Analytics, EU – Baltic States, Legislation
International Internet Magazine. Baltic States news & analytics
Tuesday, 20.10.2026, 18:03
Discussing criminal law issues in the EU
Print versionThe Commissioner issues (June 14, 2011) a Green Paper on how to strengthen mutual trust in the field of detention. Detention conditions and periods vary widely among the EU member states. While national governments are solely responsible for detention issues and prison management, it is the European Commission's role to make sure that judicial cooperation in the EU works and fundamental rights are respected, e.g. when EU mutual recognition instruments – such as the European Arrest Warrant – are implemented.
Commission seeks views on detention in the EU's area of justice
 |
|---|
The Commission started public consultations among European legal practitioners, those working in prisons and probation services, national administrations, non-governmental organisations and anyone else with an interest in detention issues. Responses can be submitted until 30 November 2011.
The Green Paper kicks off public consultations that will help to explore more closely the links between detention issues and mutual trust in the EU's area of justice. Detention conditions can have a direct impact on the smooth functioning of mutual recognition of judicial decisions – the basis for cooperation between judges in the EU.
For example, the European Arrest Warrant – in effect since 2004 – provides an efficient tool for extraditing people suspected of an offence from one EU country to another, so that criminals have no hiding place in Europe (See: IP/11/454).
But the system is impeded if judges refuse to extradite accused persons because detention conditions in the requesting country are substandard.
Prison overcrowding and allegations of poor treatment of detainees may also undermine the trust that is necessary for judicial cooperation within the European Union. The time that a person can spend in detention before being tried in court and during court proceedings varies a lot among the EU-27. In some countries, a person can be held in pre-trial detention for up to four years.
Excessively long periods of pre-trial detention are detrimental for the individual; it can prejudice judicial cooperation between the member states and would run counter to EU values.
Options for improving mutual trust between judicial authorities raised in the Green Paper include promoting exchanges of best practice on detention conditions between national administrations, alternatives to detention for children, and better monitoring of prison conditions by national governments.
Commission’s opinion
Mutual trust between judicial authorities in the EU must be sustained when member states cooperate in tackling crime and making justice systems fairer, said the Commissioner. She added that though “prison conditions are a national responsibility, the aim of the Commission's work should be to strengthen mutual knowledge about our systems and reinforce mutual trust to ensure an effective application of the principle of mutual recognition so that an EU area of justice can be effective."
Commission’s Vice-President, V. Reding, EU's Justice Commissioner. Brussels, 14 June 2011.
For more information see:
- Green Paper on the application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/criminal/procedural/docs/com_2011_327_fr.pdf
- Justice Directorate General Newsroom:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/intro/news_intro_en.htm
Table: Prison population in the European Union (2009-2010)
|
EU Member States Data from 2009/2010 |
Prison population total (including pre-trial detainees/ |
Pre-trial detainees (percentage of prison population) |
Occupancy level (based on official capacity) |
Prison population rate (per 100 000 of national population) |
Non-national prisoners (percentage of prison population, incl. non-national EU citizens) and 3rd country nationals) |
Juveniles / minors (percentage of prison population) |
|
Austria |
8 671 |
23,7% |
102,9% |
103 |
45,8% |
2,6 % |
|
Belgium |
10 501 |
35% |
118,9% |
97 |
41,1% |
0,3 % |
|
Bulgaria |
9 071 |
10,4% |
155,6% |
120 |
1,9% |
0,5 % |
|
Cyprus |
831 |
38,4% |
150,5% |
105 |
59,6% |
0,6 % |
|
Czech Republic |
22 575 |
11,3% |
111,9% |
214 |
7,3% |
0,7 % |
|
Denmark |
3 967 |
34,9% |
96% |
71 |
21,9% |
0,5 % |
|
Estonia |
3 436 |
21,9% |
97,2% |
256 |
39,4% |
1 % |
|
Finland |
3 231 |
17,1% |
98,2% |
60 |
10,3% |
0,1 % |
|
France |
59 655 |
27,7% |
118,1% |
96 |
19,2% |
1,1 % |
|
Germany |
69 385 |
15,5% |
89,0% |
85 |
26,3% |
3,5 % (of pre-trial prisoners only) |
|
Greece |
11 547 |
27,4% |
129,6% |
102 |
43,9% |
4,4 % |
|
Hungary |
15 373 |
29,3% |
127,7% |
153 |
3,8% |
3 % |
|
Ireland |
4 409 |
14,9% |
103,7% |
99 |
10,8% |
2,4 % |
|
Italy |
68 795 |
43,6% |
153% |
113 |
36,9% |
0,5 % |
|
7 055 |
28,3% |
70,4% |
314 |
1% |
2,1 % | |
|
Lithuania |
8 655 |
14% |
85,5% |
260 |
1,2% |
2,5 % |
|
Luxembourg |
706 |
47,2% |
99,3% |
139 |
69,5% |
0,7 % |
|
Malta |
583 |
35,2% |
84,5% |
140 |
40,1% |
6,1 % |
|
The Netherlands |
15 604 |
36,3% |
86,4% |
94 |
27,7% |
4,7 % |
|
Poland |
82 794 |
10,3% |
97,4% |
217 |
0,7% |
0,3 % |
|
Portugal |
11 896 |
19,4% |
98,5% |
112 |
20,2% |
0,7 % |
|
Romania |
28 481 |
16,5% |
81,4% |
133 |
0,7% |
1,6 % |
|
Slovakia |
10 044 |
17,4% |
94,6% |
185 |
1,8% |
0,8 % |
|
Slovenia |
1 385 |
24,4% |
124,2% |
67 |
10,8% |
2 % |
|
Spain |
73 520 |
18,7% |
136,3% |
159 |
35,5% |
0 % (2,1 % under 21) |
|
Sweden |
7 286 |
24,7% |
105,4% |
78 |
28,7% |
0,1 % |
|
United Kingdom |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) England & Wales |
85 206 |
14,9% |
107,2% |
154 |
12,9% |
1,9 % |
|
b) Scotland |
7 781 |
20.2% |
105,2% |
149 |
3,4% |
1,5 % |
|
c) Northern Ireland |
1 557 |
36,8% |
82,7% |
86 |
8% |
1 % |
Note: In bold are the EU countries around the Baltic Sea area.
Sources: International Centre for Prison Studies – King's College: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/?search=europe&x=Europe
and Eurostat – statistics in focus – 58/2010
«The Baltic Course» Is Sold and Stays in Business!
