL
aL all (e.g. uk, Sweden) Lo punlshlng lL more or less exLenslvely (e.g. Cermany, AusLrla).
48


MuLual recognlLlon and muLual LrusL are sLrongly llnked Lo each oLher. Clearly lf Luropean legal
sysLems were very slmllar Lo each oLher, Lhere would be no need for muLual recognlLlon. 8ecause
Lhere sLlll are relevanL dlfferences, Lhe gap beLween Lhem has Lo be fllled prlmarlly Lhrough
muLual LrusL. 1hls ls because Luropean crlmlnal law ls noL a form of crlmlnal law as ls LradlLlonally
vlewed, l.e. drawlng lLs leglLlmacy from one slngle SLaLe's soverelgnLy. SoverelgnLy ls dlspersed,
noL concenLraLed on one auLhorlLy. 1he 1hlrd lllar ls sLlll somewhere ln beLween
lnLergovernmenLallsm and supranaLlonallsm. 1haL explalns why we sLlll Lalk abouL lnLer-sLaLe
cooperaLlon ln crlmlnal maLLers.

1here ls no slngle source for subsLanLlve law or for procedural law. 1he monopoly of force cannoL
be easlly locaLed wlLhln one body or enLlLy. Lu compeLence ln crlmlnal law lLself ls blurred, as lL
sLraddles beLween llrsL lllar and 1hlrd lllar.
49
Powever, Lhe lssue of LrusL ls also relaLed Lo Lhe
lssue of leglLlmacy. lf one ls leglLlmaLe, one ls LrusLed and vlce versa.

lL musL be polnLed ouL LhaL LrusL pet se always lnvolves an elemenL of rlsk. lL ls a fraglle sLaLe and
[usL as lL ls hard Lo achleve lL, so lL can sllp away very easlly. 1hls requlres a conslderable efforL
boLh by Lhe LrusLlng and Lhe LrusLed. 8ecause LrusL here ls muLual, noL only Lhe lssulng auLhorlLy

47
See doc. 16771/07, 26 lebruary 2008.
48
Lu neLwork of lndependenL LxperLs on lundamenLal 8lghLs, 'CombaLlng raclsm and xenophobla Lhrough crlmlnal
leglslaLlon: Lhe slLuaLlon ln Lhe Lu Member SLaLes' Oploloo o. 5-2005 78. ln lLaly, prosecuLlon of crlmes of oplnlon" ls
rare, as freedom of speech Lends Lo be lnLerpreLed very broadly (ArLlcle 21 lLallan ConsLlLuLlon).
49
See LC! C-176/03 commlssloo v. cooocll and C-440/03 commlssloo v. cooocll (Shlp source polluLlon).
18
has Lo LrusL LhaL lLs declslon wlll be respecLed, buL also Lhe execuLlng auLhorlLy has Lo belleve LhaL
noLhlng anomalous wlll happen ln Lhe forelgn legal sysLem. 1hls aspecL of reclproclLy ls noL self-
evldenL and auLomaLlc, especlally when lL concerns auLhorlLles whlch do noL know much abouL
each oLher. 1rusL ls more Lhan hope because lL ls based on some mlnlmum lnformaLlon, buL ls noL
full knowledge elLher. lLs level ls never flxed once for all. 1hls dynamlc feaLure musL be correcLly
undersLood, as lL means LhaL Lhe process of bulldlng up muLual LrusL musL be conLlnuous and
never sLop.

lrom whaL has been sald lL follows LhaL an analysls of Lhe acLual level of leglLlmacy of Luropean
crlmlnal law cannoL help buL lnvolve an analysls of Lhe level of muLual LrusL. 1he concluslon musL
Lherefore be LhaL only auLhorlLles LhaL recognlse each oLher as leglLlmaLe wlll LrusL each oLher.
1hls ls Lhe sLarLlng polnL from whlch a crlLlcal debaLe on whaL Lype of Luropean crlmlnal law we
wanL musL begln. Are we golng ln Lhe rlghL dlrecLlon? Cne could argue LhaL some form of crlmlnal
law and pollcy aL Lhe Lu level ls needed and LhaL Lhls ls a naLural evoluLlon of a pollLy whlch ls
more and more developlng beyond Lhe LradlLlonal markeL-orlenLed perspecLlve. Powever, Lhere ls
a presslng need for more reflecLlon on whaL lLs Lrue goals and asplraLlons are.

Conc|us|on

1hls paper has lndlcaLed LhaL Luropean crlmlnal law ls aL a very early sLage of developmenL. lL ls
sLlll golng Lhrough an experlmenLal phase, ln whlch many errors have been commlLLed and a hlgh
level of uncerLalnLy exlsLs. 1he adopLlon and lmplemenLaLlon of muLual recognlLlon lnsLrumenLs
has cerLalnly been a slgnlflcanL change, buL Lhe many gaps and flaws LhaL can be ldenLlfled ralses
doubLs on wheLher a long-Lerm sLraLegy exlsLs and how clear Lhls ls. 1he comparlson beLween Lhe
19
earller and Lhe more recenL verslons of muLual recognlLlon has shown whaL lnnovaLlons have been
lnLroduced and whaL can sLlll be lmproved. AnoLher cruclal aspecL of our reflecLlon ls whaL exacLly
ls meanL by muLual LrusL. lL has been shown LhaL Lhls ls a non-legal Lerm and LhaL a soclologlcal
approach may be helpful Lo elaboraLe a concepL LhaL can be applled ln a legal-pollLlcal conLexL.
1he analysls carrled ouL above has lndlcaLed LhaL muLual LrusL ln Luropean crlmlnal law ls noL
unlformly developed and LhaL fuLure pollcles and sLraLegles should Lake Lhls lnLo accounL.