Activities of Gilles LEBRETON related to 2016/0412(COD)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) When adopting Directive 2014/42/EU, the European Parliament and the Council stated that an effective system of freezing and confiscation in the European Union is inherently linked to well-functioning mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. Considering the need of putting in place a comprehensiveEuropean system for freezing and confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to present a legislative proposal on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should apply to all confiscation orders imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It should therefore cover all types of orders covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as other types of orders issued without final conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings. This Regulation should not apply to freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of civil or administrative proceedings.
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) This Regulation should cover confiscation and freezing orders related to offences covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as orders related to other offences. The offences should therefore not be limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, as Article 82 TFEU does not require such limitation for measures laying down rules and procedures for ensuring mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) In light of the urgency of freezing and of its provisional nature, a freezing order should be issued in a standard form. The issuing authority should ascertain whether issuing the freezing order is necessary and proportionate for the purpose of provisionally preventing the destruction, transformation, moving, transfer or disposal of property. To align the conditions for issuing freezing orders in domestic and cross-border cases, a freezing order under this Regulation should be issued only when it could have been ordered in a similar domestic case.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the mMutual recognition and execution of freezing and confiscation orders, cannot be is achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and its effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordancemeasures that must comply with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union . In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 21
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 21
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 23
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 23
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 24
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 24
Amendment 50 #
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 28
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 28
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 5, no later than 30 daytwo months after the executing authority has received the confiscation order.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. Where it is not possible in a specific case to meet the time limits set out in paragraphs 2 or 4, the executing authority shall, without delay, inform the issuing authority by any means, giving the reasons for the delay and shall consult with the issuing authority on the appropriate timing to carry out the confiscation. In such a case, the time limits laid down in paragraphs 2 or 4, may be extended by a maximum of 30 days.
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) When adopting Directive 2014/42/EU, the European Parliament and the Council stated that an effective system of freezing and confiscation in the European Union is inherently linked to well-functioning mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. Considering the need tof putting in place a comprehensiveEuropean system for freezing and confiscation of proceeds and instrumentalities of crime, the European Parliament and the Council called on the Commission to present a legislative proposal on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) This Regulation should apply to all confiscation orders imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It should therefore cover all types of orders covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as other types of orders issued without final conviction within the framework of criminal proceedings. This Regulation should not apply to freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of civil or administrative proceedings.
Amendment 79 #
(14) This Regulation should cover confiscation and freezing orders related to offences covered by Directive 2014/42/EU, as well as orders related to other offences. The offences should therefore not be limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, as Article 82 TFEU does not require such limitation for measures laying down rules and procedures for ensuring mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 36
Recital 36
(36) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely the mMutual recognition and execution of freezing and confiscation orders, cannot be is achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of its scale and its effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures in accordancemeasures that must comply with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union . In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 21
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 21
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 28
Article 3 – paragraph 1 – indent 28
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 5, no later than 30 daytwo months after the executing authority has received the confiscation order.