Navigating criminal justice cooperation: A French perspective on EU framework decisions

Abstract

This article provides a nuanced exploration of the implications of EU criminal justice cooperation, particularly within French probation and judicial services. Focusing on EU Framework Decisions 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI, the article delves into their impact and adaptation in France, offering insights into challenges, adaptations, and practical considerations from the French standpoint. The article contextualises the implications of EU Framework Decisions by integrating valuable insights from the French probation and judicial services. Statistical data and case analyses illustrate practical challenges and applications within the French criminal justice landscape. The article highlights specific challenges faced within the French criminal justice system, such as prison overcrowding and the treatment of foreign nationals. It emphasises enhanced communication, trust, and collaboration among stakeholders within the European criminal justice system. Addressing the adaptation of EU Framework Decisions in France, the article navigates the complexities involved in aligning European law with national legislation and the delicate balance required to maintain sovereignty while embracing cooperative legal frameworks. The nuanced cultural perspectives permeating the French criminal justice landscape are examined to comprehensively understand the unique challenges and adaptations within the French context. The article also discusses the paradox between establishing European probation standards and the challenges in building trust among probation officers and stakeholders across European nations, offering potential strategies for improvement in European criminal justice cooperation. In conclusion, this article provides valuable insights into the complexities and challenges within European criminal law, offering directives for enhanced collaboration and effectiveness within the European legal landscape. It is a pivotal analysis contributing to informed discussions and policy decision-making within European criminal justice cooperation.

Introduction

The European Union has undergone a remarkable transformation by becoming an area of freedom and mobility for its citizens, following the Schengen Agreement and other treaties such as Maastricht and Lisbon. This change has highlighted the need to strengthen police and judicial cooperation while simultaneously adapting many criminal justice systems. Faced with prison overcrowding in France, the urgent need to explore and effectively use EU instruments is becoming increasingly apparent.

Specifically, this contribution aims to highlight two EU instruments under-used by the various actors in the criminal justice chain and, more specifically, by prison and probation services. In this evolving landscape, the key EU Framework Decisions, notably 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI, are of significant significance. Although less well known than the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), these Framework Decisions are critical instruments for the mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, and their practical transposition represents a significant challenge to judicial cooperation in criminal matters. These decisions not only facilitate the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions but also contribute to the application of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention.

According to the conclusions of the Council of Europe’s SPACE report in 2022, ¹ around 8% of people on conditional release in the EU are foreign nationals, while 16% of prisoners are foreign nationals. This paper explores the implications of EU Framework Decisions 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI, drawing on the perspectives of a probation officer at the French Prison Service headquarters and a prosecutor at the National School for the Judiciary (ENM). Given the burden of prison overcrowding in France, the participation of individuals advocating for practical, effective European judicial cooperation becomes pivotal.

The impact of EU framework decisions on non-custodial measures and mutual recognition

The EU Framework Decisions 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI have played a pivotal role in harmonising criminal law across the EU, particularly regarding non-custodial measures like probation and community service. These decisions have significantly impacted legal practices by promoting rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, and addressing prison overcrowding. The principle of mutual recognition has facilitated cross-border cooperation, leading to more integrated legal frameworks and enhancing the presumption of innocence by reducing reliance on pre-trial detention. Properly implementing these measures is crucial for their effectiveness, ensuring they are adequate and proportionate to the offence committed, thereby improving the fairness and efficacy of non-custodial measures.

Adaptation of EU framework decisions in France: Balancing sovereignty and cooperative legal frameworks

France ratified two Framework Decisions, 2009/829/JAI and 2008/947/JAI, to implement the principle of mutual recognition to decisions concerning alternative measures to pre-trial detention, probation, and substitution penalties.

These Framework Decisions had to be incorporated into national law by December 1, 2014, to avoid potential legal action by the European Commission.

An accelerated process led to the adoption of a law on August 17, 2015, ² effective October 1, 2015. This transposition faced some complexities, as the Framework Decisions originally should have been transposed in France in 2011 and 2012. This delay reflects the intricacies involved in aligning European law with national legislation, revealing some reluctance due to the desire to preserve the sovereignty of States, resulting in complex mechanisms.

While these legislative efforts reflect the European desire for greater cooperation between Member States in criminal matters, they also prompt discussions about the law’s impact. Considerations around a common legal framework leading to greater efficiency and consistency across the EU versus compromising the uniqueness and specificity of national legal systems constitute a significant aspect of European law. They understand the different perspectives surrounding this debate and the ongoing evolution of European criminal law.

The transposition of both Framework Decisions, 2008/947/JAI and 2008/829/JAI, into the French legal system, as evidenced by law n° 2015-993 of 17 August 2015, which adapted the criminal procedure to align with European Union law, explicitly transposing the Framework Decision of 27 November 2008 on mutual recognition for supervision of probation measures and supervision of offenders, along with the mutual recognition for supervision purposes of probation measures and alternative sanctions.

Law no. 2015-993 of 17 August 2015 adapting criminal procedure to European Union law transposed into national law a Framework Decision of 27 November 2008 on mutual recognition for supervision of probation measures and supervision of offenders.

These provisions, codified in articles 764-1 to 764-43 of the Criminal Procedure Code, have been applicable since 15 October 2015 and are intended to apply to all final decisions, regardless of the date of the conviction.

Standard rules have thus been introduced within the European Union when probation measures and sentences are imposed. Probation measures and alternatives to custodial sentences have been ordered concerning those set on a person not ordinarily resident in the sentencing state.

Judging by the Committee’s work on the legislation, this text posed no difficulties. The Framework Decisions, dating from 2008 to 2009, should have been transposed in France in 2011 and 2012. The first concerns the mutual recognition of probation decisions, making them enforceable and applicable in any European country, regardless of the State that issued them. The second concerns judicial supervision measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention. Here again, the aim is to apply the principle of mutual recognition. The third concern is preventing and resolving conflicts when a state initiates criminal proceedings and has reason to believe that the same proceedings may be initiated in another state. States are called upon to act proactively. Admittedly, there are no binding measures, as the discussions did not make it possible to establish criteria for defining which State conducts the procedure. However, States have been strongly encouraged to agree to avoid parallel procedures. There are exceptions; it is possible not to provide information when it is a matter of preserving national interests or guaranteeing a person’s safety. However, in other cases, states are invited to take the measures mentioned and ask Eurojust for information on issues within its mandate, such as cross-border or organised crime. There is, therefore, an incentive for consensus. If there is no obligation to waive a State’s jurisdiction, the procedure that first leads to a final conviction will be taken into account by the State that initiated the parallel prosecution. Mutual recognition means avoiding impunity; offenders must not be allowed to take advantage of differences between legal systems to escape justice. However, it also implies the need to protect victims equally across Europe. These are the foundations on which the exchange efforts are based.

For the mutual recognition of probationary sentences, the legislature added a title ‘VI ter’ to Book V of the Criminal Procedure Code, concerning ‘execution procedures’. Upon reading this text, it is evident that the French legislature faithfully transposed the directive by preliminarily adding the necessary provisions to the national code to transpose the two aforementioned framework decisions.

However, despite the successful transposition, challenges persist in the practical application of these measures.

Implementing EU framework decisions in France’s legal landscape

Application of FD 909 in France

Law no. 711-2013 of 5 August 2013 ³ transposes into domestic law the Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2008/909/JAI of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for their enforcement in the European Union. The circular of 28 October 2014 set out the main provisions of this law. In addition, a space dedicated to the recognition of sentences within the European Union has been created on the French Ministry of Justice intranet site, including in particular fact sheets (from the cross-border transfer of detained persons to the enforcement of sentences within the European Union, difficulties linked to the articulation of the arrangements for implementing the European arrest warrant and the mutual recognition of judgements in criminal matters handing down custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty) and setting out valuable frameworks. One of the consequences of the new provisions of articles 728-10 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting from this law, is to entrust the public prosecutor with the implementation of the procedure for the recognition and enforcement of sentences. In 2017, the Framework Decisions on the mutual recognition of custodial sentences (FD 2008/909/JAI) and probation sentences (FD 2008/947/JAI), transposed in 2013 and 2015, have not yet been fully integrated into the daily arsenal of public prosecutors. The complexity of these procedures (difficulty in identifying the competent foreign authorities, non-compliance with the rules by foreign authorities, cumbersome logistics of hearings, complex linkage with other procedures, in particular the European Arrest Warrant, etc.), their duration (sometimes rendering the procedures pointless), their cost (translation, interpretation) and the absence of an established criminal policy in this area are all criticised by public prosecutors in their annual reports.

Application of FD 947 in France

Decision 2008/947/JAI deals with the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements and probation decisions for the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. It sets out the procedures and mechanisms for recognising and transferring such measures between EU Member States. The Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union of 27 November 2008, transposed into French law by Law no. 2015-993 of 17 August 2015, ⁴ the provisions of which have been applicable since 15 October 2015 and codified in articles 764-1 to 764-43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, established the recognition and enforcement of sentences and probation decisions within the Member States of the European Union. While this decision has been transposed into national law, its application in practice is even more complex than that relating to custodial sentences, mainly due to a substantial lack of understanding of the different laws applicable in member countries.

Application of FD 829 in France

Decision 2009/829/JAI focuses on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to pre-trial detention between Member States. It helps foster confidence between the Member States’ legal systems and facilitates the smooth operation of judicial cooperation. Again, this framework decision is sometimes difficult to apply in practice because of a lack of knowledge of the different systems applicable in Europe.

Case analysis: Application of council framework decision 2009/829/JAI in cross-border judicial supervision

Cour de cassation, chambre criminelle, 10 Octobre 2023, n° 23-84.684

This case concerned Ms W, a Lithuanian national, who was charged with an offence in France on December 28, 2022, and was placed under judicial supervision, which included a ban on leaving French territory. Subsequently, on June 16, 2023, Ms W applied for an amendment to the judicial supervision order to be carried out in Lithuania.

However, her request was rejected by the examining magistrate. As a result, Ms W filed an appeal against this decision.

It appears that the grounds of appeal criticise the judgement under appeal for rejecting Mrs W’s request to modify her judicial supervision, specifically to allow her to travel to and reside in Lithuania.

The argument insists that the investigating chamber must determine the appropriateness of the judicial supervision obligations concerning the needs of the investigation, the risk of repeating the offence, or public safety imperatives. It contends that in choosing the commitments attached to judicial supervision, the investigating court may decide to subject the person under investigation to obligations listed in Article 696-50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a view to enforcement in a Member State of the European Union.

The argument further asserts that the judgement under appeal erred in refusing to allow Mrs W to serve her judicial supervision in Lithuania, stating that keeping her on national territory was an essential security measure to ensure her representation in the proceedings, particularly for questioning. The argument claims that this decision lacked legal justification and failed to investigate whether the current obligations of her judicial supervision could not be carried out in Lithuania, thus ensuring her representation in the investigation, as mandated by the relevant legal provisions.

In this context, the Court’s response indicates that the contested judgement failed to meet the requirements outlined in Article 593 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They assert that all judgements of the Examining Magistrate’s Chamber must contain adequate grounds for the decision and address the parties’ essential points. Insufficient or contradictory reasons are equivalent to a lack of reasoning.

The Court then proceeds to critique the reasoning in the judgement under appeal. It states that to reject the request for the modification of judicial review, the contested judgement justified the decision by highlighting that keeping Ms W on national territory was essential for ensuring her representation in the proceedings and specifically for conducting her interrogation on the merits.

Furthermore, the judges added that the obligations imposed on Ms W in the context of her judicial supervision in France were the only ones capable of preventing the risk of evading justice or colluding with Mr X, who was under investigation and provisionally detained in Lithuania, with whom she was not currently subject to any ban on contact.

Lastly, the judges affirmed that maintaining this measure on national territory would not disproportionately harm the rights of the person concerned, given the criminal and financial implications of the proceedings.

The Court concluded that the judgement failed to investigate whether the judicial supervision imposed on Mrs W, with the addition of a prohibition on entering into relations with Mr X, could not achieve the same objectives if carried out in Lithuania, as requested by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court of Cassation has decided to reverse and annul the judgement of the Investigating Division of the Paris Court of Appeal, dated 7 July 2023, in its entirety. The case and the parties are to be referred to the Examining Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal for a new judgement to be handed down by the law.

The impact of EU framework decisions on non-custodial measures and mutual recognition

Supporting sentenced people when transferred out of the national justice system involves more than supervising their compliance with court obligations. It also involves mobilising community resources to help these individuals create a law-abiding life and contribute to society. The rehabilitation of individuals with various social, educational, occupational, emotional, and more gaps in society, especially those facing language barriers or lacking strong social ties, is a substantial challenge in the reintegration process. With a more straightforward method for the transfer of probation or alternative measures (art. 1 of FD 2008/947/JAI), prosecution services dedicated to the execution of sentences and probation services in each EU Member State will be encouraged to strengthen their cooperation with their European counterparts. This will ensure continuity and consistency in the follow-up of persons on probation, even if they change their place of residence. In general terms, the application of the Framework Decision reinforces the need to situate criminal justice and prison and probation policies within a transnational framework, with three objectives in mind: To ensure respect for the fundamental rights of sentenced persons, prisoners, and persons on conditional release in the community. To promote harmonised probation practices. To increase the effectiveness of care to prevent re-offending. In France, Prison and Probation services have made significant progress in these areas, adopting the European Prison Rules in 2009 to establish and strengthen procedures and professional practices in prisons and also adopting the European Probation Rules in 2018 to renew the methodology of intervention of probation staff with the Manual of Professional Practices in Probation. This dynamic, strongly supported by the French Director of Prison and Probation Services, who links it to the need to evaluate the effectiveness of policies and systems, continues to be nurtured and to stimulate changes in prison practices, for example. Similarly, in June 2022, the French Ministry of Justice through the BEPG (Bureau de l'exécution des peines) made available to all French public prosecutors and sentence enforcement judges a set of templates and practical tools updated as a result of the European METIS project to enable them to use cross-border sentence recognition tools more efficiently and to contribute to the primary objectives of these texts in terms of combating recidivism and reintegrating convicted offenders into society. The magistrates are the primary actors in the criminal justice chain regarding the recognition of cross-border sentences. Although the BEPG has developed tools to assist magistrates in implementing directives, notably FD 2008/947, it is evident that further efforts are required to promote awareness of this text and strengthen mutual trust among judicial authorities. It is clear today that the use of these tools is predominantly limited to a few magistrates, typically located in border jurisdictions and specialised services for the enforcement and application of sentences. However, a broader reflection on sentence recognition should lead to considering it earlier in the criminal justice chain by questioning the appropriate sentence at the prosecution stage and the hearing without waiting for the enforcement phase of the sentence.

Ensuring informed consent: Empowering offenders within framework decisions 2008/947/JHA and 2009/829/JHA

The magistrates are the primary actors in the criminal justice chain regarding the recognition of cross-border sentences. Although the BEPG has developed tools to assist magistrates in implementing directives, notably FD 2008/947, it is evident that further efforts are required to promote awareness of this text and strengthen mutual trust among judicial authorities. It is clear today that the use of these tools is predominantly limited to a few magistrates, typically located in border jurisdictions and specialised services for the enforcement and application of sentences. However, a broader reflection on sentence recognition should lead to considering it earlier in the criminal justice chain by questioning the appropriate sentence at the prosecution stage and the hearing without waiting for the enforcement phase of the sentence. In the criminal justice system, the voices and considerations of prisoners and offenders often remain marginalised. It is vital to bring attention to the need to provide pertinent information to offenders to enable them to make informed decisions regarding their potential transfer under Framework Decisions 2008/947/JAI and 2009/829/JAI. This perspective sheds light on the obligation to equip offenders with necessary details, empowering them to make choices based on a thorough understanding of the potential implications of these transfers. By emphasising the importance of incorporating the viewpoints and rights of prisoners and offenders, a more holistic approach can be established within mutual recognition instruments, ensuring fairness and equity in decision-making. This inclusion becomes imperative as it underscores the commitment to advocate for informed consent and empowerment of all individuals affected by the reach of these mutual recognition instruments.

The Constitutional Council’s decision of May 7, 2021, ⁵ significantly impacted the prosecutor’s ability to ex officio request mutual recognition of a custodial sentence, rendering such requests subject to appeal. While the collection of observations and the consent of the detained person may seem closely related in practice, they are distinct, as supported by Article 728-11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Constitutional Council’s emphasis on effective judicial recourse established a right of appeal during the transfer issuance phase, aligning with the principle of the right to appeal under the French constitution. Moreover, this decision has far-reaching implications, as it signals the need for broader reforms, particularly in mutual recognition of probation sentences. An appeal process ⁶ has been incorporated, echoing the extension of the Constitutional Council’s decision to encompass mutual recognition of probation sentences. This landmark decision underscores the evolving landscape of mutual recognition instruments and the pressing need for legal adaptations to ensure compliance with due process and constitutional rights.

Strengthening communication through European projects for effective EU framework: Insights from France

To further develop the use of the framework mentioned above by professionals, France has invested in several European projects such as PONT, PRE-TRIAD, the METIS project, Justice for All, and the JCAP project. As part of the latter project, which is supported by the National School for the Judiciary (ENM), recent discussions with magistrates (judges and prosecutors), probation officers, and lawyers have highlighted the fact that cross-border recognition of probation sentences and alternative sanctions is a vital mechanism for promoting rehabilitation and reducing re-offending among convicted offenders. As the free movement of people within the European Union increases, it is imperative to facilitate the transnational recognition of probation measures and to ensure fair treatment before the law. Enhancing collaboration and communication between legal actors across the continent is essential to achieve this goal.

The JCAP Project, initiated in April 2022 and lasting 24 months, is an ambitious endeavour aimed at promoting the understanding and dissemination of the framework decision adopted 15 years ago. This project grapples with persistent challenges related to disparities in probationary sentences among member states, the lack of awareness of judicial decisions in other jurisdictions, and the prevalence of custodial sentences. Analysis of the various interventions by key stakeholders reveals diverse perspectives on the challenges and potential solutions.

The imperative of a better understanding of national legislations has been emphasised, highlighting the necessity of detailed national reports prepared by various partners for a thorough understanding of existing measures and their implementation. However, persistent difficulties in obtaining statistical data necessitate innovative solutions, such as the proposal to create a table of competent authorities.

Practical challenges related to sentence adaptation among member states have also been highlighted, underscoring the importance of the European Judicial Network website despite technical and financial obstacles. To ensure the effectiveness of tools, project partners insist on maintaining comprehensive and up-to-date data.

JCAP has confirmed the crucial role of exchanges among professionals through roundtable discussions and conferences to share best practices and challenges encountered in the implementation of the framework decision.

The project’s final conference also explored the opportunities offered by digitising cross-border cooperation, highlighting the importance of the E-justice portal and interactive tools such as the E− CODEX system. Although electronic communication offers undeniable benefits, challenges remain, including identifying competent authorities and transitioning to a paperless culture.

Using case studies as a working basis underscores the importance of training practitioners to facilitate the rapid transfer of judicial decisions and the sometimes necessity to combine European instruments for practical cooperation. The recommendations made at the final conference emphasise the importance of communication and coordination among member states to strengthen mutual trust and promote the application of the framework decision.

In conclusion, despite progress, challenges persist in promoting cross-border judicial cooperation. Promoting, training, and disseminating information remains crucial to ensuring the success of these ambitious initiatives. Digital means offer considerable opportunities, but effective use requires a thoughtful and concerted approach involving all relevant stakeholders.

Striking the balance: Uniting European probation standards amidst judicial awareness challenges

While the European probation rules establish a common framework for supervising probation measures and non-custodial sanctions, there remains an evident lack of trust within the collaborative networks of probation officers, magistrates, and stakeholders across European nations. This paradox hinges on divergence in interpretations, varying legal systems, and nuanced cultural perspectives permeating the criminal justice landscape.

Furthermore, historical legacies and differing professional experiences contribute to a landscape where the shared framework coexists with a palpable deficit in mutual reliance and confidence. Addressing this paradox mandates a deeper exploration of the underlying factors influencing trust and a concerted effort to foster an environment of unified interpretation and application of these shared standards. By acknowledging this paradox, we can uncover the necessary steps to bridge the gap between a common framework and the trust imperative for effective cross-border collaboration in criminal justice. The core foundation of European probation

Amidst the challenges lies a core foundation established by European bodies such as the Council of Europe and the Confederation of European Probation. These organisations have advocated for and found a common framework for supervising probation measures across European nations. Through their collaborative efforts, they have highlighted the importance of unified standards, best practices, and shared principles, serving as a beacon for a harmonised approach to probation within the European Union.

This foundation work has laid the groundwork for a more cohesive and standardised probation system, offering essential guidelines and frameworks that form the bedrock for a shared understanding and approach to probation across member states. The efforts of these organisations have been pivotal in promoting a more collaborative environment, enhancing cross-border cooperation, and fostering a shared ethos in the supervision and rehabilitation of offenders.

Lack of judicial awareness and its implications

In the context of European probation standards, a striking challenge emerges from the limited understanding of probation measures by judicial authorities in some Member States. Although the Council of Europe and the European Probation Confederation have argued diligently for a unified framework, a worrying trend persists. Judicial authorities, relying on traditional punitive methods, often overlook the potential of probation and non-custodial measures to rehabilitate offenders, particularly in a transnational context. This lack of understanding diminishes the use of these alternative sentences and affects the trust and collaboration essential to the cross-border supervision of offenders.

The ramifications of this oversight are profound, as it perpetuates a systemic dependence on custodial sentences, overshadowing the rehabilitative aspects of punishment. Furthermore, this dependence unintentionally undermines the harmonisation efforts encouraged by European probation standards, hindering the development of a more comprehensive and balanced approach to criminal justice within the European Union. Consequently, the lack of familiarity with probation measures contributes to a palpable caution and, in some cases, scepticism regarding the supervision of offenders across member states, further exacerbating the existing trust deficit within the European criminal justice system.

In the next section, we will explore potential strategies to address this oversight and enhance judicial awareness of probation measures, aiming to bridge the gap and foster a more cohesive approach to rehabilitation and supervision within the European context.

Addressing the oversight

Addressing judges’ and prosecutors' lack of understanding of probation requires a multi-faceted approach. Firstly, a targeted educational initiative must address the lack of understanding. This initiative must educate the judiciary on the effectiveness and benefits of probation and non-custodial measures in rehabilitating offenders. Through workshops, training programs, and knowledge-sharing platforms, these initiatives can provide information, case studies, and good practices that highlight the positive outcomes of using probation measures as part of a holistic and restorative approach to justice. As previously mentioned, the work carried out within the framework of the JCAP project has highlighted that the recognition of guilt should be considered from the prosecution stage and in an ab initio manner. Waiting until the stage of sentence execution could ultimately lead to significant difficulties in the practical implementation of the instruments. Disseminating knowledge of these instruments among magistrates from their initial training in judicial schools, as well as among other actors involved in the process, such as lawyers or probation officers, should enhance mutual trust among different states and thereby contribute to the utilisation of these fundamental tools in the rehabilitation process of convicts.

In addition, collaboration with legal and judicial associations in the Member States can facilitate the integration of probation awareness programs into existing training frameworks for judicial authorities. Establishing a dialogue and partnership with these associations can ensure that information on probation measures is integral to legal training, thus contributing to a better-informed judiciary and a revitalised approach to sentencing and supervision.

The paradox of European probation standards and limited judicial awareness underscores the critical need for a more comprehensive and integrated approach to justice within the European Union. By prioritising enhancing judicial awareness and understanding of probation measures, the EU can pave the way for a more balanced and rehabilitative system that aligns with the broader harmonisation efforts championed by European organisations. Addressing this oversight will strengthen trust and cooperation and solidify the foundational values of rehabilitation and restoration within the European criminal justice system.

Conclusion Examining criminal justice cooperation in the EU provides essential insights into the complexities and ongoing evolution of the legal frameworks, particularly from a French perspective. The article highlights the crucial need to improve communication, trust, and collaboration between the different actors in the European criminal justice system. It also highlights the need to strengthen the role of probation services, to promote informed consent and the need for streamlined communication between all actors in the criminal justice chain in Europe, and to develop the knowledge of these actors, notably through training offered by different training institutes such as the French National School for Judiciary (ENM, Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature). In addition, it highlights the valuable contributions of EU-funded projects such as PONT, PRETRIAD, ISTEP, METIS, and JCAP, as well as the essential role of CEP and EuroPris, with their expert groups in disseminating invaluable information about these instruments to stakeholders in the criminal justice chain. This article highlights the complexities and challenges of European criminal law and the significant advances needed to improve the cooperation and efficiency of the European legal landscape.