1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Procedurally-Relevant Vulnerabilities - Conceptual Framework. – 3.1. Definition and Differentiations. – 3.2. Typology of Procedurally Relevant Vulnerabilities. – 4. Procedural Models for Child Participation. – 4.1. Adapted Criminal Procedure for Juvenile Offenders. – 4.2. Friendly (Sensitive / Protected) Procedure for Underaged Victims and Witnesses. – 4.3. General Comparative Description of the Structure of the Rights of the Child in Both Types of Procedures. – 5. Matrix of the Procedural Relevance of Certain Vulnerabilities per Type of Procedure. – 6. Conclusions.
Background: Ensuring children’s effective participation in criminal proceedings is a major challenge for European justice systems, which increasingly recognise that children’s developmental, psychological, social, and other characteristics may create susceptibility to procedural disadvantage. Existing guidance, however, is fragmented and insufficiently structured. This article examines the structure and function of procedural protections applicable to children who participate in criminal proceedings as offenders, victims, or witnesses. It focuses on the concept of procedurally relevant vulnerabilities, understood as durable intrinsic conditions that impair a child’s ability to understand, participate in, or cope with the criminal process by increasing susceptibility to procedural disadvantages.
Method: This study employs doctrinal analysis of EU law, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights to develop an analytical framework grounded in the concept of procedurally relevant vulnerabilities. It proposes a functional typology of vulnerabilities and evaluates its procedural implications. Two procedural models are examined – adapted procedures for juvenile offenders and child-sensitive procedures for victims and witnesses – through a structure of core rights, procedural safeguards, and procedural options.
Results and Conclusions: The two models pursue distinct purposes and rely on different, though flexible and case-adaptable, approaches to vulnerabilities to ensure fairness, protection, and effective participation. The suggested framework strengthens the coherence and predictability of child-related procedural practice and offers a conceptual foundation for judicial guidance and potential harmonization within European criminal justice involving children. Three core contributions are advanced: (1) an operational definition of procedurally relevant vulnerability; (2) a principled separation of adapted and child-friendly procedural models; and (3) a matrix tool for mapping vulnerability-sensitive procedural responses across children’s procedural roles.