(1)

In accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union, the European Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. Articles 1, 4 and 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter) provide that human dignity is inviolable and must be respected and protected, that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that everyone has the right to liberty and security. Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter enshrine the right to family life and the rights of the child. Article 21 of the Charter provides that no one shall be subject to discrimination. Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter recognise the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the presumption of innocence and the right of defence. Article 52 of the Charter provides that any limitation to the exercise of fundamental rights recognised therein must be provided for by law and must respect the essence of those rights and freedoms as well as the principles of necessity and proportionality.

(2)

The Member States are already legally bound by existing Council of Europe instruments on human rights and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, in particular the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the protocols to that Convention, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the 1987 European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All Member States are furthermore parties to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT).

(3)

A number of non-legally binding instruments that deal more specifically with the rights of persons who have been deprived of their liberty have also to be taken into account, in particular: at United Nations level, the United Nations standard minimum rules on the treatment of prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules); the United Nations standard minimum rules for non-custodial measures (Tokyo Rules); as well as, at the Council of Europe level, Recommendation Rec(2006)2-Rev on the European Prison Rules; the Recommendation Rec(2006)13 on the use of remand in custody, the conditions in which it takes place and the provision of safeguards against abuse; Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3 on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures; Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 on electronic monitoring; Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 on the Council of Europe Probation Rules; and the White Paper on Prison Overcrowding.

(4)

In addition other instruments exist that target specific groups of persons deprived of liberty, in particular: at the United Nations level, the United Nations Rules for the protection of juveniles deprived of their liberty and the United Nations Rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non-custodial measures for women offenders (Bangkok Rules); the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); as well as, at the Council of Europe level, Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 on the European Rules for juvenile offenders subject to sanctions or measures; and the Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)5 concerning children with imprisoned parents; Recommendation CM/Rec (2012)12 concerning foreign prisoners; as well as, at an international non-governmental level, the Principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity (Yogyakarta Principles), developed by the International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights.

(5)

The Court of Justice of the European Union has acknowledged, in the Aranyosi/Căldăraru and follow-up judgments (1), the importance of detention conditions in the context of mutual recognition and the operation of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (2) on the European arrest warrant. The European Court of Human Rights has also ruled on the impact of poor detention conditions on the operation of the European arrest warrant (3).

(6)

In the December 2018 Council conclusions on promoting mutual recognition by enhancing mutual trust, Member States were encouraged to make use of alternative measures to detention in order to reduce the population in their detention facilities, thereby furthering the aim of social rehabilitation and also addressing the fact that mutual trust is often hampered by poor detention conditions and the problem of overcrowded detention facilities (4).

(7)

In the December 2019 Council conclusions on alternatives to detention, Member States committed to taking several actions in the field of detention at national level, such as to adopt alternative measures to detention (5).

(8)

In the June 2019 Council conclusions on preventing and combating radicalisation in prisons and on dealing with terrorist and violent extremist offenders after release, Member States committed urgently to take effective measures in this area (6).

(9)

For several years, the European Parliament has urged the Commission to take action to address the issue of material prison conditions and to ensure that pre-trial detention remains an exceptional measure, to be used in compliance with the presumption of innocence. This request was repeated in the European Parliament report on the European arrest warrant (7).

(10)

At the request of, and funded by, the Commission, the Fundamental Rights Agency has developed a database on detention conditions, which was launched in December 2019 and which is publicly accessible (8). The Agency’s Criminal Detention Database collates information on detention conditions in all Member States. Drawing on national, Union and international standards, case law and monitoring reports, it informs about selected core aspects of detention conditions, including cell space, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare and protection against violence.

(11)

Available statistics on the European arrest warrant demonstrate that, since 2016, Member States have refused or delayed execution on grounds related to a real risk of breach of fundamental rights in close to 300 cases, including on the basis of inadequate material conditions of detention (9).

(12)

National judicial authorities have requested more concrete guidance on how to deal with such cases. The problems identified by practitioners concerns the lack of harmonisation, dispersion and lack of clarity of detention standards across the Union as a challenge for judicial cooperation in criminal matters (10).

(13)

Half of the Member States that provided to the Commission statistics on their detention populations indicated that they have a problem of overcrowding in their detention facilities with an occupancy rate of more than 100 per cent. The excessive or unnecessary use and length of pre-trial detention also contributes to the phenomenon of overcrowding in detention facilities, which seriously undermines improvements in conditions of detention.

(14)

Substantial divergences exist among Member States in relation to important aspects of pre-trial detention, such as the use of pre-trial detention as a last resort and the review of pre-trial detention decisions (11). The maximum time limit for pre-trial detention also differs from one Member State to another, ranging from less than 1 year to more than 5 years (12). In 2020, the average length of pre-trial detention in the different Member States varied from 2 months to 13 months (13). The number of pre-trial detainees as a proportion of the total prison population also varies significantly from one Member State to another, ranging from less than 10 % to more than 40 % (14). Such vast divergences appear unjustified in a common EU area of freedom, security and justice.

(15)

Recent reports of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment draw attention to the persistence of certain serious problems in some Member States, such as ill-treatment, the unsuitability of detention facilities as well as a lack of meaningful activities and of appropriate provision of healthcare.

(16)

In addition, the European Court of Human Rights still continues to find Member States in violation of Article 3 or 5 of the ECHR in the context of detention.

(17)

Given the vast number of recommendations developed by international organisations in the area of criminal detention, these may not always be easily accessible for individual judges and prosecutors in the Member States who have to assess detention conditions before taking their decisions, either in the context of a European arrest warrant or at national level.

(18)

In the Union and, in particular, within the area of freedom, security and justice, Union specific minimum standards, applicable to all Member States’ detention systems alike, are required in order to strengthen mutual trust between Member States and facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions.

(19)

To strengthen the trust of Member States in each other’s criminal justice systems and thus to improve mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters, notably six measures on procedural rights in criminal proceedings, namely Directives 2010/64/EU (15), 2012/13/EU (16), 2013/48/EU (17), (EU) 2016/343 (18), (EU) 2016/800 (19) and (EU) 2016/1919 (20) of the European Parliament and of the Council, as well as Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings (21), have already been adopted. These measures aim to ensure that the procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings are respected, including where pre-trial detention is imposed. For this purpose, these Directives contain specific procedural safeguards for suspects and accused persons who are deprived of liberty. Directive (EU) 2016/800 contains specific provisions on conditions of pre-trial detention for children; these aim to safeguard their well-being where subject to such a coercive measure. It is necessary to complement the procedural rights standards established in these Directives and the 2013 Recommendation, as well as, in the case of Directive (EU) 2016/800, relevant standards on material detention conditions for children who are subject to pre-trial detention.

(20)

The Commission aims to consolidate and build on those minimum standards established within the framework of the Council of Europe as well as the case law of the Court of Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights. To this end, it is necessary to provide an overview of selected minimum standards for procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention and material conditions of detention in key priority areas for judicial cooperation in criminal matters between Member States.

(21)

With respect to procedural rights of suspects and accused persons subject to pre-trial detention, the guidance in this Recommendation should cover key standards on the use of pre-trial detention as a measure of last resort and alternatives to detention, grounds for pre-trial detention, requirements for decision-making by judicial authorities, periodic review of pre-trial detention, the hearing of suspect or accused persons for decisions on pre-trial detention, effective remedies and the right to appeal, the length of pre-trial detention and the recognition of time spent in pre-trial detention in terms of a deduction from the final sentence.

(22)

With respect to material conditions of detention, guidance should be given on key standards in the areas of accommodation, the allocation of detainees, hygiene and sanitation, nutrition, detention regimes with regard to out-of-cell exercise and activities, work and education, healthcare, prevention of violence and ill-treatment, contact with the outside world, access to legal assistance, request and complaint procedures, and inspections and monitoring. Furthermore guidance should be provided on safeguarding the rights of persons for whom deprivation of liberty constitutes a situation of particular vulnerability, such as women, children, persons with disabilities or serious health conditions, LGBTIQ and foreign nationals, as well as the prevention of radicalisation in prisons.

(23)

Pre-trial detention should always be used as a measure of last resort based on a case-by-case assessment. The widest possible range of less restrictive measures alternative to detention (alternative measures) should be made available and applied wherever possible. Member States should also ensure that pre-trial detention decisions are not discriminatory and are not automatically imposed on suspects and accused persons based on certain characteristics, such as foreign nationality.

(24)

Adequate material conditions of detention are fundamental for safeguarding the rights and dignity of persons deprived of liberty and to prevent violations of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (ill-treatment).

(25)

To ensure appropriate detention standards, Member States should provide each detainee with a minimum amount of personal living space in accordance with the recommendations of the European Committee for Prevention of Torture (CPT) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

(26)

Where persons are deprived of liberty, they are rendered particularly vulnerable to violence and ill-treatment as well as social isolation. To ensure their safety and to support their social reintegration, the allocation and separation of detainees should take into account differences in detention regimes as well as the need to protect detainees in situations of particular vulnerability from abuse.

(27)

Detention regimes should not unduly limit detainees’ freedom of movement inside the detention facility and their access to exercise, outdoor spaces, and meaningful activities and social interaction, to allow them to maintain their physical and mental health and to promote their social reintegration.

(28)

Victims of crime committed in detention often have limited access to justice notwithstanding the obligation of States to provide for effective remedies in cases where their rights have been violated. In line with the objectives of the EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020-2025), it is recommended that Member States ensure effective remedies for violations of detainees’ rights as well as protection and support measures. Legal assistance, and mechanisms for submitting requests and complaints, should be easily accessible, confidential and effective.

(29)

Member States should take into account the special needs of particular groups of detainees, including women, children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities or serious health conditions, LGBTIQ, persons with a minority racial or ethnic background and foreign nationals, in all decisions relating to their detention. In particular, where children are detained, the child’s best interest must always be a primary consideration.

(30)

With respect to terrorist and violent extremist offenders, Member States should take effective measures to prevent radicalisation in prisons, and to implement rehabilitation and reintegration strategies given the risk posed by terrorist and violent extremist offenders or offenders radicalised while serving time in prison, and the fact that a number of these offenders will be released within a short period of time.

(31)

Only an overview of selected standards is provided in this Recommendation and it should be considered in light of, and without prejudice to, the more detailed guidance provided in the Council of Europe standards and of the case law of the Court of Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights. It is without prejudice to existing Union law and its future development. It is also without prejudice to the authoritative interpretation of Union law, which may be given by the Court of Justice of the European Union.

(32)

This Recommendation should also facilitate the execution of European arrest warrants under Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, as well as the recognition of judgments and the enforcement of sentences under Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA (22) on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty.

(33)

This Recommendation respects and promotes fundamental rights recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, this Recommendation seeks to promote respect for human dignity, the right to liberty, the right to family life, the rights of the child, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial as well as the presumption of innocence and the right of defence.

(34)

References in this Recommendation to appropriate measures to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities should be understood in light of the rights and obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which the European Union and all its Member States are parties. In addition, it should be ensured that if persons with disabilities are deprived of their liberty in criminal proceedings, they are, on an equal basis with others, entitled to guarantees in accordance with international human rights law and shall be treated in compliance with the objectives and principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including by providing reasonable accommodation for special needs and by ensuring accessibility,