Search

The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the application by some European Union countries of alternative measures to detention of migrants. Sections 2 and 3 indicate, in line with European normatives and with detention being a measure of last resort, that Member States having ascertained that there are grounds for the detention of migrants, should evaluate whether the aims pursued can be achieved through a less coercive measure which respects the fundamental rights of individuals. Unfortunately, as examined in Section 4, analysis of most European countries' law reveals an unsatisfactory application of alternative measures to detention. As in, for example, Italy's case, whose legislation and practice on alternatives to detention is examined in Section 5. In Section 6, the final section, the necessity for a change of culture among the competent authorities is highlighted. For this purpose, the recast Receptions Conditions Directive, which obliges Member States to provide alternative measures to detention of migrants, allowing States to introduce types of measures which are not listed in the Directive, seems to represent a good opportunity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the directive on the European investigation order focused on controversial scenario in the gathering of evidence at the European level. It offers information on the Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Information on the proposal related to the Directive on the European Investigation Order (EIO) launched in April 2010.

Italian law only provides the general conditions for the institution of recall. It follows that significant discretionary powers are enjoyed by the surveillance judges (and in particular by the Surveillance Tribunal) who evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the commission of another offence or the infringement of parole conditions demonstrate the offenders' negative attitude to reintegrate into society. However, especially with reference to the commission of serious crimes, the judges' discretionary assessment can result in a restrictive application of the law on recall with the consequence that parolees are returned to prison even when they commit minor violations.The Italian penitentiary system is currently undergoing a serious crisis mainly caused by prison overcrowding. This article argues that reform of the system is thus urgently needed. Such reform should be aimed, among other objectives, at strengthening the role of the bodies which are involved in the different phases of recall (e.g. social services, prison staff, etc.), in order to assist and support judges in their difficult task of decision making in an area — such that of recall — full of social implication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]