6 Amendments of Fabio Massimo CASTALDO related to 2019/2207(INI)
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that implementing the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW) has put legal systems in many Member States under strain; notes that the FDEAW revealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal lawis a cornerstone of the European area of freedom, security and justice. Recognises that its correct implementation is of key importance to ensure a smooth cooperation between law enforcement authorities; notes, however, that the implementation of the FDEAW revealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal law that hamper a smooth implementation of this instrument and ultimately the fight against serious crime across the EU;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. INotes that the implementation of the EAW is still beyond its full potential due to the lack of trust between Member States; insists that Member States are responsible for ensuring a high level of mutual trust, which is premised on their obligation to respect the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU legislation, as well as on the adherence of their institutions to EU values, including the respect for the rule of law (Article 2 of the TEU);
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights will contribute to create a level playing field and thus reinforcing mutual trust between Member States;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that further horizontal measures need to be adopted in orderat European level and further harmonisation of national legislation is needed in order to avoid that criminals take advantage of the existing differences and legislative gaps across the EU and to increase mutual confidence in national criminal justice systems, thereby leading to more efficient judicial cooperation;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. ConsiderReminds that the FDEAW should bewas adopted using the intergovernmental cooperation method under the former third pillar on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matter; considers it urgent that the FDEAW is fully brought under the Lisbon Treaty as a new legislative instrument, allowing the European Parliament to act as co- legislator; is convinced that this would provide substantial benefits in terms of democratic legitimacy, legal certainty and transparency, enhance coherence with other criminal law instruments, and allow for clarification of ‘judicial authority’ as an autonomous concept of EU law;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the UK has always obstructed the implementation of the instrument and that its withdrawal of the UK from the EU creates opportunities for further unification of the criminal justice area; recalls that the Political Declaration on the future relationship states that the UK and EU ‘will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’; insists that any agreement between the EU and UK in the field of criminal justice cooperation must be underpinned, inter alia, by their commitments on fundamental rights, as well as by the role of the ECJ in this matter.