Project
An EU cooperation in the field of youth justice : mission impossible ?
This research focuses on minors who are involved in cross-border judicial proceedings as a suspect, defendant or offender. Criminal behavior of minors is usually regulated in the Member States by separate rules, which are somehow different from ‘general’ criminal law, i.e. youth justice legislation. However, no specific cooperation mechanisms exist in the EU to deal with cross-border youth justice cases, whereas the EU has developed the principle of mutual recognition as well as minimum standards to cooperate in criminal matters. This research therefore aims to assess to what extent it is possible and feasible to develop an EU cooperation in youth justice matters.
The research consists of three parts. In the first part, the EU competences in youth justice matters are examined. In particular, the question is raised if and to what extent youth justice matters are included in the EU competence of judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Due to the undefined and ambiguous ‘criminal’ notion, it is unclear whether the existing cooperation mechanisms in criminal matters at EU level only apply to ‘adult’ criminal matters or also include youth justice matters. An analysis of the mutual recognition instruments and the procedural rights directives shows that the EU does not appear to look at whether or not youth justice matters are substantively criminal in nature but rather seems to adopt the formal qualification of the Member State. It is argued that the interpretation of the criminal concept should instead depend on the objective of the EU instrument. The protection of procedural safeguards and the rehabilitation of an individual might justify a more lenient interpretation towards youth justice matters than the mere efficiency of prosecution or enforcement of decisions abroad.
In the second part of the research, four widely differing youth justice systems in the EU are analysed in order to verify the EU’s premise that the youth justice systems of the Member States are too diverse to establish an EU cooperation in the field of youth justice. The selected jurisdictions are Austria, the French Community of Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern Ireland. Their national youth justice legislation is compared in terms of age limits, specialised actors (police officers, public prosecutors, courts, lawyers, support services and detention institutions), and youth justice reactions (diversion, alternative and custodial reactions).
In the third part of the research, the similarities and differences between the four youth justice systems are evaluated, on the basis of which it is assessed which opportunities and challenges exist for an EU cooperation in the field of youth justice. In general, the principle of mutual recognition could apply in youth justice matters towards 14- to 18-year olds and would hardly be an obstacle for the execution of foreign youth justice reactions, provided that adaptation and review possibilities exist. The bottom-up approach of the research moreover reveals that some aspects of the youth justice systems, mainly relating to the specialisation of youth justice actors, could be subject to more refined minimum standards. However, other national aspects may constitute a violation of fundamental children’s rights and could therefore justify a refusal of a Member State’s request for cooperation, in line with ECJ case law in criminal matters. To conclude, some minimum standards are identified that the EU would have to impose and enforce in a top-down manner if it envisages a standard that goes beyond the greatest common denominator put forward in this research.