Electronic Monitoring in Europe: Insights from the 13th Electronic Monitoring conference Questionnaire

What was once considered a marginal practice has become a widely used supervision method, though its role and governance continue to vary significantly between countries. In some jurisdictions, EM is embedded within probation services and supports reintegration, while in others it reflects an extension of custody, managed by prisons or police authorities. The involvement of private companies in certain systems further highlights important questions around accountability and sovereignty.

The findings also underline that technology is not neutral. Choices around equipment, procurement, and system design shape not only how EM operates, but also how it is perceived and experienced.

While EM presents clear benefits such as reducing reliance on custody, supporting reintegration, and enhancing victim protection, it also brings challenges. These include risks of net widening, technical and ethical concerns, and questions around long-term sustainability.

A key takeaway from this report is that EM cannot stand alone. Its effectiveness and legitimacy depend on its integration within broader correctional strategies, supported by professional oversight and aligned with the Council of Europe’s human rights standards.

This 13th questionnaire provides a valuable comparative baseline and contributes to ongoing efforts to ensure that EM evolves as a balanced tool, combining security with dignity and control with opportunities for rehabilitation.