The transfer of sentences under EU law - Current issues in the scholarly debate
| Author | Adriano Martufi |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20322844221124822 |
| Published date | 01 September 2022 |
| Date | 01 September 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Editorial |
Editorial
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 13(3) 249–251
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20322844221124822
journals.sagepub.com/home/nje
The transfer of sentences under
EU law - Current issues in the
scholarly debate
Adriano Martufi
University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands
Keywords
sentencing, EU criminal law, prison conditions, mutual recognition, harmonisation
The proliferation of arrangements for the enforcement of sentences across borders is an increasingly
relevant phenomenon of international judicial cooperation.
1
In the EU, such a proliferation of
transfer arrangements reflects the growing mobility of individuals within the Schengen area and
beyond. The establishment of EU instruments for judicial cooperation in criminal matters is often
described as ‘compensatory’in nature, i.e. conceived of as a strategy to cope with increased human
mobility through better law enforcement cooperation. The development of EU judicial cooperation
instruments for the transfer of sentences is no exception. This body of EU secondary law, however,
has developed in relative isolation from other areas of EU criminal law and has not warranted
enough scholarly attention.
Against this backdrop, the present special issue sets out to investigate comprehensively the
driving forces of EU law and policy in this area. It does so by bringing together scholars from
different EU member states and combining different disciplinary standpoints. Notably, this issue
seeks to provide a greater understanding of the relevant EU legal instruments (in particular
Framework Decision 909/2008/JHA on the transfer of prisoners, Framework Decision 947/2008/
JHA on probation measures and alternative sanctions, Framework Decision 675/2008/JHA on
taking account of previous convictions) with a special focus on their implementation at the national
level and the outstanding issues within judicial cooperation practice. In addition, several con-
tributions within this collection explore the interconnections between such body of mutual rec-
ognition instruments and the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant. This focus is far
from surprising as the latter instrument allows, in accordance with the tradition of extradition in
executivis, for the surrender of individuals convicted with custodial sentences.
Admittedly, the instruments mentioned above find their ‘legal predecessors’in several Council of
Europe’s conventions, whose relevance in the practice of transferring sentences persist to this day.
Emerging as the ‘third wave’of EU third pillar legislation in the late 2000s,
2
most of the relevant EU
law provisions have had a rough start with a long (and often troubled) implementation at the
domestic level. In recent years, however, a growing number of CJEU’s cases (mostly prompted by
preliminary references) have shed light on the potential and the complexity of this set of norms. In
particular, many dilemmas remain as to the legal and practical relationships between frequently used
mutual recognition instruments such as the EAW and other Framework Decisions governing the
To continue reading
Request your trial