The Sentence is Only the Beginning: Hiccups in the Cross-Border Execution of Judgments in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine

The cross-border execution of judgments remains difficult in practice for European Member States. This article seeks to analyze why this may be the case with regard to four different modalities of sentences: (1) prison sentences and other measures involving deprivation of liberty, (2) conditional sentences and alternative measures, (3) financial penalties and (4) confiscation orders. Based on a comparative analysis, this article investigates the problems at stake regarding the cross-border execution of judgements in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands and identifies possible causes and explanations for these. The analysis shows that impediments to cooperation may inter alia stem from differences in national law and diverging national sentencing practices and cultures and may furthermore be related to a lack of possibilities for cooperation in the preliminary phase of a transfer. Moreover, some obstacles to cooperation may be country-specific and self-made, due to specific choices and approaches of national criminal justice systems.

“Is Restorative Justice Greek to Me?”: Exploring Its Applicability in Greek Youth Detention Centres

Justice systems around the world are constantly working to balance reform/rehabilitation/re-entry and punishment in response to juvenile delinquency. In recent years, there has been a strong emphasis on the notion of restorative justice as an alternative approach to criminal justice, yet there continues to be a dearth of information on the interrelation between restorative justice, religion and imprisonment, especially among youth. The present research seeks to explore the applicability and possible future implementation of restorative justice programmes for late adolescent and young adult male offenders (18–21 years old) held in the Special Detention Institutions of Greece. It also aims to identify any links between restorative justice and religion in youth custodial settings among the large migrant population hosted in these institutions. A self-administered quantitative study was distributed to achieve this aim. The data analysis provided no statistically significant relationships between the inmates’ willingness to meet with their actual/surrogate victims and ask for forgiveness/restore relationships with them. Equally insignificant was found the inmates’ eagerness to get involved in restorative mediation with their capacity to acknowledge the harm that their illegal actions inflicted on others, and to make amends.

The Tangled Path From Identifying Financial Assets to Cross-Border Confiscation. Deficiencies in EU Asset Recovery Policy

The article discusses the shortcomings of EU policy regarding cross-border asset recovery. The identified problem is a disjointed approach to the overlapping objectives of criminal proceedings: gathering evidence and securing assets for future confiscation. In the current EU legal framework, the process of recovery of assets, understood as a sequence of functionally related activities, lacks the continuity necessary to be effective. EU cross-border cooperation instruments in criminal matters do not meet the needs of this process, as they relate to separate investigative measures. Problems in this field have been indirectly reflected in the practice of Eurojust and the ejn. The article proposes a change in the perception of the initial phase of the asset recovery process, where the objectives of identifying and locating financial assets are combined with their provisional securing. This takes place under one mechanism of cross-border cooperation (an eio), prior to issuing a regular freeze or seizure order.

EU Criminal Law and Electronic Surveillance: The Pegasus System and Legal Challenges It Poses

The introduction of modern forms of communication, such as encrypted messengers or VoIP telephony, has forced law enforcement agencies to use new technologies to carry out surveillance of people facing criminal proceedings. Rather than relying on the interception of communications during transmission, modern surveillance systems are often based on breaking or bypassing the security features of a user’s mobile device – making it possible to conduct various forms of surveillance that include audio and video recording. One example of such a system is Pegasus – a tool that was initially used to pursue national security objectives but is now increasingly applied in criminal surveillance. The introduction of technical innovations in criminal surveillance must include an examination of their compatibility with legal constraints laid down to protect the individual against the risk of arbitrariness and abuse of power. The effectiveness of surveillance should never be the sole determinant for tasks undertaken by public authorities. The aim of this article is to demonstrate that the implementation of modern surveillance measures such as Pegasus must also include a review of existing legal regulations to ensure that the use of these products’ extended capabilities is under proper control and complies with the rule of law.

Towards an Integrated (and Possibly Pan-European?) Prima Facie Legitimacy Test: Merging the Rechtsgut Theory, the Offensività Principle, and the Harm Principle

The Anglo-American harm principle, and its European counterparts – the legal goods theory and the offensività principle – attempt to provide an answer to the question of which conducts can be prima facie legitimately criminalised. Despite the historical, conceptual, and practical differences between these criminalisation approaches, they share important elements, particularly from a functional and operational perspective. By merging the key aspects of these theories, this work elaborates an instrument to assess the prima facie legitimacy of criminalisation – the Integrated Legitimacy Test – that embeds their essential elements and further conceptualises them. The Test strives to overcome some of the criticisms directed against the Anglo-American and European theories by narrowly defining their core elements and linking them to empirical evidence. Moreover, its transnational nature makes it suitable to feed the criminalisation debate at the European Union level.

Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?

The paper presents and assesses the approach of the ECtHR to admissibility of evidence obtained through torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in the criminal process. The author examines the content of the standard, its justifications and the consistency of the ECtHR's reasoning. The paper refers both to the admissibility of statements and real evidence as well as to primary and derivate evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 echr. The admissibility of evidence obtained by oppressive conduct of private individuals is also analysed. The assessment of the Strasbourg Court’s case law indicates that its approach is quite nuanced and, unfortunately, inconsistent and incoherent. Its main shortcoming is the lack of an in-depth analysis of the rationale for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by maltreatment and the piecemeal treatment of individual categories of such evidence devoid of attempt to comprehensively address its admissibility in criminal proceedings.