Page 196 [196]
OCR
PÉTER CSONKA of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions in criminal matters, including by ensuring minimum harmonisation of criminal procedural rules. One major issue here is to address the growing lack of mutual trust due to problems in the functioning of criminal justice systems or poor prison conditions in some Member States and the ensuing refusals of European Arrest Warrants.’ Arguably, prison conditions could be addressed under the current treaty, at least as far pre-trial conditions are concerned, whereas post-trial detention would require a revision of the Treaties. However, the more systemic issues, issues which run deep to undermine mutual trust, such as the perceived or real lack of judicial independence, whether affecting prosecution services or courts, would clearly require adapting the Treaty framework, in a way that the strict obligation of mutual recognition is brought in line with the equally strict obligation to respect the Charter of Fundamental Rights and, indeed, the common tenets of the Rule of Law. Judicial cooperation is also bound to expand further in order to keep pace with the ever-increasing Union-level police cooperation, as reflected bythe competences of Europol or other home affairs agencies. Police and judicial cooperation should go hand in hand, otherwise there is a regrettable risk of disconnect. As the Union’s institutional landscape for judicial cooperation gains maturity through the recent reform of Eurojust and the necessary integration of various judicial networks, it will also grow in complexity owing to their future interaction with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and its direct criminal enforcement. The Union willneed to ensure coherence of action and adequate funding for all actors in this chain, including vis-a-vis the Union’s law enforcement and administrative agencies. The EPPO’s operational work, likely to start on 1 June 2021, may create another useful dynamic towards a larger material competence and more harmonised rules of criminal procedure, for example in the area of evidence-collection and admissibility. These changes would be possible already now, but the unanimity requirement could be an impediment. Besides finalising pending legislative files, such as those on e-evidence, and ensuring the implementation of the acquis, reflection should also begin on possible initiatives that could help the Union complete its criminal justice arsenal. Issues worth exploring in the medium or long term could include: 5 Wouter van Ballegooij, The Cost ofnon-Europe in the area of Procedural Rights and Detention Conditions, Brussels, EPRS, 2017. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ STUD/2017/611008/EPRS_STU(2017)611008_EN.pdf. Wouter van Ballegooij, European Arrest Warrant. European Implementation Assessment, Brussels, EPRS, 2020. https:// www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ST UD/2020/642839/EPRS_STU(2020)642839_ EN.pdf. + 194 +
