The article assesses France’s transposition of EU directives on the rights of suspects in criminal proceedings. While reforms have strengthened participation in trials, the right to information, and access to interpretation and translation, implementation often falls short of the directives’ spirit. Access to a lawyer during police investigations remains limited, with restrictions on private meetings and delayed access for detained suspects. Disclosure of case materials is only partially ensured, and the use of self-incriminating statements continues despite ECtHR case law. Gros concludes that France has transposed the directives literally but without ambition, prioritising procedural efficiency and security over robust protection of suspects’ rights, raising questions about the future of the French investigative judge model.

The article examines how the principle of equality must be safeguarded in proceedings of the forthcoming European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). Falletti identifies two main challenges: ensuring equal rights for suspects and ensuring equal handling of cases. Since the EPPO applies both its Regulation and national criminal procedure, differences in procedural safeguards across Member States risk undermining equality, particularly in access to lawyers and defence costs in cross-border cases. On case allocation, fears of forum shopping are addressed by mandatory criteria and oversight by Permanent Chambers, with national courts retaining judicial review. While the system relies heavily on national law and courts, ongoing harmonisation through EU directives and ECJ control should mitigate inequalities. The EPPO’s effectiveness will ultimately depend on practice in balancing European coordination with equal treatment of suspects.

The Italian criminal law system, unlike the systems in many other European countries, allows the defense to carry out defensive investigations on behalf of his/her client. In this contribution, the shortcomings of the recent European legislation on the matter are analyzed, as well as the issue of the validity in Italian criminal proceedings of defensive investigations conducted by the defense council abroad. The admissibility in the criminal case of defensive investigations conducted abroad by an Italian defense lawyer was, in fact, already rejected ten years ago by the Italian Court of Cassation. The Court stated that the official state instruments of international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters must be used if investigations are carried out abroad. The authors argue in this contribution that this position cannot be upheld in a unified Europe and deserves fundamental reconsideration. They also advocate a European solution of defensive investigations abroad – a possible … Read more

The article traces how Directive (EU) 2016/1919 on legal aid—adopted 26 Oct 2016—completed the 2009 Procedural Rights Roadmap. It recounts why “measure C” (access to a lawyer + legal aid) was split, the Commission’s 2013 proposal (initially focused on provisional legal aid), and the political split between “northern” states seeking flexibility/cost control and “southern” states/Parliament pushing broader coverage. After trilogues (2015–16), a compromise replaced “provisional” with legal aid, set a scope of “deprivation of liberty plus” (also covering mandatory-lawyer situations and key investigative acts), and anchored eligibility in combined means and merits tests, with a safety net guaranteeing aid when detention is decided or ongoing. The Directive also covers EAW proceedings, and adds rules on decisions, quality, and training. Member States must transpose by 25 May 2019.