Juvenile Justice Systems in
Europe: current situation,
trends in applicable models
and good practices
Cédric Foussard
Director
IJJO
IJJO
Director
Index
- IJJO Presentation
- OIJJ Recommendations
-Juvenile Justice in Europe: a Common Voice
- Conclusions
1.- IJJO Presentation
 International Juvenile Justice Observatory (IJJO): International
foundation based in Brussels (Belgium) recognised by the
government as a Public Utility organization.
 Vision: International and interdisciplinary on juvenile justice.
 International development of appropriate policies, legislations
and intervention methods in the context of a global juvenile
justice without frontiers.
 Our target group: Universities, NGOs and administration,
institutions concerned by the situation of young people at risk of
exclusion and reclusion.
2. IJJO Recommendations
III International IJJO Conference Valencia (Spain) 2009:
"Juvenile Justice Systems in Europe: current situation, trends in applicable
models and good practices".
The III International Conference of the IJJO was concluded presenting The Joint
Declaration on Harmonising the Juvenile Justice Systems at the European
Level.
Our Joint Declaration establishes the following recommendations to be put in
practice in European Juvenile Justice Systems to promote an unified response
towards young offenders, following :
– International Standards
– Worldwide Experiences
The Joint Declaration was presented in The Twelfth United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, El Salvador (Brazil) 2010 and quoted in
the Joint Statement on behalf of the non-governmental organizations attending the
Congress as well as Draft Salvador Declaration on Comprehensive Strategies for Global
Challenges’.

2. IJJO Recommendations
- Need of Data: Indicators in Juvenile Justice “An
indicator provides a common way of measuring and presenting
information that reveals whether standards are being met ” Unicef
“IJJO Recommendation (Rec) - That action on setting common
criteria and shared basis should continue towards the
establishment of shared re-education and reintegration projects
for young offenders, as highlighted by some community bodies ”
In 2009, the IJJO presented the research study- Juvenile Justice
Indicators for Europe: How to measure Juvenile Justice, in the program
of its “Juvenile Justice without Frontiers Grant ”, which intend to provide
a global framework for measuring and presenting specific information
about the situation of children in conflict with the law, focusing on the
development of specific juvenile justice indicators.
2.-IJJO Recommendations
- Limit of Age: the Penal Responsibility
“ IJJO Rec - That the minimum age of criminal responsibility should
not be too low, and that the law should stipulate that under that age
children should be in care and not punished, as recommended by
international instruments ”
As well Stated in International Standard – Beijing Rules
4. Age of criminal responsibility
4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age
of criminal responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age
shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the
facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.
Special focus on the issue of young adults.
2.-IJJO Recommendations
e) IJJO Agis Programme: Age of Penal Responsibility
Country
Diminished criminal responsibility
(juvenile criminal law)
* Criminal majority concerning juvenile detention (youth
imprisonment etc.)
** Only for road offences and exceptionally for very serious offences
*** Only for serious offences
**** Only mitigation of sentencing without separate juvenile justice
legislation
***** No criminal responsibility “strictu sensu”, but application of the
Juvenile (Welfare) Law
****** Only educational sanctions (including closed residential care)
and measures
Austria
Criminal
responsibility
(adult criminal
law can/must be
applied; juvenile
law can be
applied)
Legal
majority
14
18/21
18
Belgium
16**/18
16/18
18
Belarus
14***/16
14/16
18
14
18
18
Croatia
14/16*
18/21
18
Cyprus
10/14*
16
Bulgaria
16-18
2.-IJJO Recommendations
e) IJJO Agis Programme: Age of Penal Responsibility
Country
Diminished criminal
responsibility
Criminal
responsibility
Legal
majority
(adult criminal law can
/must be applied;
juvenile law can be
applied)
Portugal
12*****/16
16/21
18
Romania
14/16
18/(20)
18
Russia
14***/16
18/21
18
Scotland
8*****/16
16/21
18
14/16*
18/21
18
Slovakia
14/15
18/21
18
Slovenia
14***/16
18/21
18
14
18/21
18
Serbia
Spain
2.-IJJO Recommendation
e) IJJO Agis Programme Age of Penal Responsability
Country
Diminished criminal
responsibility
Criminal
responsibility (adult
Legal
majority
criminal law can/must be
applied; juvenile law can be
applied)
Czech
Republic
15
18/18 +
18
Denmark
15
15/18/21
18
Turkey
12
18
18
Switzerland
10*****/15/16
18/25
18
Sweden****
15
15/18/21
18
2.-IJJO Recommendations
- Alternative Measures
“ IJJO Rec - That sanctions or measures follow the aim of
social reintegration and support the minor according to their
educational needs and are based on the minors best interests
and according to their age, dealing with their physical and
mental welfare, development, skills and adapted to their
personal circumstances (principle of individualisation);
avoiding as much as possible deprivation of liberty, favouring
alternatives such as mediation, work in public interest
etc.”
As well Stated in International Standards - The
Beijing Rules
Art. 13.2 Whenever possible, detention pending trial
shall be replaced by alternative measures.
2.-IJJO Recommendations
- Alternative Measures
As
well
Stated
in
International
StandardsRecommendation Rec(2003)20 of the Committee of
Ministers to member states concerning new ways of
dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of
juvenile justice
“To address serious, violent and persistent juvenile
offending, member states should develop a broader
spectrum of innovative and more effective (but still
proportional) community sanctions and measures. They
should directly address offending behaviour as well as the
needs of the offender. They should also involve the
offender's parents or other legal guardian (unless this is
considered counter-productive) and, where possible and
appropriate, deliver mediation, restoration and reparation to
the victim”
2. IJJO Recommendations
- Condition of Detention
“ IJJO Rec - Sanctions or measures are based on the minors best interests
avoiding as much as possible deprivation of liberty, favouring alternatives
such as mediation, work in public interest etc..”
As welI stated in International Legislation - UN Convention
the Child 1989
on the Rights of
Article 37b.“States Parties shall ensure that: No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty
unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in
conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the
shortest appropriate period of time”
As well Stated in International Standards-United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules)
1.1 The present Standard Minimum Rules provide a set of basic principles to promote the
use of non-custodial measures, as well as minimum safeguards for persons subject to
alternatives to imprisonment.
Special focus as well on Pre-Trial Detention
As well Stated in International Standards- (The Beijing Rules) (GA resolution 40/33 of 29 Nov
1985)
13.1 Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
possible period of time.

2.-IJJO Recommendations
- Aim of JJ: Social and Professional Inclusion
“IJJO Rec - That sanctions or measures follow the aim of social
reintegration and support the minor according to their
educational needs and are based on the minors' best interests ”
As well stated in International Standard- Recommendation
CM/Rec (2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member
states on the European Rules for Juvenile offenders subject
to sanctions or measures
Art. 23.2. “Priority shall be given to sanctions and measures that may
have an educational impact as well as constituting a restorative
response to the offences committed by juveniles.”
2.-IJJO Recommendations
- Multidisciplinary Responses
“ IJJO Rec- That appropriate selection, special training and working conditions are
ensured for those who work with minors and youth developments in order to
guarantee multidisciplinary teams offering quality care and positive behavior
models ”
Following this idea, The IV IJJO International Conference which will be
hold in November 2010 in Rome will explore how needs of young people
suffering from mental-health issues in the justice system can be met
through a coordinated and integrated multi-agency response, identifying
the supports required for such an approach to achieve success.
- Multidisciplinary Responses
IV IJJO International Conference
The two main central themes focused in the Conference will be:
I. Mental disorders and drugs misuse: Analysis of the situation of minors in
conflict with the law:
- Analysis of the young offender’s profile and psychosocial context
- Definition of integrative interventions for young offenders with
mental disorders
-Definition of integrative interventions for young offenders with
addictive behaviour
II. Juvenile justice and health systems: A necessary multidisciplinary and
integrative collaboration
-Encourage and coordinate communication between sectors (health
and juvenile justice system)
-Development of common intervention tools mainly those connected
to the public-health or therapeutic services, and juvenile justice
system
-To promote and establish common links between the systems which
have to be specially reinforced in theses cases
3.- Juvenile Justice in Europe: a Common Voice
In 2008 the IJJO created the European Juvenile Justice Observatory
(EJJO) attending to the differentiating aspects and common issues that
converge in the juvenile justice systems throughout Europe, as a
promoting element of a convergence process in regulations and good
practices.
As welI Stated in International Standards- Opinion of the European
Economic and Social Committee: The prevention of juvenile delinquency.
Ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of the juvenile justice
system in the European Union. 2006
7.2.4..- …a European Observatory on juvenile delinquency should be created.
This would facilitate not only the study of the issue, but would also help to
disseminate the results and provide advice and support for the appropriate
authorities and institutions in their decision-making. ..help in the adoption of
practical policies and strategy.”
The EJJO and its European Council
for Juvenile Justice

The essential objective of the
EJJO is to act as an observer
of the juvenile justice situation
in Europe, setting up a
supranational space for the
reflection, analysis and
elaboration of proposals
centred on juvenile
delinquency and the justice
systems attempting to deal
with it through the European
Council for Juvenile Justice.
COUNCIL´S OBJECTIVES
Creation of the European Council of Juvenile Justice of the
EJJO:
• To exchange common solutions and good practices to
make juvenile justice systems efficient, always
respecting the best interest of the child and with the
aim to facilitate his social and professional insertion;
• To constitute a task force to address constant research
needs and development of good practices on Juvenile
Justice-related fields.
• To produce special recommendations on the
programmes and actions developed by the European
institutions and other intergovernmental organizations
that play a role in managing common problems on the
global agenda.
COUNCIL´S OBJECTIVES
Creation of the European Council of Juvenile Justice of
the EJJO:
• To make the voice of Juvenile Justice organizations and
universities echo in the international agenda on child
rights.
• To provide comment, background and analysis on the
Juvenile justice implications of EU decisions, and make
sure that juvenile justice issues will be included in the
EU institutions strategies.
• To communicate analysis, data, reports and
recommendations to representatives of Member
States, to make juvenile justice issues become a
priority.
COUNCIL´S SECTIONS
1.Public Administration´s Section
The ECJJ count on the participation of 27 representatives from
public state bodies with responsability for juvenile justice in their
respective states.
2. Academic Section
27 Academic Experts of European Universities, faculties and
departments related to the different areas that converge in juvenile
justice.
3. NGO´s Section
27 Civil society representatives from not-for-profit entities at a state
level ara part of the ECJJ. Their objectives include a commitment to
the protection and defence of minors and young people in conflict
with the law.
COUNCIL´S MEETINGS
European Council of Juvenile Justice 2009 Meetings
1.National Administration on charge of JJustice:
Paris 12/1/2009: “'Towards a European common
strategy
In juvenile justice” supported by General Directorate
of The Judicial Youth Care Department of
French Ministry of Justice.
2. Non-profit Organisations.
Paris 3-4 December 2009
A key message from NGOs across Europe.
3. Academic Meeting.
Brussels 16-17 December 2009
Towards a European common academic
approach in juvenile justice.
CONCLUDING REMARKS

There is a need to foster the transnational and multi institutional
cooperation between all juvenile justice agencies and organizations to
harmonize legal systems

In order to provide a sustainable response to this need, it is important
to start by building a common ground of understanding, sharing the
harmonized tools and instruments in the study and the treatment of
children in conflict with the law

The civil society, through permanent network of experts, researcher,
has already developed several interesting cooperation activities

The path already set should be followed by the European Institutions to
encourage national decision-makers to integrate the basic rules and
instruments which will guarantee the minimum rights of the child in
conflict with the law.
4. CONCLUSIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS for the
EU strategy on the Rights of the Child
Need of data and comon tools: JJ Indicators
Need of legal assistance and assessment
Need to foster Diversion-Alternatives to Court Proceedings
1) Diversion to health/social services
2) Police Diversion (primo delinquent)
3) Good resourcing and co-ordination of diversion
Need to develop Sentencing and Detention in accordance to UN standards
1) Sentencing Principles (discretion, taking into account circonstances etc)
2) To foster Non-custodial Measures
3) To avoid Pre-Trial Detention
4) To control Detention for the purposes of protection
5) To garantie good Conditions of Detention:
the right to be safe, Child-appropriate facilities, small facilities with minimal
security, health and education, reintegration services, monitoring,
evaluation des systemes
www.ijjo.org