Justice issues in Europe - Justice Committee Contents


3  Safeguarding fundamental rights

61.  EU-level activity under the Stockholm programme is likely further to increase the powers of police and justice agencies in seeking to apply the principle of mutual recognition at all stages of criminal procedure. In her first hearing before the relevant Committees of the European Parliament, Viviane Reding, the European Commissioner for justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, stated: "In the last decade, justice has been neglected in favour of security, but the Lisbon Treaty now allows a balance to be struck".[114]

62.  With respect to the rights of suspects and defendants, Fair Trials International suggested to us that what is needed is more than a re-balancing exercise and argued that there must be no "trade off" between fundamental rights and the need to fight crime: "These rights are not variables, to be weighed in the balance with other policy considerations. They are universal rights, which should now be restored to the centre of criminal justice policy".[115] As highlighted above, research shows large discrepancies between member states in their implementation of fair trial rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.[116] Fair Trials International explained that such discrepancies tend to be greater for non-nationals: "in practice it can often be more difficult for non-nationals than nationals to receive a fair trial"; they cite several case studies (see box 2), which highlight what it describes as the 'human costs' of existing mutual cooperation measures, including the European arrest warrant, as a result of the issuance of unreasonable or improper extradition requests, and the lack of arrangements to protect minimum procedural rights in each of the areas of priority indicated in the "road map".[117] The Magistrates' Association agreed that "defendants and other court users must be given every opportunity to ensure they fully understand all the proceedings and decisions made at every stage of the criminal justice process."[118]

63.  The Hague programme endorsed an ambitious plan to agree measures to afford citizens, who become embroiled in criminal justice processes, common minimum procedural rights:

The further realisation of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation implies the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings, based on studies of the existing level of safeguards in member states and with due respect for their legal traditions. In this context, the draft framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union should be adopted by the end of 2005.

However, this did not come to fruition: six countries opposed the agreement to the proposal, Malta, the Czech Republic, Ireland, Cyprus, Slovakia and the UK. Lord Bach defended this decision:

we, with some other countries, were not prepared to accept the decision on procedural safeguards and pulled out of it […] We thought that what was being proposed there was too ambitious for its own good and was trying to address, all at once, in a single all-encompassing instrument, a wide range of fundamental procedural guarantees, and the framework decision would have ended up replicating, or did end up replicating not exactly ECHR rights, and we thought there was a real risk of widely diverging interpretations between the European Court of Justice, on the one hand, and the Strasbourg Court [European Court of Human Rights]. Our problem was with the approach.[119]

The "road map" on procedural rights

64.  The Swedish Presidency prioritised the resumption of negotiations on procedural rights and published a Roadmap with a view to fostering the protection of suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings (the "road map") in the form of a note presented to the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 1 July 2009.[120] The Swedish Minister of Justice has explained the reasoning behind the Presidency's focus on this issue:

If we cannot make more progress in this area, we risk distorting our collaboration so that measures that guarantee the legal security of the individual are not given sufficient scope.[121]

The "road map" replicates the priority rights in the original proposal, but advocates a right-by-right approach to agreeing the measures described in box 3.

Box 3 - The "road map" measures (in order of consideration)

a)  Translation and interpretation: The suspected or accused person must be able to understand what is happening and to make him/herself understood. A suspected or accused person who does not speak or understand the language that is used in the proceedings will need an interpreter and translation of essential procedural documents. Particular attention should also be paid to the needs of suspected or accused persons with hearing impediments.

b)  Information on rights and information about the charges: A person that is suspected or accused of a crime should get information on his/her basic rights orally or, where appropriate, in writing, e.g. by way of a Letter of Rights. Furthermore, that person should also receive information promptly about the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her. A person who has been charged should be entitled, at the appropriate time, to the information necessary for the preparation of his or her defence, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings.

c)  Legal advice and legal aid: The right to legal advice (through a legal counsel) for the suspected or accused person in criminal proceedings at the earliest appropriate stage of such proceedings is fundamental in order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings; the right to legal aid should ensure effective access to the aforementioned right to legal advice.

d)  Communication with relatives, employers and consular authorities: A suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty shall be promptly informed of the right to have at least one person, such as a relative or employer, informed of the deprivation of liberty, it being understood that this should not prejudice the due course of the criminal proceedings. In addition, a suspected or accused person who is deprived of his or her liberty in a state other than his or her own shall be informed of the right to have the competent consular authorities informed of the deprivation of liberty.

e)  Special safeguards for suspected or accused persons who are vulnerable: In order to safeguard the fairness of the proceedings, it is important that special attention is shown to suspected or accused persons who cannot understand or follow the content or the meaning of the proceedings, owing, for example, to their age, mental or physical condition.

f)  Green paper on pre-trial detention: The time that a person can spend in detention before being tried in court and during the court proceedings varies considerably between the member states. Excessively long periods of pre-trial detention are detrimental for the individual, can prejudice the judicial cooperation between the member states and do not represent the values for which the European Union stands. Appropriate measures in this context should be examined in a green paper.

65.  The Government was supportive of strengthening the procedural rights of suspects and defendants under the Stockholm programme, describing it as an area of "fundamental concern".[122] However, it considered the need to do so as predominantly an issue affecting UK citizens who are resident or travelling in other member states as the UK already provides high standards of procedural rights, for example, in standards of detention and access to legal aid.[123]

66.  The Government sees the "road map" as a good example of a cautious and pragmatic approach to EU policy-making. Lord Bach described it as a "British way of dealing with progress."[124] However, while the "road map" was welcomed in principle by our witnesses, including the Law Society, JUSTICE and Fair Trials International, some raised concerns about adopting a step-by-step approach.[125] Negotiations on the "road map" were not initially part of Stockholm programme per se but a separate and self-contained process. JUSTICE and the Law Society feared that there would be no obligation upon member states to continue to act in this area following the Swedish Presidency. [126] The commitment is now enshrined in the programme itself,[127] but there remain no guarantees that it will be implemented in its entirety as the failure of previous negotiations under the Hague programme demonstrates. Mr Russell of Fair Trials International expressed his hopes that the new co-decision powers of the European Parliament will assist in encouraging member states to agree legislation on fundamental rights.[128]

SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION

67.  It is clear that addressing the current imbalance in rights observances across the EU is a priority for Government and for the European Council which has called for "swift implementation" of the measures agreed in the "road map".[129] Efforts to generate a proposal on the first procedural right (interpretation and translation) were certainly speedy. Agreement on the framework decision was reached, in principle, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 23 October 2009, but there was insufficient time to consult the European Parliament prior to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. The proposal was subsequently re-introduced on 15 December 2009 by a group of member states exercising their right of initiative for a directive, the first use of this power to make a proposal for justice legislation under Article 82(2)(b) of the Lisbon Treaty.[130] Nevertheless, assuming it is now agreed relatively quickly,[131] implementation may be hindered for practical reasons, for example, the lack of qualified interpreters or technological infrastructure to support interpretation, including by videoconference. [132]

68.  While we understand that work has already begun on devising a proposal for information on rights and charges,[133] we heard that other measures, for example that on legal aid (measure C), may prove more difficult to agree. Fair Trials International thought that existing rules governing legal aid for individuals are unclear and vary between states, in particular the ability to resort to legal aid to support legal representation is often limited.[134] Research commissioned by the Ministry of Justice, from the University of York, found that whereas continental systems tend to have higher judicial and court costs, the adversarial nature of the criminal courts in England and Wales, and other common law countries, dictates the level and nature of the criminal legal aid system to a large extent as more representation is needed in court.[135]

69.  The current budget for legal aid in the UK is £2.1bn per year.[136] Lord Bach accepted that this budget will always inevitably need to be higher than other member states with inquisitorial legal systems, but insisted that the existing system of legal aid was "generous", even when compared with other common law countries such as Australia and New Zealand.[137] This can be partly explained by higher rates of recorded crime, higher case volumes and higher average costs per case in the UK.[138] The Government has already made it clear to the JHA Council that it could not agree to anything which could increase its current obligations to provide legal aid arising under Article 6(3)(c) of the ECHR and hence raise its legal aid expenditure.[139]

70.  Furthermore, JUSTICE sounded a note of concern that the green paper on the right to review grounds for detention before a trial (measure F) could take some years to emerge—as a result of the consecutive consideration of measures proposed—let alone a tangible proposal.[140] The Minister did not deny that some of these matters were unlikely to be resolved swiftly and acknowledged that difficult cases would continue to arise in the meantime.[141]

71.  The potential for delays in implementing the "road map" raises questions about the likelihood of a continued imbalance of EU policy-making in favour of prosecution for some years to come. We heard that this may be ameliorated both by such existing safeguards as the offer of consular assistance from embassies and the implementation of mutual recognition instruments. Some instruments may help prevent the differential treatment of non-nationals; for example, it is hoped that the European supervision order will negate the need to resort to custodial remands to prevent absconding.[142] Other instruments should afford citizens greater protection of some fundamental rights, for example, the Framework decision on trials in absentia enhances the rights of defendants by clarifying the criteria for determining when they have been adequately notified about their trial.[143] Technological developments, such as video-conferencing, may also assist.[144]

72.  We are encouraged by progress made in implementing the "road map" thus far, notwithstanding the delays caused by the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. Some countries have given a strong signal that this is a priority by introducing the directive on interpretation and translation as a member state initiative. We consider it wise to begin with the easiest elements and to approach these with a renewed sense of optimism, but it is also important not to be complacent about the potential for setbacks. Very practical difficulties related to language may be more easily resolved with equally pragmatic solutions but other issues will undoubtedly be more complex to resolve. We fear that the current pace of progress may not be sustained and therefore have concerns about the implications of the continued imbalances in the system for UK citizens. As the number of European arrest warrants is predicted to rise, there is a real risk that many more citizens will experience the dire consequences of the lack of adequate safeguards afforded to them when they find themselves caught up in cross-European judicial processes.

OTHER MECHANISMS TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE

73.  The "road map" will effectively enhance rights that already exist in the Convention on Human Rights, but as is apparent from the disparities explained above, the presence of rights for EU citizens is no guarantee that they will be adhered to in practice; as we noted above, cases are subject to considerable delays at the European Court of Human Rights (see chapter 5). Once the EU itself accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights it will be subject to the adjudication mechanisms of the Council of Europe and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, although in our meetings in Brussels we heard that this was likely to take some time. The Court of Justice will also apply the Convention in its interpretation of questions about the meaning of EU law and to inform its interpretation of the Charter. Ms Jodie Blackstock, senior legal officer at JUSTICE, pointed out that, in any case, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights does not expand upon the Convention rights but lists them in one place along with the obligations to consider human rights issues under the Treaty on the European Union and the related jurisprudence that has developed.[145]

74.  On 18 February 2010, Commissioner Reding set out her priorities for developing fundamental rights policy, stating: "The Charter will be the compass for all European Union policies. It will be the base for rigorous impact assessments on fundamental rights concerning all new legislative proposals." She also pledged to "use all the tools available under the Treaty to ensure compliance with the Charter of national legislation that transposes EU law" and to "apply a "zero tolerance policy on violations of the Charter."[146]

75.  The Law Society called for provision to be made in legislation for the evaluation and monitoring of compliance mechanisms for procedural rights[147] as recommended by the Home Affairs Committee in its 2007 report Justice and Home Affairs issues at European Union level.[148] Monitoring of compliance with existing procedural rights will be all the more necessary if the "road map" measures take a long time to agree.

POTENTIAL FOR DIVERGENT JURISPRUDENCE

76.  The main reason that the Government was unable to accept the European Commission's original proposal for a framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings was because it considered there to be a "real risk" of confusion arising from the potential for European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence to be compromised by diverging interpretations of EU definitions of human rights by the European Court of Justice.[149] The Government thus saw the original single instrument as "too ambitious" and welcomed the step-by-step approach championed by Sweden, believing that such an approach would help resolve any conflicts.[150]

77.  The extent to which this tension will be resolved by taking the "road map" approach has been the subject of concern. The introductory text to the resolution on the "road map" states that any new EU legislative acts in this field[151] should be consistent with the minimum standards set out by the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.[152] The European Scrutiny Committee considered the draft resolution on 14 October and advised the Government that it "potentially creates a new tier of procedural rights".[153] That Committee also questioned the value of the interpretation of the relationship between ECHR and EU law outlined in the preamble to the resolution and "strongly" recommend it be amended. Nevertheless, the final adopted text remains essentially the same:

Furthermore, the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, is an important foundation for member states to have trust in each other's criminal justice systems and to strengthen such trust. At the same time, there is room for further action of the European Union to ensure full implementation and respect of Convention standards, and[154], where appropriate, to ensure consistent application of the applicable standards and to raise existing standards."[155]

78.  The preparation of the Proposal for a framework decision on interpretation and translation rights in criminal proceedings illustrates that it is possible to consolidate the Convention and European Court of Human Rights case law into proposals in consultation and cooperation with the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe has commented that some provisions of the framework decision lay down standards surpassing those of the ECHR but that this "does not raise a problem in terms of their compatibility with the ECHR, since its Article 53 explicitly provides for such an eventuality. However…it is important that such higher standards are clearly indicated." [156]

79.  In a written submission JUSTICE explained to us how the proposal enhances existing rights under the Convention:

On 8 July the Commission presented a proposal for a Council framework decision on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (the proposal). The explanatory memorandum sets out clearly the need for action in this area and the developments of case law before the European Court of Human Rights which clarifies that the right to interpretation and translation provided in Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights should be provided free of charge, to pre-trial proceedings and of competent quality. The proposal seeks to enhance these developments with practical detail. Article 2 confirms that the right to interpretation attaches to investigative as well as judicial proceedings, including police questioning and the provision of advice by the suspect's lawyer. In a somewhat circular fashion Article 3(2) provides '[t]he essential documents to be translated shall include the detention order depriving the person of his liberty, the charge/indictment, essential documentary evidence and the judgment.' Article 4 confirms that the state shall cover the costs of the service. Article 5 is headed 'Quality of the interpretation and translation' and requires the service be provided in such a way as to ensure that the suspect is fully able to exercise his rights, and that the profession is trained in ensuring this is the case.[157]

The European Scrutiny Committee maintains that this may result in "legal uncertainty".[158]

80.  During our meetings in Brussels similar concerns were raised about the entry into force of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. We heard two different assumptions about the potential implications of this. On the one hand that Court of Justice rulings may fall short of standards set in European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, and on the other, that such rulings may be in excess of them. While this potential for divergence undoubtedly gives rise to challenges for both courts, our witnesses did not believe that there would be problems of conflict of case law. Professor Peers told us:

I do not think it is fundamentally problematic anyway to be setting standards which are above the ECHR, given that they are a minimum standard and given that it is obviously open to member states, and therefore presumably the European Union as a whole, to set standards which are above the minimum standards in the ECHR as far as criminal law is concerned.[159]

81.  Mr Faull, Mrs Mole and Ms Blackstock explained that it has become increasingly common for the Court of Justice to consider the case law of the ECHR, which has tended to result in more comprehensive application of rights than those which are guaranteed under ECHR.[160] In doing so the Court has operated on the principle that: "in interpreting a piece of community legislation it must take into account, and not divert or depart from, the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court but must nevertheless give a Community meaning to Community provisions".[161] Therefore, while there has been speculation over the risk of divergent jurisprudence, this threat has not actually materialised. Mrs Mole argued that while there was always a risk of the European Court of Justice inadvertently providing a level of right lower than that provided by the ECHR, in her view the "probability is zero" that this would occur in practice.[162] Mr Faull agreed that there was no guarantee that divergence would not occur in the future but he considered that the EU's accession to the ECHR would make this "quite a lot less likely", as the ECJ would then be applying the Convention fully and would use its interpretation of the Convention to inform its interpretation of the Charter.[163]

SHARING BEST PRACTICE

82.  JUSTICE noted that there was no best practice guidance accompanying the proposal on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings and drew our attention to recommendations in a report prepared for the Directorate General Interpretation which could provide a basis for such guidance. [164] For example, the report advocated a curriculum in legal interpretation and a system of accreditation, certification and registration for legal interpreters.[165] The Magistrates' Association has produced a guidance note and checklist for its members on using interpreters in court proceedings.[166]

83.  The Commission should develop best practice guidance to accompany each of the proposals created under the "road map". In the first instance such guidance should be produced to complement the forthcoming directive on interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings, drawing on existing good practice in other member states, for example, the guidance note and checklist devised by the Magistrates' Association.

Enhanced support to victims of crime

84.  Strengthening the rights of victims was a priority identified in the Stockholm programme. The European Council calls for the European Commission to examine the possibility of creating a single comprehensive legal instrument on the protection of victims, by joining together the instruments that are already in force, including the 2004 Directive on compensation to crime victims and the 2001 Framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.[167] The Commission reported last year on implementation of the framework decision and concluded:

The implementation of this framework decision is not satisfactory. The national legislation sent to the Commission contains numerous omissions. Moreover, it largely reflects existing practice prior to adoption of the framework decision. The aim of harmonising legislation in this field has not been achieved owing to the wide disparity in national laws. Many provisions have been implementation by way of non-binding guidelines, charters and recommendations. The Commission cannot assess whether these are adhered to in practice."[168]

The Commission subsequently commenced a wide-ranging impact assessment to consider what legislative and practical measures should be taken in 2011 to improve the position of victims during the entire judicial process. This could comprise: compensation; protection; assistance; special provisions for vulnerable victims, particularly child victims; and support for the activities of victim support organisations. In her first hearing before the relevant European parliamentary committees, Commissioner Reding reflected the importance that the Commission wishes to place on these issues and asserted that the EU must begin to pay more than "lip service" to the protection of victims.[169]

85.  According to the Government, the framework decision has provided a "starting point for a significant set of reforms to the way victims are supported and kept informed about their case", [170] including a code of practice for victims of crime, No Witness, No Justice and the introduction of Victim Support Plus.[171] We heard that this has resulted in significant improvements in victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system; from 75% satisfaction in 2005/06, to 82% in December 2008.[172]

86.  Victim Support gave us its view on the UK Government's track record in implementing the provisions of existing instruments. It agreed that the UK, particularly England and Wales, had a "relatively strong track record" in implementing the 2001 Framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings but identified areas for improvement, particularly the implementation of outstanding articles in framework decision, including: Articles 4 (Right to receive information); 5 (Communication safeguards); 8 (Right to protection); 9 (Right to compensation in the course of criminal proceedings); 10 (Penal mediation in the course of criminal proceedings); 11 (Victims resident in another member state); 12 (Cooperation between member states); and 14 (Training for personnel involved in proceedings or otherwise in contact with victims).[173]

87.  The Stockholm programme identified particular groups of victims for attention, including victims of: gender based violence; child exploitation; trafficking; terrorism; and "cyber crime". The NSPCC was supportive of child-specific provisions for young victims of crime.[174] However, Victim Support has found that, where universal services are not in place for all victims, this impacts disproportionately on vulnerable victims and "urge[s] caution" in identifying priority groups of victims.[175] Victim Support raised concerns about adopting a "two-tier" approach to victim policy in the EU, particularly in member states where infrastructure for supporting victims is not already established. The Government believed that there should be a focus on child protection and information on previous relevant convictions.[176]

88.  The 2004 directive provided that where an EU citizen was a victim of crime in another member state they could apply for their own country's compensation scheme. We heard that, across the EU, there has been low take-up of compensation under the directive, which Victim Support attributed primarily to a lack of awareness of the existence of such provision.[177] Other reasons for its underuse, identified in the Commission's report, included perceived language barriers and the absence of a central source of information on the entitlements of victims. Victim Support called for victims to be made fully aware of the enhanced opportunity to seek compensation under the 2004 directive.[178]

89.  The Law Society raised concerns about the extent to which victims' rights may be balanced with the rights of defendants in any new measures:

It will be important to resist any attempts, albeit not explicitly referred to, to introduce a system of victim's rights in which prosecutorial discretion to discontinue a case or downgrade a criminal charge would be subject to the victim's input or consent or that of the victim's advisor; or to introduce protective measures to afford victim anonymity that do not adequately protect the right of a defendant to challenge their evidence.[179]

90.  We welcome the proposed consolidation of instruments to promote the rights of victims of crime. The existence of compensation schemes could be promoted relatively easily through the forthcoming e-justice portal—which will function as a point of access to information on justice matters across the EU—with appropriate signposting from domestic agencies that come into contact with victims from other member states. We seek clarification from the Government as to when it intends fully to transpose the outstanding articles of the framework decision on the rights of victims in criminal proceedings.


114   European Parliament press release, Summary of hearing of Viviane Reding-Justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, 12 January 2010  Back

115   Ev 62 Back

116   Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights states 'The right for the accused to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require' Back

117   Ev 60-61 Back

118   Ev 86 Back

119   Q 7 Back

120   Ev 74 Back

121   Swedish Presidency speech, Presentation to the Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) by Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask, 4 September 2009 Back

122   Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

123   Qq 12, 33 [Lord Bach] Back

124   Q 6  Back

125   Ev 74 [JUSTICE], Ev 80-81 [Law Society], Ev 61-62 [Fair Trials International] Back

126   Ev 74 [JUSTICE]; Ev 81 [Law Society]  Back

127   Stockholm programme, para 2.4 Back

128   Q 129 Back

129   Stockholm programme, para 2.4; Ev 93 [Ministry of Justice], Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

130   Council of the European Union, Initiative for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the rights to interpretation and to translation in criminal proceedings, 15 December 2009; the UK is not party to this initiative Back

131   This may be complicated by the Commission issuing its own proposal on 9 March 2010  Back

132   Ev 86 [Magistrates' Association]; Ev 73 [JUSTICE]; Ev 82 [Law Society] Back

133   Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

134   Ev 60 Back

135   Ministry of Justice, International comparison of publicly funded legal services and justice systems, October 2009 Back

136   Q 32 [Lord Bach] Back

137   Qq 33-34 Back

138   Ministry of Justice, International comparison of publicly funded legal services and justice systems, October 2009 Back

139   Q 35 [Lord Bach] Back

140   Ev 74 Back

141   Q 9 Back

142   Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

143   Ev 92; Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

144   Q 8 [Lord Bach] Back

145   Q 130 Back

146   Europa Speech/10/33, Towards a European area of fundamental rights: the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights and accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, Interlaken, 18 February 2010 Back

147   Ev 80 Back

148   HC (Session 2006-07) 76-I, para 229 Back

149   Q 7 [Lord Bach] Back

150   Ibid. Back

151   Action under the "road map" is not confined to legislation. Back

152   Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, 2009/C 295/01 Back

153   European Scrutiny Committee, Twenty-Ninth Report of Session 2008-09, Documents considered by the Committee on 14 October 2009, HC 19-xxviii; The Committee also addressed this issue in relation to the Draft Council framework decision on interpretation and translation rights in criminal proceedings which it considered on the same day. It concluded that"the proposal should not create an alternative hierarchy of human rights standards beyond those of the ECHR-to do as much would undermine the ECHR and cause legal uncertainty". Back

154   Replaced "as well as". Back

155   Resolution of the Council of 30 November 2009 on a Roadmap for strengthening procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings, 2009/C 295/01, para 2 Back

156   HC (Session 2008-09) 19-xxviii, para 13.16 Back

157   Ev 74-75 Back

158   HC (Session 2008-09) 19-xxviii, para 13.2 Back

159   Q 72 Back

160   Qq 110, 130, 134 [Mr Faull, Ms Blackstock, Mrs Mole]. Ms Blackstock explained that the Court of Justice already "looks to Strasbourg" in its consideration of issues with a human rights angle, citing the case of Kadi vs. Council and Commission (C402/05) as an example.  Back

161   Q 134 [Mrs Mole] Back

162   Q 141 [Mrs Mole] Back

163   Qq 110-111 Back

164   Ev 75; See European Commission, Reflection forum on multilingualism and interpreter training final report, 2009  Back

165   Ibid. Back

166   Ev 86 Back

167   Stockholm programme, para 2.3.4 Back

168   COM (2009) 166, Report from the Commission pursuant to Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, 2001/220/JHA Back

169   European Parliament press release, Summary of hearing of Viviane Reding-Justice, fundamental rights and citizenship, 12 January 2010 Back

170   Ev 91 Back

171   Ev 112 [Victim Support] Back

172   Ev 91 Back

173   Ev 113-114 Back

174   Ev 111 Back

175   Ev 115 Back

176   Q 49 [Ms Gibbons] Back

177   Ev 115 Back

178   IbidBack

179   Ev 85 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 6 April 2010