Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 “on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union” was implemented in Spain by the introduction of new rules into the Mutual Recognition Act. Achieving social rehabilitation is the core objective of the Framework Decision. This has also practical consequences for the implementation of this instrument, for example requiring ties on the part of the sentenced person with the executing State. Some of the most controversial procedural issues in Spain are analysed in this article, including the consent of the sentenced person and the grounds for the adaptation of the sentence by the executing State under Spanish law.

This article examines the origin, foundations and main features of the proposal of the European Union to facilitate cross-border access to electronic evidence, which was presented by the European Commission in April 2018. The creation of advanced solutions for the transnational gathering of electronic evidence in the EU is a very current and important issue, and is complemented with other actions carried out at an international level. Respect for the principle of proportionality must be particularly relevant in order to achieve the proper functioning of the new scheme. The main idea is that certificates of judicial orders will be transmitted directly to the legal representatives of online service providers. These new instruments of judicial cooperation (consisting of a Regulation and a Directive) aim at facilitating and accelerating judicial authorities’ access to data in criminal investigations in order to assist in the fight against crime and terrorism. They should reduce response … Read more

After giving a brief overview of the major developments in the harmonization of procedural safeguards for suspected and accused persons in the European Union, this article focuses on the legal reforms that were necessary to implement four of the six adopted EU Directives on procedural safeguards into Spanish national law. This concerns the transposition of the Directives on interpretation/translation, on information, on access to a lawyer and communication with third parties, and finally on legal aid. The main aspects of the transpositions into the Spanish legal order are explained and deviations from the requirements of the Directives pointed out. Pending developmental issues, the article enables the reader to reflect the true status of the suspect and accused person in Spain after the reforms that were triggered by the EU acts.

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.