The vast differences among the national standards for granting legal aid pushed the European Commission to propose common minimum rules in order to harmonize this right. This initiative was intended to ensure the effectiveness of the right of access to a lawyer, because the right of access to a lawyer can only be genuine if free legal aid is guaranteed when necessary. On the one hand, the implementation of the (finally adopted) Directive 2016/1919 into national law raises new questions; on the other hand, it has also been useful in resolving legal inconsistencies. This is the case in Spain, where the parliament implemented the Directive in 2018. This article informs the reader about the main contents and deficiencies of this implementation and on how Spanish judges have influenced the Spanish legislator with their jurisprudence by applying European standards even before the entry into force of Directive 2016/1919.

The indiscriminate use of social networking for interpersonal relationships has increased the possibilities to engage in behaviour that affects the private and personal lives of citizens in general and minors in particular. Offences such as child grooming have been incorporated into the Spanish Criminal Code, in compliance with international and community commitments. This paper aims to analyze the changes made by the Spanish legislator to the Spanish criminal law system as a result of the transposition of EU directives on sexual crimes against minors.

The harmonisation of criminal law and criminal procedure in the EU is subject to specific conditions, which differ from those generally applicable to the approximation of laws in the Union. Specific limits may result from the rules of competence set out in Art. 82 et seq. TFEU, from EU fundamental rights, or from constitutional conditions applicable in certain Member States. These factors can impede the negative approximation of national criminal law systems through mutual recognition as well as the positive approximation through EU secondary law. Furthermore, if serious doubts arise as to whether the rule of law is fully respected by Member States participating in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, the premise for any form of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU is no longer valid.

The author gives a personal overview of how the European Union became involved in criminal law over the last 20 years. He calls to mind the main stages of the development, from the Maastricht and Amsterdam Treaties to the draft European constitution and the Lisbon Treaty. The article also outlines the challenges that have emerged and compares the Council of Europe and the EU in their ability to shape European criminal law.

Twenty years having passed since the Conclusions of the European Council in Tampere, which proposed the principle of mutual recognition as the “cornerstone” of judicial cooperation within the Union, the author takes the opportunity to reflect on the main achievements in this sector before and after the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. From the enthusiasm following the adoption of the European Arrest Warrant to the recently achieved European Investigation Order and the Regulation on freezing and confiscation orders, the panorama of mutual recognition still seems to be characterized by excessive fragmentation. After Tampere and following the adoption of the consecutive programmes of action of 2004 (The Hague) and 2009 (Stockholm), no really new strategic guidelines have been adopted by the heads of state and governments, notwithstanding the clear mandate assigned to them by Art. 68 TFEU. Looking forward to the new Strategic Guidelines to be adopted in … Read more

10 years ago, on 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force and brought judicial cooperation in criminal matters from the sphere of intergovernmental cooperation fully into the fold of EU law and policies. Almost all former framework decisions in the field of substantive criminal law have now been “Lisbonised,” i.e., recast in the ordinary legislative procedure as legal acts (directives) of the Union in the sense of Art. 288 TFEU. However, in recent years, the enthusiasm of the early years has waned a bit and there seems to be little appetite for bold new legislative projects. Against this backdrop, the present article takes stock of the progress made in the harmonisation of substantive criminal law in the EU and attempts to look into its future.