OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Fair Trials Europe

FT

In accordance with its statutes, FTE has the purpose of promoting respect for human rights in the context of criminal justice in the European Union and the wider Council of Europe Area, and to promote action by the European Union and other regional organisations and national governments in Europe with the aim of reinforcing respect for human rights in the criminal justice context at the international level.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Tineke Strik (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

16 Oct 2024 · LIBE Civil Society Meeting

Meeting with Daniel Freund (Member of the European Parliament) and Amnesty International Limited and

16 Oct 2024 · Cooperation on LIBE related matters

Meeting with Erik Marquardt (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Digital Rights and

13 Feb 2024 · Facilitators Package - stakeholders’ consultation meeting

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

18 Jan 2023 · AI Act

Meeting with Birgit Sippel (Member of the European Parliament)

25 Oct 2022 · Equality data collection

Meeting with Paul Tang (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Digital Rights

11 Oct 2022 · Staff Level: Prüm II Regulation

Meeting with Jeroen Lenaers (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Sept 2022 · equality data collection

Meeting with Gwendoline Delbos-Corfield (Member of the European Parliament)

27 Sept 2022 · Equality data collection in the field of criminal justice

Meeting with Emil Radev (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur)

21 Jun 2022 · Digitalisation of judicial cooperation

Meeting with Alice Kuhnke (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and The European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association and

20 Jun 2022 · Anti-discrimination and Intersectionality

Meeting with Saskia Bricmont (Member of the European Parliament) and European Digital Rights

2 Jun 2022 · Europol regulation reform

Meeting with Sergey Lagodinsky (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and TikTok Technology Ltd and Workday

3 May 2022 · Artificial Intelligence Act

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

7 Apr 2022 · AI Act

Meeting with Deirdre Clune (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur)

23 Mar 2022 · Artifical Intelligence Act

Meeting with Petar Vitanov (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and European Digital Rights and Independent Retail Europe (formerly UGAL - Union of Groups of Independent Retailers of Europe)

2 Mar 2022 · AI Act

Meeting with Cornelia Ernst (Member of the European Parliament)

7 Oct 2021 · Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice

Meeting with Saskia Bricmont (Member of the European Parliament)

15 Apr 2021 · Europol regulation reform

Meeting with Saskia Bricmont (Member of the European Parliament)

5 Mar 2021 · Prison detention condition

Response to Digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation

5 Feb 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that digital tools offer a great potential to ensure more efficient and equal access to justice. Fair Trials welcomes the search for ways to make criminal justice systems more accessible through digitalisation. It is essential to place the persons affected by criminal justice instruments and investigations at the heart of these efforts and to ensure that the fundamental rights enshrined in the six EU Procedural Rights Directives and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are protected in a digital setting. Digitalisation presents an opportunity not only to promote cooperation between law-enforcement agencies, but also to better implement existing EU standards on defence rights in cross-border proceedings, which remains problematic in practice, as reported by the EU Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Commission (e.g. on the right to access a lawyer, see the implementation report of 26 September 2019). We offer our views on how to use digitalisation to promote fundamental rights in cross-border criminal proceedings in four key areas. Promote the use of alternative measures to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) • The Council has previously called for measures to address the overuse of pre-trial detention and to promote its alternatives. Reducing over-reliance of EAW is key in these efforts. Therefore, digital solutions (e.g. interviewing a suspect through videoconference) should be used to promote the use of the European Investigation Order instead of EAWs for prosecution. • Digitalisation can promote more effective access to justice, including the possibility to file submissions digitally in both the executing and issuing Member States. This would also enable defence lawyers to challenge unnecessary detention and apply for less restrictive cross-border cooperation instruments. Access to dual legal representation • Article 10(5) of Directive 2013/48/EU requires Member States to cooperate to facilitate appointment of a lawyer in issuing state. In EAW proceedings, digitalisation should seek to address a long-standing implementation gap in dual legal representation. Digital tools should be used to enable access to information on the appointment of a lawyer in the issuing State and legal aid schemes. • Digital tools should also enable a cooperation between lawyers in the issuing and executing states to prepare an effective defence and seek an effective remedy where necessary. Access to information • To promote equality of arms in cross-border proceedings and the effective implementation of Directive 2012/13/EU on the Right to Information, the defence must also be able to access digitalised case information and materials in cross-border proceedings. • In EAW proceedings, the defence must have access not only to the EAW form but also to all documents necessary to understand the grounds for the EAW and the national arrest warrant on which the EAW is based in a timely manner. This could help prevent unnecessary arrest, detention and surrender of persons to other countries. • The Letter of Rights in EAW proceedings (Article 5 of Directive 2012/13) should be made available in a digital format in different languages to ensure every person receives information about their rights in a language they speak and understand. • Digitalisation also offers the possibility to enable persons to make online submissions using multilingual forms and to get the necessary information and assistance online in their own language, for instance on legal aid. This would promote access to rights and justice also for all persons, including vulnerable persons. Access to interpretation and translation • In the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, which enables the free movement of persons across countries, digital tools must help secure access to translation and interpretation enshrined in Directive 2010/64/EU, to enable people to understand and participate effectively in cross-border proceedings.
Read full response

Meeting with Isabelle Perignon (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders), Lucrezia Busa (Cabinet of Commissioner Didier Reynders)

22 Sept 2020 · AI and its use in the justice sector and in criminal proceedings

Response to Requirements for Artificial Intelligence

10 Sept 2020

Fair Trials is aware that the Inception Impact Assessment considers the entire and wide array of economic and societal issues in relation to AI across a spectrum of industries and social activities. However, this response is concerned specifically with AI in the context of criminal justice and will consider the legal and policy measures needed for the regulation of AI in criminal justice. Rapid technological advancements in recent years have made machine learning and algorithmic automated decision-making systems, often referred to as artificial intelligence (‘AI’) a prominent aspect of our lives. There is little doubt that these systems have great capacity to increase human potential and improve the lives of many, but their increasing role in assisting important public functions has also highlighted serious risks and challenges, particularly in the context of criminal justice. If not subject to proper regulation and oversight, AI can threaten fundamental human rights and, far from expanding human potential, it can amplify and worsen harmful aspects of our society, including inequality and injustice. Fair Trials is grateful for the opportunity to submit feedback on the EU Commission’s AI Inception Impact Assessment. We submitted a response to the EU Commission’s consultation on the White Paper, ‘Regulating Artificial Intelligence for Use in Criminal Justice Systems in the EU’, which provided evidence and analysis about the negative impact that ‘AI’ can have on criminal justice. We are pleased that the EU Commission recognises that AI represents risks for fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial, as well as the need for improvements to the EU’s legislative framework on AI, particularly the ‘effective application and enforcement of existing EU and national legislation’, as well as the ‘limitations of scope of existing EU legislation’. We are also pleased to see that the objectives identified in the Roadmap include preventing or minimising significant risks for fundamental rights, as well as ensuring the effective enforcement of rules of existing EU law to protect fundamental rights and avoid illegal discrimination. However, with regards to the policy options stated in the Roadmap, in order to achieve the above stated objectives to protect and minimise risks to fundamental rights and prevent discrimination, we believe that there is a clear need for a legislative solution under Option 3. For the purposes of protecting rights in criminal justice, any legislative proposal would at the very least need to cover ‘high-risk’ applications (Option 3, second sub-option b), but more comprehensive protection may be offered by a legislative act which covered all AI applications (Option 3, third sub-option c).
Read full response

Meeting with Werner Stengg (Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager)

2 Sept 2020 · AI in criminal justice discussion

Response to Improving cross-border access to electronic evidence in criminal matters

19 Jul 2018

Fair Trials is a global criminal justice watchdog with offices in London, Brussels and Washington, D.C. The European Production Order (EPO) proposal is premature. In September 2017, the Commission funded a two-year project of the Centre of European Policy Studies (CEPS), Fair Trials and leading universities to look into the extent to which the European Investigation Order (EIO) and reforms with the handling of US Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) requests have facilitated the sharing of e-evidence. With those reforms only taking effect in 2017, a detailed assessment is necessary before moving forward with additional reforms, especially based on the argument that existing measures are insufficient. As part of this project, Fair Trials held an experts meeting on 3 July, the minutes of which are attached, and will have a full position paper by September 2018, with a final report for the research project in 2019. Our work to-date leads us to three questions relating to the EPO proposal: 1. Is the proposal necessary? E-evidence presents special challenges and cross-border gathering of e-evidence needs to be facilitated. But concrete steps have been taken to address this. The EIO was introduced to facilitate evidence gathering within the EU, including the production of e-evidence. In the US, where most e-evidence is stored, wholesale reforms have been implemented. The processing of e-evidence requests has been centralized in the Department of Justice’s Office of International Affairs, with substantial investment and increased staff. Earlier this year, the so-called US CLOUD Act was adopted allowing the US Government to enter into treaties with other countries allowing direct requests to service providers. At a minimum, the EU should wait to assess the impact of these reforms before moving ahead. 2. Is the proposal sufficient? The Commission’s stated objective is to increase legal certainty, but the proposed rules are not sufficient. Relying on Article 82(1) TFEU as the legal basis is open to challenge, as it gives the EU competence to legislate in the field of judicial cooperation, but the proposal is primarily intended to circumvent judicial cooperation. A further objective behind the proposal appears to be the facilitation of a EU/US treaty under the CLOUD Act. But the lack of evidentiary rules governing procedural rights violations has made it difficult to date for US authorities to approve requests for e-evidence from the EU. Further legislation on preventing evidence collected in violation of procedural rights being used in court is likely needed to facilitate a treaty with the US, not the EPO. 3. Does the proposal ensure adequate safeguards? Fair Trials has major concerns in respect of procedural rights, which are presented in the attachment. The EPO proposal has not learned the lessons from the experience of the European Arrest Warrant. Our recent report "Beyond Surrender: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of the European Arrest Warrant" (available at www.fairtrials.org) highlights that cross-border cooperation tools that do not have adequate safeguards lead to abuse, overuse and cases of injustice. The proposal would give law enforcement authorities (LEAs) a largely unchecked and unfettered ability to use (and abuse) the EPO and not only fails to safeguard the rights of suspects, but also creates real risks of miscarriages of justice for innocent people, due to the combination of (i) the lack of judicial oversight and ineffective ability to challenge the use of the tool; (ii) the ability of LEAs to make wide-ranging requests and engage in fishing expeditions; and (iii) the necessity for LEAs and judicial authorities to have a technical understanding to make a proportionate and reasonable use of the EPO. We urge the Commission to slow the speed with which it is moving on this proposal, give the existing reforms a chance to succeed and wait for a comprehensive assessment of the existing reforms in the EU and US.
Read full response

Meeting with Isabelle Perignon (Cabinet of Commissioner Věra Jourová)

17 Mar 2015 · Presentation of the activities of Fair Trails to the cabinet