65 Amendments of Laura FERRARA related to 2013/0407(COD)
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(-1) Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enshrine the principle of the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings by laying down minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial, in order to ensure that suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings in the Member States enjoy a high level of protection and procedural safeguards apply in full.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The principle of mutual recognition of sentences and other decisions of the judicial authorities is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters within the Union. By establishing minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of suspects or accused persons, this Directive shouldeeks to strengthen the trust of Member States in the criminal justice systems of other Member States and can thus help to facilitate mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Such common minimum rules should also remove obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings. A and to administrative proceedings that may leading to sanctions such as competition, trade, tax, financial services proceedings and other investigations by administrative authorities in relation to these proceedings, and also civil proceedings are not covered by this Directivedeprivation of liberty, irrespective of whether or not they are classified as criminal proceedings.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This Directive should apply to natural persons who are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. It should apply at any stage of the proceedings, even before those persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State, by official notification or otherwise, that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, until the conclusion of such proceedingssuch proceedings are concluded with the handing down of a sentence.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The presumption of innocence is violated if, without the accused’s having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision or a public statement by judicial or other public authorities presents the suspects or accused persons as if they were convicted. For the purposes of this Directive, 'public statement' means any statement relating to a crime and issued by the judicial authorities, the police or any other public authorities, including ministers and other public officials. Without prejudice to the freedom of the press and the right to information, the presumption of innocence is also infringed wherever suspects or accused persons are referred to in the press as if they have already been convicted.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused. Thus, the presumption of innocence will be infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence,. Suspects have the right to instruct their lawyers to carry out investigations for the defence. The accused always has the right to present evidence for the defence, thereby ensuring that evidence is gathered in compliance with the adversarial principle. If no evidence emerges from the proceedings establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the principle of 'in dubio pro reo' applies. This is without prejudice to any possible ex officio fact findings powers of the court and without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary when assessing the suspect's or accused's guilt. criminal liability.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital -1 (new)
Recital -1 (new)
(- 1) The principle of presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) The purpose of this Directive is to enhance the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings by laying down minimum rules concerning certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial, so as to ensure that suspected and accused persons in criminal proceedings in the Member States receive a high level of protection with full respect for procedural guarantees.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate is an importantthe right to remain silent are key aspects of the presumption of innocence. Suspects or accused persons should notmust not in any way be forced, when asked to make a statement or answer questions, to produce evidence or documents or to provide information which may lead to incriminate themselves.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Any compulsion used to compel the suspect or accused person to provide information should be limited. To determine whether the compulsion did not violate those rights, the following should be taken into account, in the light of all circumstances of the case: the nature and degree of compulsion to obtain the evidence, the weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the offense at issue, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure and the use to which any material so obtained is put. However, the degree of compulsion imposed on suspects or accused persons with a view to compelling them to provide information relating to charges against them should not destroy the very essence of their right not to incriminate one-self and their right to remain silent, even for reasons of security and public orderNo information obtained from suspects by coercion shall be admissible in proceedings as evidence of criminal liability.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 2
Recital 2
(2) The principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions made by judicial authorities is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union. By establishing minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of suspects or accused persons, this Directive shouldeeks to strengthen the trust of Member States in the criminal justice systems of other Member States and can thus help to facilitate mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Such common minimum rules should also remove obstacles to the free movement of citizens throughout the territory of the Member States.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate should not extend to the use in criminal proceeduse of methods of obtaining evidence that encroach further on personal liberty, including biological samplings of material which may be obtained from the suspect or accused person through the use of lawful compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will oblood, urine or other organic substances necessary for DNA testing, must be restricted solely to cases of proven necessity provided for by law. If the suspects or accused persons, such as material acquired pursuant to a warrant, material in respect of which there is a legal obligation of retention and production upon request, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA tes refuses to give his or her consent, the sampling or examination may be carried out on the instructions of the court only with the express consent of the prosecution, which must be confirmed subsequently in writing.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The right to remain silent is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence. It should serve as protection from self-incrimination. The right to remain silent cannot under any circumstances be used against the accused or suspected person and cannot be regarded as substantiating the charges.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings. A, including administrative proceedings that may leading to sanctionpenalties such as competition, trade, tax, financial services proceedings and other investigations by administrative authorities in relation todeprivation of liberty, irrespective of whether or not these proceedings, and also civil proceedings are not covered by this Directivere classified as criminal.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) This Directive should apply to natural persons who are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence. It should apply at any stage of the proceedings, even before those persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State, by official notification or otherwise, that they are suspected or accused of having committed a criminal offence, until the conclusion of such proceedings with a sentence being handed down.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2
Article 2
This Directive applies to natural persons suspected or accused inat every stage of the criminal proceedings until thagainst them until those proceedings are finally conclusion of those proceedingsded with the handing down of a sentence.
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3
Article 3
Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guiltycriminally liable according to law.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Member States shall take the steps necessary to ensure that, before a final conviction, public statements and official decisions from public authorities do not refer to the suspects or accused persons as if they were convicted.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures are taken in the event of a breach of that requirement, including the imposition of penalties, are laid down and taken in the event of a breach of that requirement, and that the suspect or accused person whose right to the presumption of innocence has been infringed has access to an effective remedy. Member States shall ensure that the presumption of innocence is not infringed by the press, by taking appropriate measures, including the imposition of penalties, in cases in which the press presents a suspect or accused person as if they had already been convicted.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of suspects or accused persons is on the prosecution. This is without prejudice to any ex officio fact finding powers of the trial court. Member States shall also ensure that suspects or accused persons have the benefit of any doubt. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons always have the opportunity to submit evidence for the defence or to conduct investigations for the defence through their lawyer.
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 12
Recital 12
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The presumption of innocence is violated if, without the accused’s having previously been proved guilty according to law, a judicial decision or a public statement by judicial or other public authorities presents the suspects or accused persons as if they were convicted. For the purposes of this Directive, 'public statements' means any statement relating to a crime and issued by the judicial authorities, police and any other public authorities, including ministers and other public officials. Without prejudice to the freedom of the press and the right to information, presumption of innocence is also infringed wherever suspects or accused persons are referred to in the press as if they have already been convicted.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right not to incriminate themselves and not to cooperate in any criminal proceeding.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the suspects or accused persons through the use of lawful compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspects or accused persons.
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Exercise of the right not to incriminate oneself or of the right not to cooperate shall not be used against a suspect or accused person at a laterny stage of the proceedings and shall not be considered as a corroboration of facts.
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Any evidence obtained in breach of this Article shall not be admissible, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness at any stage of the proceedings.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused. Thus, the presumption of innocence will be infringed where the burden of proof is shifted from the prosecution to the defence,. Suspects have the right to instruct their lawyers to carry out investigations for the defence. The accused always has the right to present evidence for the defence, thereby ensuring that evidence is gathered in compliance with the adversarial principle to be respected by the parties. If no evidence emerges from the proceedings establishing the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the principle of 'in dubio pro reo' applies. This is without prejudice to any possible ex officio fact findings powers of the court and without prejudice to the independence of the judiciary when assessing the suspect's or accused's guiltcriminal liability.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 15
Recital 15
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate is an important aspectthe right to remain silent are fundamental to the of the presumption of innocence. Suspect or accused persons should not in any way be forced, when asked to make a statement or answer questions, to produce evidence or documents or to provide information which may lead to incriminate themselves.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Exercise of the right to remain silent shall not be used against a suspect or accused person at a laterny stage in the proceedings and shall not be considered as a corroboration of facts, nor may it in any way be assessed for the purpose of ascertaining criminal responsibility.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Any evidence obtained in breach of this Article shall not be admissible, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) Any compulsion used to compel the suspect or accused person to provide information should be limited. To determine whether the compulsion did not violate those rights, the following should be taken into account, in the light of all circumstances of the case: the nature and degree of compulsion to obtain the evidence, the weight of the public interest in the investigation and punishment of the offense at issue, the existence of any relevant safeguards in the procedure and the use to which any material so obtained is put. However, the degree of compulsion imposed on suspects or accused persons with a view to compelling them to provide information relating to charges against them should not destroy the very essence of their right not to incriminate one-self and their right to remain silent, even for reasons of security and public orderNo information obtained from suspects by coercion shall be admissible in proceedings as evidence of criminal liability.
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate should not extend to the use in criminal proceeduse of methods of obtaining evidence that encroach further on personal liberty, including biological samplings of material which may be obtained from the suspect or accused person through the use of lawful compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will ofblood, urine or other organic substances necessary for DNA testing, must be restricted solely to cases of proven necessity provided for by law. In the absence of consent given by the suspects or accused persons, such as material acquired pursuant to a warrant, material in respect of which there is a legal obligation of retention and production upon request, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily tissue for the purpose of DNA testhe sampling or examination may be carried out on the instructions of the court only with the express consent of the prosecution, also to be confirmed subsequently in writing.
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States may provide for a possibility under which the trial court may decide on the guiltcriminal responsibility in the absence of the suspect or the accused person, provided that the suspect or accused person:
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
(i) either was summoned in person and thereby informed, by means of a summons, of the scheduled date and place of any hearing connected with the trial, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of any hearing connected with that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trialthat a trial was ongoing against him or her;
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
(ii) was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for the trial; or
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
(b) being aware of the scheduled trial, had given a mandate to a legal counsellor, who was either appointed by the person concerned or by the State, to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that counsellor at the trial, or, where the accused person had not appointed a legal counsellor of his or her own choice, was appointed by the court, to ensure that at all events he or she was defended at the trial.
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a directive
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) The right to remain silent is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence. It should serve as protection from self-incrimination. The right to remain silent cannot in any circumstances be used against the accused or suspected person and cannot be regarded as substantiation of the charges.
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. If the conditions of paragraph 2 have not been met, aA Member State can proceed to execution of a decision intended in that paragraphon the criminal responsibility of the accused person if, after being served with the decision and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case, including examination of new evidence, and which may lead to the original decision to be reversed, the person:
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure the right to a review of the decision establishing the criminal responsibility of the accused person in the event of new evidence coming to light by virtue of which the decision would have been more favourable to the person concerned, or in the event of its being demonstrated that the conviction was due to judicial error.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall adopt measures to provide equitable compensation for damages in the event of the right to the presumption of innocence being violated.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 2
Article 2
This Directive applies to natural persons suspected or accused inat every stage of the criminal proceedings against them until the final conclusion of those proceedings with a sentence being handed down.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 3
Article 3
Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty according to lawcriminally liable under the legislation in force.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Member States shall adopt the necessary measures to ensure that, before a final conviction, public statements and official decisions from public authorities do not refer to the suspects or accused persons as if they were convicted.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Article 4 – paragraph 2
Member States shall ensure that appropriate measures are taken in the event of a breach of that requirement. laid down and taken, including the imposition of penalties, in the event of a breach of that requirement, and that the suspect or accused person whose right to the presumption of innocence has been violated has access to an effective remedy. Member States shall ensure that the presumption of innocence is not violated by the press, by taking the appropriate measures, including the imposition of penalties, in cases in which the press presents a suspect or accused person as if they had already been convicted.
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that the burden of proof in establishing the guilt of suspects or accused persons is on the prosecution. This is without prejudice to any ex officio fact finding powers of the trial court. Member States shall also ensure that suspects or accused persons have the benefit of any doubt. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons always have the opportunity to submit evidence for the defence or to conduct investigations for the defence through their lawyer.
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Article 5 – paragraph 2
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 1
Article 6 – paragraph 1
1. Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right not to incriminate themselves and not to cooperate in any criminal proceeding.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 2
2. The right referred to in paragraph 1 shall not extend to the use in criminal proceedings of material which may be obtained from the suspects or accused persons through the use of lawful compulsory powers but which has an existence independent of the will of the suspects or accused persons.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 3
Article 6 – paragraph 3
3. Exercise of the right not to incriminate oneself or of the right not to cooperate shall not be used against a suspect or accused person at a laterny stage of the proceedings and shall not be considered as a corroboration of facts.
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 6 – paragraph 4
Article 6 – paragraph 4
4. Any evidence obtained in breach of this Article shall not be admissible, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness at any stage of the proceedings.
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Exercise of the right to remain silent shall not be used against a suspect or accused person at a laterny stage in the proceedings and shall not be considered as a corroboration of facts, nor may it in any way be assessed for the purpose of ascertaining criminal responsibility.
Amendment 191 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 7 – paragraph 4
Article 7 – paragraph 4
4. Any evidence obtained in breach of this Article shall not be admissible, unless the use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – introductory part
2. Member States may provide for a possibility under which the trial court may decide on the guiltcriminal responsibility in the absence of the suspect or the accused person, provided that the suspect or accused person:
Amendment 200 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point i
i) either was summoned in person and thereby informed, by means of a summons, of the scheduled date and place of any hearing connected with the trial, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of any hearing connected with that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trialthat a trial was ongoing against him or her;
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point a – point ii
ii) was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for the trial; orand
Amendment 207 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b
b) being aware of the scheduled trial, had given a mandate to a legal counsellor, who was either appointed by the person concerned or by the State, to defend him or her at the trial, and was indeed defended by that counsellor at the trial, or, where the accused person had not appointed a legal counsellor of his or her own choice, was appointed by the court, to ensure that at all events he or she was defended at the trial.
Amendment 210 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. If the conditions of paragraph 2 have not been met, aA Member State can proceed to execution of a decision intended in that paragraphon the criminal responsibility of the accused person if, after being served with the decision and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial, or an appeal, in which the person has the right to participate and which allows a fresh determination of the merits of the case, including examination of new evidence, and which may lead to the original decision to be reversed, the person:
Amendment 216 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Member States shall ensure the right to a review of the decision establishing the criminal responsibility of the accused person in the event of new evidence coming to light by virtue of which the decision would have been more favourable to the person concerned, or in the event of its being demonstrated that the conviction was due to judicial error.
Amendment 219 #
Proposal for a directive
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 10 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Member States shall adopt measures to provide equitable compensation for damages in the event of the right to the presumption of innocence being violated.