12 Amendments of Daniel BUDA related to 2016/0412(COD)
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) Freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime are among the most effective means of combatting crime, infringements of the law, especially by organised offenders, and terrorism. The European Union is committed to ensuring more effective identification, confiscation and re-use of criminal assets24. _________________ 24 "The Stockholm programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens", OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p.1Confiscated criminal assets can be rechannelled into law enforcement, crime prevention or victim compensation.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) As crime is often transnational in nature, effective cross-border cooperation is essential in order to seize and confiscate the proceeds and instrumentalities of crime. Better cooperation encompassing the Member States and other countries will be achieved through decisive, rapid and concerted measures for the modernisation and implementation of the relevant legislation.
Amendment 20 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure effective mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the rules on recognition and execution of those orders should be established by a legally binding and directly applicable legal act of the Union that is wider in scope than other legal acts to date and contains clear provisions for ordering the freezing and confiscation of assets. One single instrument for mutual recognition of both freezing and confiscation orders containing a standard certificate and form, together with applicable rules and deadlines, will ensure that the orders are recognised and executed without delay within the Union.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) It is important to facilitate the mutual recognition and execution of orders to freeze and to confiscate property by establishing rules obliging a Member State, without unjustified delay or additional formalities, to recognise and execute in its territory freezing and confiscation orders issued by another Member State within the framework of criminal proceedings.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) This Regulation does not have the effect of modifyingis without prejudice to the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) The executing authority should recognise a confiscation order without further formalities and should take the necessary measures for its execution. The decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order should be taken and the confiscation should be carried out without unjustified delay and with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time limits should be set out inhis Regulation sets out time limits for the different steps of the procedure order to ensure a quick and efficient decision and execution of the confiscation order.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24
Recital 24
(24) The executing authority should recognise a freezing order without further formalities and should immediately take the necessary measures for its execution. The decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order should be taken and the freezing should be carried out without unjustified delay and with the same celerity and priority as for a similar domestic case. Time limits should be set out inhis Regulation sets out time limits for the different steps of the procedure order to ensure a quick and efficient decision and execution of the freezing order.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 32
Recital 32
(32) The victims' rights to compensation and restitution should not be prejudiced in cross-border cases. This regulation must ensure that, in cases where the issuing State confiscates property, the victim’s right to compensation and restitution has priority over the executing and issuing States’ interest. Rules for disposal of the confiscated property should therefore give priority to the compensation and restitution of property to the victims. Member States should also take into account their obligations to assist in the recovery of tax claims from other Member States in accordance with Directive 2010/24/EU36. _________________ 36 Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures (OJ L 84, 31.3.2010, p. 1).
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2
Article 1 – paragraph 2
2. This Regulation shall not have the effect of amendingis without prejudice to the obligation to respect the fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU.
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Article 6 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 2
Where point (b) applies, the issuing authority shall inform the executing authority as soon as possiblewithout unjustified delay whether the risk referred to has ceased to exist.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1
Article 8 – paragraph 1
1. The executing authority shall without further formalities or unjustified delay recognise a confiscation order transmitted in accordance with Article 4 and shall take the necessary measures for its execution in the same way as for a confiscation order made by an authority of the executing State, unless that authority decides to invoke one of the grounds for non- recognition and non-execution provided for in Article 9 or one of the grounds for postponement provided for in Article 11.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
The executing authority shall recognise a freezing order transmitted in accordance with Article 14 without further formalities or unjustified delay and shall take the necessary measures to execute it unless that authority decides to invoke one of the grounds for non- recognition and non- execution provided for in Article 18 or one of the grounds for postponement provided for in Article 20.