Home News > New study on the lisbonisation of the ex-third pillar acquis

New study on the lisbonisation of the ex-third pillar acquis

Spark, in consortium ICF, Timelex and Wavestone, is conducting an exploratory study for the European Commission (DG JUST) on the possible lisbonisation of ex-third pillar acquis in the area of mutual recognition in criminal matters.

The Lisbon Treaty abolished the EU’s third pillar on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Its abolition also meant the end of Framework Decisions as legislative acts. Framework Decisions were introduced in the Amsterdam Treaty (1997) as part of the third pillar acquis – they were similar to Directives, however, unlike Directives, they were not capable of direct effect, only subject to the optional jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and infringement proceedings could not be launched for a failure to transpose a Framework Decision into domestic law.

The Declaration to the Lisbon Treaty calls upon the EU institutions to transform Framework Decisions into new EU acts after the entry into force of the new Treaty. However, 15 years later, many Framework Decisions remain in force and are yet to be replaced by Directives and Regulations.

The objective of the study is to provide the European Commission (DG JUST) with evidence, analysis and an integrated assessment of the current jurisprudence, practice and problems in the area of mutual recognition of criminal decisions and cross-border cooperation in criminal matters, and of the need and feasibility for possible action at EU level, in particular by means of lisbonisation.

In order to achieve the abovementioned objective, Spark will map the state of play with the transposition and implementation of 7 Framework Decisions (see the specific list below), while taking into account the jurisprudence of the CJEU. The next part of the Study, executed by ICF, will assess the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the existing rules for the 7 Framework Decisions, considering if lisbonisation is needed or feasible in light of the present state of play.

The 7 Framework Decisions covered for the purposes of the Study are:

  • Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States;
  • Council Framework Decision 2005/2014/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties;
  • Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings;
  • Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union;
  • Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions;
  • Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention; and
  • Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Our newsletter contains information about Spark’s finalised and ongoing projects, activities and conferences we attend. In the newsletter we may also send you advertising information about services we offer. You can withdraw your consent to receive our newsletter at any time. For details, please consult our Privacy Policy.

We use MailChimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you aknowledge that your information will be transferred toMailChimp for processing. Learn more about MailChimp's privacy practices.