Month: January 2015

H.LABAYLE, R.MEHDI : Terrorisme : le jour d’après

Original Published HERE

<strong>par Henri Labayle et Rostane Mehdi</strong>

(ENGLISH ABSTRACT by C.Perinaud:
The day after
Beyond disgust and emotion, the tragic events that which took place in Paris on 7 January 2014 lead us to think about the place of law in our contemporary societies. One can only be shocked by the inability of the latest to tackle the increasing number of murders driven by fanatism and religious obscurantism.
What strikes in the attack of CharlieHebdo is the position of the victims; journalists, satirical cartoonists and the policemen who were in charge of protecting them. Yet, according to the ECtHR formula the murder aimed at killing the “public watchdog of the democracy” . Who will protect us from hated and intolerant speech tomorrow?
Yesterday
The events that which arose in Paris are unfortunately only exceptional because of their extent. For 25 years, Salman Rushdie has been frightened by those who condemned him.
For almost 10 years, Danish cartoonists from the Jyllands-Posten have been placed under the police protection.
We need to think about it. If we need to talk about a “civilisation war”, it can’t be a religious one or a mere irreducible opposition between Occident and Islam. If there is a war, it can only be a fight for the Rule of law.
Tomorrow
The answer to those events is the criminal law so as to reduce the killers to what they are and what they have never ceased to be: criminals. To read things from another prospective would be to acknowledge acknowledging that the fight they intend to conduct can be qualified as such. But it cannot because it is only a crime.
Yet, the collapse of the Rule of law is obvious as it is unable to provide for an efficient answer to the terrorist threat. What strikes the observer of the area of Freedom Security and Justice is indeed the growing number of those criminal actions and the difficulties faced by democratic societies to overcome them.)

TEXT OF THE ORIGINAL POST

Les assassinats commis au journal Charlie Hebdo ne nous sont pas étrangers. Ni le citoyen, ni le juriste, ni l’observateur des développements de l’Espace de liberté, sécurité et de justice ne peuvent y être indifférents. Ils nous invitent, par delà le dégoût et l’émotion, à réfléchir aux grands équilibres de nos sociétés contemporaines et à la place que le droit peut y tenir.

On ne peut qu’être surpris et anéantis devant le spectacle, au XXI° siècle, d’une société occidentale incapable d’interrompre la chronique inexorable de meurtres annoncés par le fanatisme et l’obscurantisme religieux, chaînon supplémentaire à l’abomination quotidienne qui ensanglante le Proche Orient.

Ce qui frappe ici d’abord et nous touche au plus profond, sont les victimes. Journalistes, caricaturistes, policiers les protégeant sont tombés sous les balles de criminels ayant juré leur perte en raison de caricatures jugées offensantes pour la religion musulmane. Aussi, par delà les débats de principe relatifs à la liberté de la presse et à la liberté d’opinion, il est bon, peut-être de rappeler aujourd’hui ce qu’en dit la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, dans une formule magnifique : la presse est le « chien de garde de la démocratie » (CEDH, 25 juin 1992, Thorgeir Thorgeirson c. Islande, req. n° 13778/88).

Le meurtre de la rédaction de Charlie Hebdo n’est autre que celui des chiens de garde de nos démocraties. Il nous renvoie à cette interrogation simple : qui nous protégera, demain, des discours de haine et d’intolérance qui ont armé le bras des assassins ?

A la condamnation de ceux là, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme participe aussi lorsqu’elle affirme haut et clair que « la tolérance et le respect de l’égale dignité de tous les êtres humains constituent le fondement d’une société démocratique et pluraliste. Il en résulte qu’en principe on peut juger nécessaire, dans les sociétés démocratiques, de sanctionner voire de prévenir toutes les formes d’expression qui propagent, incitent à, promeuvent ou justifient la haine fondée sur l’intolérance (y compris l’intolérance religieuse), si l’on veille à ce que les « formalités », « conditions », « restrictions » ou « sanctions » imposées soient proportionnées au but légitime poursuivi » (CEDH, 2 juillet 2006, Erbakan c. Turquie, req. 59405/00).

C’est bien ainsi qu’il nous faut percevoir les évènements parisiens d’hier, qui ne sont exceptionnels malheureusement que par leur ampleur.

Hier

Voici près d’un quart de siècle que Salman Rushdie est poursuivi par la vindicte imbécile de ceux qui l’avaient condamné, que son traducteur japonais puis son éditeur ont été victimes de leur proximité avec l’auteur des Versets sataniques. Voici près de dix ans que les dessinateurs danois du Jyllands-Posten, pour des faits exactement similaires à ceux reprochés à Charlie Hebdo, sont placés sous protection policière.

Y réfléchir est nécessaire. A l’instar de l’historicisme, l’approche consistant à faire de la culture le fondement exclusif du droit mène peu ou prou au relativisme. Or, la ligne suivie par les islamistes est bien celle-là : dans le domaine des droits de l’homme les particularités spirituelles ou culturelles y légitiment, en le systématisant, le rejet de principes généralement considérés comme universels. Dans cette perspective, les droits fondamentaux plongent leurs racines « dans la conviction que Dieu, et Dieu seul, est l’Auteur de la Loi et Source de tous les droits de l’homme » (Introduction, al. 2, Déclaration islamique universelle des droits de l’homme).

Se dessinent ainsi les contours d’un univers dans lequel l’homme n’est pas détenteur de prérogatives inhérentes à sa nature mais redevable à une volonté divine dont tout procède. La prégnance des préceptes religieux est ici absolue, car ils étalonnent (en réalité, ils vident de leur substance) tous les droits et libertés énoncés. Ainsi, même lorsqu’il est expressément reconnu, le droit à la liberté religieuse et donc par extension les droits qui en dérivent ne peuvent s’exercer que dans les limites imposées par la Loi de Dieu (Article 13 de la DIUDH qui doit être lu à la lumière des dispositions de l’article 2). Pour les islamistes, l’attribution de droits s’effectue exclusivement par référence à une appartenance religieuse et selon un raisonnement substantiellement discriminatoire. En effet, toute cette construction repose sur l’idée centrale que les hommes devront être distingués sur la base de leur religion et soumis de ce fait même à des régimes que l’on sait différenciés.

Cette démarche vise à rompre avec un unanimisme factice (du moins au yeux des islamistes), le but recherché étant d’assurer l’intégrité d’un système de valeurs définitivement inconciliables avec les prescriptions universelles notamment en ce qu’elles concernent les droits de la femme, la liberté de conscience ou les peines pénales cruelles et inhumaines. Elle revient à dénier toute pertinence au prolongement moderne le plus remarquable de ces philosophies humanistes en vertu desquelles le respect des droits de l’homme ne résulte que des exigences de la raison humaine.

Par delà les discours convenus et les tentatives de récupération politique auxquels, déjà, la société médiatique se prête, une réflexion s’impose alors quant à la « guerre » de civilisation à laquelle Régis Debray se référait aujourd’hui, sur France Culture. Elle est tout sauf une guerre de religions comme d’aucuns s’empressent de nous le suggérer, un affrontement entre l’Occident et l’Islam, une opposition de nature complaisamment mise en scène par des amateurs de lumière médiatique.

S’il faut employer un vocabulaire belliciste, mieux vaut être conscient de sa portée tant l’utilisation de ces postures a conduit loin, trop loin, outre-Atlantique comme la publication expurgée d’un rapport de la CIA par le Sénat américain le mois dernier en atteste. Si guerre il y a, elle est tout simplement une guerre entre l’Etat de droit et l’Etat de non-droit.

Demain

La réponse par le droit est donc la seule qui vaille, et par un droit pénal ramenant les coupables à ce qu’ils sont et non jamais cessé d’être : des criminels. Parler autrement serait reconnaître que le combat qu’ils prétendent mener en est un. Il n’est que crime. Il est d’ailleurs vraisemblable que les brillantes analyses visant à leur prêter une stratégie réfléchie et le projet d’opposer les communautés n’est qu’illusion. Animés de leur volonté de vengeance et sûrs de leur bon droit, ils n’ont sans doute voulu qu’une seule chose : punir et tuer. Qu’en revanche, en amont, le conditionnement des esprits et, en aval, la réalisation du crime aient nécessité l’appui d’une organisation va de soi.
Or la faillite du droit est ici manifeste.
Empilant les législations d’exception les unes sur les autres, sans grands états d’âme du législateur, l’Etat de droit n’apporte aujourd’hui aucune réponse véritablement efficace à la menace, la criminalité terroriste empruntant des formes et des calendriers auxquels l’action policière peine à s’adapter, faute de moyens parfois et parce que les limites du droit l’imposent, souvent.
En l’espèce, la rapidité de la réponse policière ne masquera pas longtemps qu’elle n’est que réaction, qui plus est à propos de Pieds Nickelés de l’horreur oubliant leur carte d’identité dans leur véhicule. Là encore les polémiques habituelles s’en nourriront. Pourtant, en démocratie, c’est ainsi que la loi le commande et c’est bien là que les difficultés se multiplient, en France et en Europe.
Car ce qui frappe, dans l’observation de l’Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice, est bien la généralisation de cette forme d’action criminelle et la difficulté des Etats démocratiques à y répondre. Rapidement classée dans nos esprits au rang des faits divers, la tuerie aveugle du Musée juif de Bruxelles doit davantage l’arrestation de son auteur au hasard qu’à l’efficacité de la loi pénale et ce, après que l’affaire Merah ait pourtant frappé les esprits et provoqué des remises en question.
C’est dire qu’agir en amont est essentiel en la matière, ce dont l’Union européenne a pris conscience au cours de l’année 2014, suivant en cela l’impulsion du Coordinateur de la lutte anti-terroriste. Outre l’identification et le suivi des individus concernés, le stockage des données les concernant, la prévention et la lutte contre la radicalisation terroriste sont ainsi devenus des priorités, en lien avec le dossier des djihadistes européens partant combattre au Proche Orient. Merah, Nemmouche et peut être l’un des suspects du carnage de Charlie Hebdo n’en faisaient-ils pas partie ?
Ainsi, la guerre des idées est venue progressivement s’imposer à l’esprit d’une société qui était largement restée indifférente à cette dimension particulière.
Car c’est vraisemblablement là qu’est le nœud du problème.
Dans une société européenne largement sécularisée où parfois, comme en France, la laïcité est érigée en principe commandant la neutralité de la chose publique, l’irruption du fait religieux n’a pas été perçue à sa juste mesure, en particulier mais pas seulement à propos de l’Islam.
Religion d’implantation relativement nouvelle en France, sinon en Europe, son insertion et son adaptation à la société occidentale n’ont fait l’objet d’aucune attention particulière, d’aucun accompagnement, d’aucune pédagogie réciproque.

Permettant que soit mis l’accent sur ce qui singularise et sépare et non sur ce qui rassemble le corps social, la démocratie libérale a ainsi autorisé sans s’en rendre compte que la place publique devienne le siège de débats récurrents, de la burka aux menus des cantines en passant par les prières de rue, dont les solutions en forme de compromis ont donné à chacun le sentiment qu’il en était le perdant. Confessionnalisation des principes et communautarisation des démarches n’ont sans doute pas suscité l’attention méritée, fait mesurer les risques encourus.

A cette incapacité à dégager des lignes claires de vie en commun s’est ajoutée le spectacle d’un théâtre extérieur où la multiplication des interventions occidentales au Proche Orient puis en Afrique subsaharienne a fini par donner l’impression d’une planification organisée.
L’irrationnel et le fanatisme ont alors enclenché le processus de victimisation et de vengeance. Il conduit à la journée d’hier tandis que l’instrumentalisation de cette violence, de part et d’autre, ouvre le risque de voir se creuser les fossés.

Edgar Morin l’écrit très bien dans le Monde de ce jour : « la pensée réductrice triomphe. Non seulement les fanatiques meurtriers croient combattre les croisés et leurs alliés les juifs (que les croisés massacraient), mais les islamophobes réduisent l’arabe à sa supposée croyance, l’islam, réduisent l’islamique en islamiste, l’islamiste en intégriste, l’intégriste en terroriste».

Lutter contre cette réduction demande donc de changer de logiciel. N’est pas Saint Just qui veut pour réclamer « pas de liberté pour les ennemis de la liberté » mais là est bien l’interrogation qui va dominer le débat politique dans les jours qui viennent.

S.PEERS : (AFTER CHARLIE HEBDO) DOES THE EU NEED MORE ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION?

Original published HERE

By Professor Steve PEERS

Thursday, 8 January 2015

In the wake of the appalling attacks in Paris two days ago, it only took 24 hours for the EU Commission to state that it would propose a new wave of EU anti-terrorist measures in a month’s time. It’s not yet known what the content of this law will be; but the very idea of new legislation is a profound mistake.

Of course, it was right for the EU institutions to express sympathy for the victims of the attack, and solidarity as regards defence of free speech. Equally, it would not be problematic to use existing EU anti-terrorism laws if necessary, in order (for instance) to surrender the suspects in this crime on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW), in the event that they fled to another Member State.

The question is whether the EU needs more such laws.

For the EU has already reacted to prior terrorism offences, first as regards 9/11 and then to the atrocities in Madrid and London in 2004 and 2005.

The result is a huge body of anti-terrorism law, catalogued here by the SECILE project. This comprises not only measures specifically concerning terrorism (such as substantive criminal law measures, adopted in 2002 and amended in 2008), but many other measures which make it easier to cooperate as regards terrorism as well as other criminal offences, such as the EAW, the laws on exchange of police information and transmission of evidence across borders, and so on.

Moreover, there are proposals already under discussion which would apply to terrorism issues (among others), such as a new law on Europol, the EU’s police intelligence agency (discussed here), and proposed EU legislation on the transfer of airlines’ passenger name records (PNR).

So what new laws is the Commission likely to propose? It may suggest a new version of the data retention Directive, the previous version of which was struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) last spring, in the Digital Rights judgment (discussed here). Other ideas under discussion, according to leaked documents (see here and here) are new laws strengthening mandatory checks at borders .

Are any of these laws really necessary? Member States can already adopt laws on retention of communications data, pursuant to the EU’s e-privacy directive.

As the European Parliament’s legal service has confirmed (see its advice here), if Member States adopt such measures, they will be subject to the constraints of the Digital Rights judgment, which bans mass surveillance carried out in the absence of safeguards to protect privacy. Equally, Member States are free to establish their own PNR systems, in the absence of any EU-wide measure (besides EU treaties with the USA, Canada and Australia on PNR). The question of whether mass surveillance is as such compatible with human rights has already been sent to the CJEU by the European Parliament, which has asked the Court to rule on this issue in the context of the EU/Canada PNR treaty (see discussion here).

It would be possible to adopt new laws calling for systematic border checks in specific cases. In practice, this would likely mean checks on Muslims who are returning after travel to places like Syria. It is questionable whether asking detailed further questions at the external borders will, by itself, really do a lot to prevent terrorism. After all, in the Paris attacks, it unfortunately proved impossible to prevent an apparent terrorist attack despite extensive anti-terrorist legislation on the books, and bodyguards protecting the staff of a known terrorist target.

There’s also a question of principle here.

The Paris attacks were directed at free speech: the foundation of liberal democracy. Of course efforts should be stepped up to prevent such attacks from happening again; but existing laws allow for targeted intelligence gathering and sharing already, The Commission’s immediate response reeks of panic. And the direct attack on fundamental democratic principles this week in Paris is precisely the wrong context to consider that new legislation curtailing other fundamental freedoms is limited.

S.PEERS : 2014 in review . Free Movement, Immigration and Asylum Law

Original Published HERE

Introduction

The issue of the free movement of EU citizens, as well as immigration and asylum from non-EU countries, has in recent years become one of the most contested issues in EU law. This blog post reviews the large number of legal developments over the last year in these two fields, assessing firstly the controversies over EU citizens’ free movement rights and secondly the tensions in EU immigration and asylum law between immigration control and human rights and between national and EU powers. It’s the second in a series of blog posts reviewing aspects of EU law in the last year; the first in the series (on criminal law) can be found here.

Free Movement Law

The case law of the CJEU on EU citizens’ free movement in 2014 was dominated by the themes of the limits to economic migration and equal treatment, in conjunction with EU citizens’ right to family reunion. On the first point, the most prominent judgment of 2014 was the Dano ruling (discussed here), in which the CJEU took a more stringent approach than usual in ruling that an EU citizen who had not worked or looked for work had no right to insist upon a social assistance benefit in the Member State that she had moved to.

As for the basic rules on qualification for EU free movement rights, the CJEU was not asked to rule in 2014 on the definition of EU citizenship. However, a pending case in the UK Supreme Court (discussed here) raises important questions about the extent of EU rules on the loss of national (and therefore EU) citizenship. The acquisition of EU citizenship also proved controversial, in the context of Malta’s sale of national (and EU) citizenship (discussed here).

Furthermore, EU free movement rights usually only apply to those who have moved between Member States. In two linked judgments this spring (discussed here), the CJEU clarified some important exceptions to that rule, as regards EU citizens who have moved to another country to be with their family members and returned, or who are cross-border workers or service providers. Next year, the CJEU will further clarify another important exception to that rule: the Ruiz Zambrano scenario when the non-EU parent of an EU citizen child is expelled to a third country, and the EU child has to follow, resulting in a de facto loss of their EU citizenship. The CS and Rendon Marin cases both ask the Court whether that case law applies to cases where the non-EU parent has been expelled following a criminal conviction.

For those EU citizens who do move between Member States, the CJEU delivered an important judgment in the case of Saint-Prix (discussed here), extending the concept of ‘former workers’ beyond the categories listed in the EU’s citizens Directive, to include also (under certain conditions) cases of pregnant women who gave up their jobs before the baby’s birth.

This judgment concerned the continued access to equal treatment in welfare benefits which former workers enjoy. Indeed, a new Directive on workers’ equal treatment (discussed here) was adopted in 2014, aiming to ensure the effective implementation of such equal treatment rights in practice. Next year, the CJEU will be called upon in theAlimanovic case to clarify whether the limits on EU citizens’ access to benefits set out inDano also impact upon work-seekers, who have previously had limited access to benefits linked to labour market access. The Court will also soon rule on students’ access to benefits again in the case of Martens, where there has already been an Advocate-General’s opinion.

The issue of EU citizens’ right to family reunion was repeatedly addressed throughout the year, with the CJEU taking a consistently liberal view. It ruled for a generous interpretation of ‘dependent’ family members in Reyes (discussed here), and confirmed that separated spouses can still qualify for permanent resident status in Ogierakhi (discussed here). It also ruled in McCarthy (discussed here) that non-EU family members of EU citizens could not be subject to a ‘family permit’ requirement to visit the UK, but rather had to be exempt from the need to obtain a visa if they hold a residence card in the country which they live in. This judgment clarified that Member States could only claim that EU citizens were abusing free movement rights in individual cases. On this topic, the Commission produced a Handbook on the issue of ‘marriages of convenience’ (discussed here). Next year, the Court will be called upon to clarify the application of EU law to divorces (Singh), and for the first time, to same-sex relationships (Cocaj).

Finally, as regards the issue of derogations, the Court took a less generous view of cases involving criminal convictions, ruling in G and Onuekwere that time spent in prison in the host State did not count toward obtaining permanent residence status or the extra protection against expulsion that comes with ten years’ residence.

Of course, the benefits of EU free movement law are not uncontested. Throughout the year, the debate on the merits of these rules in the UK intensified, to the point where Prime Minister David Cameron insisted that there had to be a major renegotiation of these rules as a key feature in the renegotiation of the UK’s membership of the EU. As I pointed out at the time (see discussion here), many of his demands will be difficult to agree, as they would require Treaty amendment.

Immigration and Asylum law Continue reading “S.PEERS : 2014 in review . Free Movement, Immigration and Asylum Law”

S.PEERS Childhood’s End: EU criminal law in 2014

Original Published HERE Monday, 29 December 2014

With the elections to the European Parliament, the installation of a new European Commission, and a number of important legislative and case-law developments, 2014 was an important year for the European Union. This is the first in a series of blog posts reviewing the year in selected fields of EU law.

The most significant change to EU criminal law came on December 1, when the five-year transitional period relating to EU criminal law measures adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (‘pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures’, also known in practice as the ‘third pillar’) came to an end. From this date on, pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures are subject to the normal rules of EU law (except that they maintain their previous limited legal effect, in particular the lack of direct effect). More specifically, this change (discussed generally here) has three main impacts.

Firstly, the UK was entitled to opt out of all pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures, and then apply to opt back in to some of them again. The UK indeed exercised these possibilities, opting back in to 35 such measures as of 1 December 2014 (see discussion of the details here), following an unnecessarily convoluted process in the House of Commons (discussed here). In a nutshell, since the UK has opted back into a large majority of the pre-Lisbon measures which have any significant importance, the whole process has had barely reduced the UK’s actual degree of participation in EU criminal law.

Secondly, the end of the transitional period means that the EU Commission can now bring infringement actions against Member States that failed to correctly implement pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures – or that failed to implement such measures at all. The relevance of this is obvious in light of the Commission reports issued this year, regarding: legislation on the transfer of prisoners, probation and parole and supervision orders (discussed here); hate crime and Holocaust denial (discussed here); and conflicts of jurisdiction and the recognition of prior convictions (discussed here).

Thirdly, all courts in all Member States can now send references to the CJEU on the interpretation pre-Lisbon EU criminal law. For the EU as a whole, the impact of this change will probably be limited in practice, because (a) two-thirds of Member States allowed such references anyway, and (b) there were no such limits regarding EU criminal law adopted after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. On the former point, the CJEU decided two cases this spring on the EU’s double jeopardy rules (discussed here), in which it finally developed the relationship between those rules and the double jeopardy provisions of the ECHR and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. A final reference to the CJEU on the basis of the old rules, sent just a month before the end of the transitional period (Kossowski), now asks the Court to clarify whether Member States’ derogations from the Schengen rules violate the EU Charter.

On the second point, the first reference from national courts on post-Lisbon EU criminal law was referred this year: the Covaci case, on the Directive on interpretation and translation in criminal law proceedings and the Directive on the ‘letter of rights’. So far, there is no sign of the predicted avalanche of cases on EU suspects’ rights legislation (the deadline to apply the letter of rights Directive passed in June). Of course, there could still be an increase of such cases in future, perhaps after the 2016 deadline to apply the third suspects’ rights Directive (on access to a lawyer). And in the meantime, Member States must apply the victims’ rights Directive towards the end of 2015. Hopefully the CJEU’s case law on that measure will be more convincing than its ruling earlier this year (criticised here) on the scope of the Directive on compensation for crime victims.

Another important CJEU judgment in the criminal law field this year (discussed here) ruled that policing information measure actually fell within the scope of EU transport law. The immediate impact of this judgment was a rush to adopt replacement legislation (the text of which is already agreed), which will apply to all Member States (the UK, Ireland and Denmark had opted out of the prior measure). More broadly, the judgment shows that the CJEU is not inclined to interpret the EU’s criminal law powers broadly – at least as compared to the EU’s other powers.

The end of the transitional period did not lead to a general review of pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures, with the Commission proposing only a very limited repeal of some obsolete measures (I’ll blog on these proposals in the new year). In particular, the new Justice Commissioner appears to have no significant agenda to suggest criminal law proposals, whether to amend prior measures or to adopt new ones (for an argument as to what the Commission should do, see here).

However, some of the pre-Lisbon criminal law measures have been amended or replaced, or will be amended or replaced by proposed legislation now under discussion. In particular, during 2014, the EU adopted legislation concerning: the European Investigation Order (discussed here); the counterfeiting of the euro (discussed here); the confiscation of criminal assets; and the European Police College (moving its seat from the UK to Hungary). The EU also adopted legislation on criminal sanctions for market abuse (discussed here).

There are also proposals under discussion to replace pre-Lisbon EU criminal law measures concerning: fraud against the EU (see the state of play here); the police agency, Europol (see discussion of negotiations here); the prosecutors’ agency, Eurojust (there was a partial agreement on this proposal); and data protection in criminal law cases (see the state of play here). The latter issue is increasingly important, as indicated by the related CJEU judgment invalidating the data retention directive (discussed here), which gave rise to questions as to whether Member States could adopt or retain their own data retention laws (on this point, see generally here, and here as regards the UK in particular).

In fact, the CJEU will soon be ruling on data protection and criminal law issues as such, since the European Parliament has asked it to rule on the validity of the EU/Canada draft treaty on passenger name records (see discussion here). The pending Europe v Facebookcase (discussed here) raises questions about the impact of the Snowden revelations upon the EU and US arrangements on data protection. In the meantime, the proposed Directiveon passenger name records still remains on ice (having been put there by the European Parliament), with EU leaders’ attempt to set a deadline to adopt this proposal by the end of 2014 proving futile.

Other proposals are also under discussion: a more general overhaul of the European Police College; the creation of a European Public Prosecutors’ Office (see the state of play here); and the adoption of three more suspects’ rights measures, concerning child suspects (agreed by the Council), presumption of innocence (also agreed by the Council) and legal aid (see the state of play here). However, the Commission’s proposal for new rules relating to the EU’s anti-fraud body, OLAF, soon melted in the heat of Council opposition.

Conclusion

Taken as a whole, the year 2014 showed how the European Parliament, the CJEU and the Commission are already playing a significant role in the development of EU criminal law. Following the final demise of the third pillar, the year 2015 is likely to see further important developments in this area, which will make the pre-Lisbon measures even less important: the adoption of new legislation on Europol, the European Police College and possibly Eurojust, as well as revised legislation on fraud against the EU budget.

There will likely be two or three further Directives on suspects’ rights and the victims’ rights Directive will begin to apply. The rules on the new European Public Prosecutors’ Office might also be agreed, and there could be significant developments in the area of data protection. Overall, the longer-term trends toward greater parliamentary and judicial control and greater focus on individual rights in this area accelerated significantly in 2014 and could well do so again next year.