Activities of Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD related to 2021/0394(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation
Amendments (66)
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1
Recital 1
(1) In its 2 December 2020 Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU29 the Commission identified the need to modernise the legislative framework of the Union’s cross- border procedures in civil, commercial and criminal law, in line with the “digital by default” principle, while ensuring all necessary safeguards to avoid social exclusion and ensuring full respect of fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and to an effective legal remedy. Digitalisation of proceedings in civil and criminal matters should be encouraged with the aim of strengthening the rule of law and the fundamental rights guarantees in the Union, particularly by facilitating access to justice. _________________ 29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4
Recital 4
(4) This Regulation seeks to improve the effectiveness and speed of judicial procedures and facilitate access to justice by digitalising the existing communication channels, which should lead to cost and time savings, reduction of the administrative burden, and improved resilience in force majeure circumstances for all authorities involved in cross-border judicial cooperation. The use of digital channels of communication between competent authorities should lead to reduced delays in processing of the cases, which should benefit individuals and legal entities. This is also particularly important in the area of cross-border criminal proceedings in the context of the Union’s fight against crime. In this regard, the high level of security that digital channels of communication can provide constitutes a step forward, also with respect to safeguarding the rights of the persons concerned and protection of their privacy and personal data.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 5
Recital 5
(5) It is important that appropriate channels are developed to ensure that justice systems can efficiently cooperate digitally, while respecting procedural and fundamental rights of the affected person and the principle of the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it is essential to establish, at Union level, an information technology instrument that allows swift, direct, interoperable, reliable and secure cross-border electronic exchange of case related data among competent authorities.
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 6
Recital 6
(6) There are tools which have been developed for the digital exchange of case related data, without replacing or requiring costly modifications to the existing IT systems already established in the Member States. The e-Justice Communication via On-line Data Exchange (e-CODEX) system is the main tool of this type developed to date to ensure sustainability of cross-border electronic exchange of case related data among competent authorities, while preserving procedural and fundamental rights and the independence of the judiciary.
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 10
Recital 10
(10) In order to ensure secure, swift, interoperable, auditable, confidential and reliable communication between Member States for the purposes of cross-border judicial procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters, any appropriate modern communications technology should be used, provided that certain conditions as to the integrity and reliability of the document received and the identification of the participants in the communication are met. Therefore, an auditable, secure and reliable decentralised IT system should be used. Accordingly, it is necessary to establish such an IT system for data exchanges in cross-border judicial procedures. The decentralised nature of that IT system would enable secure data exchanges exclusively between one Member State and another, without any of the Union institutions being involved in the substance of those exchanges.
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) For the purposes of this Regulation, Member States should be able to use instead of a national IT system, a Commission-developed software (reference implementation software). The Commission should be responsible for the creation, maintenance and development of this reference implementation software in accordance with the principles of data protection by design and by default. The Commission should design, develop and maintain the reference implementation software in compliance with the data protection requirements and principles laid down in Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council34 and, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council35 and Directive (EU) 2016/680, in particular the principles of data protection by design and by default as well as high level of cybersecurity. The reference implementation software should also include appropriate technical measures and enable the organisational measures necessary for ensuring a level of auditability, security and interoperability which is appropriate for the exchange of information in the context of cross-border judicial procedures. _________________ 34 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39). 35 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 1).
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) For the purpose of facilitating access of natural and legal persons to the competent authorities, this Regulation should establish an access point at Union level (European electronic access point), as part of the decentralised IT system through which natural and legal persons or their legal representatives should be able to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation, access digitalised cases files in cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial, and criminal matters, and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation. Remote access to digitalised case files through the European electronic access point, including in cross-border criminal proceedings, can support effective implementation of procedural rights and fair trials guarantees. It can facilitate the production and handling of case data, as well as the possibility to access or read data from different locations and workstations, enabling effective defence preparation from the early stages of a proceeding. The European electronic access point should be hosted on the European e-Justice Portal, which serves as a one-stop-shop for judicial information and services in the Union.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, maintenance and development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, whilst fully respecting the specificities of national justice systems including the roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved, including Bars and Law Societies, and Notary Councils.
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19
Recital 19
(19) In the context of the communication in cross-border cases of natural and legal persons with competent authorities, electronic communication should be used as an alternative to the existing means of communication. Notwithstanding, to ensure that access to justice through digital means does not contribute to further widening of the digital divide, the choice of the means of communication between electronic communication, as provided by this Regulation, and other means of communication should be left to the discretion of the individuals concerned. The possibility of communication and exchanges by paper other means should be maintained to respond to certain situations, in order to prevent infringements of the rights of the defence and access to justice, and more generally to the law. This is particularly important in order to cater for the specific circumstances of disadvantaged groups and people in situation of vulnerability, such as children or older people, who may lack the requisite technical means or digital skills to access digital services.
Amendment 122 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20
Recital 20
(20) In order to enhance electronic cross-border communication and transmission of documents through the decentralised IT system, the European electronic access point and national IT portals, where available, those documents should not be denied legal effect and should not be considered inadmissible in the proceedings solely on the grounds that they are in electronic form. However, that principle should be without prejudice to the assessment of the legal effects or the admissibility of those documents, which may constitute evidence in accordance with national law. It should also be without prejudice to national law regarding the conversion of documents. The requirements under applicable national law concerning the admissibility of documents or information, pertaining to their authenticity, accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness and their appropriate legal form shall remain unaffected by this Regulation.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21
Recital 21
(21) In order to facilitaenable remote oral hearings in cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters with cross-border implications, this Regulation should provide for the optional use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology for the participation of the parties in such hearings. The procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology should be governed by the law of the Member State conducting the videoconferencAt the same time, the use of videoconferencing or other audiovisual communication technologies in cross- border criminal proceedings should remain exceptional, and it should always respond to the interests and needs of all the concerned parties, including suspects, accused and convicted persons. The use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings restricts the right to be present at trial, and remote participation to cross-border hearings significantly impacts the ability to exercise defence rights, including the right to a lawyer, and the right to examine evidence and witnesses. In civil and commercial matters, the procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology in cross-border proceedings should be governed by the law of the Member State where the proceedings take place. In cross-border criminal proceedings falling under the acts listed in Annex II, the procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology should be governed by the law of the requesting Member State. Conducting a hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology should not be refused solely based on the non-existence of national rules governing the use of distance communication technology. Int such cases the most appropriate rules available under the national law, such as rules for taking of evidence, should apply mutatis mutandishould always be possible to refuse a hearing by videoconferencing or by other audiovisual transmission technology when the use of such technology gives raise to risks for to the interests of the person(s) concerned, including their fundamental right of defense.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)
Recital 21 a (new)
(21 a) When videoconferencing is used for conducting hearings in cross-border civil, commercial or criminal proceedings, technical arrangements should be provided to guarantee a high-quality connection, and a visual and logistical setting that replicates that of an in-person hearing, and that enables visual and non- verbal communication. Translations and intepretations should be guaranteed before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology to ensure that all concerned parties fully understand the merits of the case and how to exercise their rights in the proceedings. Where necessary, qualified translations and interpretation in sign languages should also be put in place to prevent the risk that the use of technologies create new barriers for vulnerable persons, including those with communication and/or learning disabilities. The authorities respectively responsible for requesting and authorising the holding of a hearing by videoconferencing should carefully assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the use of remote communication technology is compatible with national procedural rules applying to the hearings in question. Member States should ensure that the videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology used in cross-border proceedings enable all participants to follow the hearing, and allow all parties and persons concerned to be heard without technical or material impediments. Videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology should only be used in full respect of the right to effective and confidential communication with a lawyer, the right to file and inspect evidence, and the right to examine witnesses. Informed consent of the parties on the use of videoconferencing should be a general principle applicable in all proceedings. The use of videoconferencing should enable a fair representation of the reality of the situation of the persons involved, and ensure the publicity of the trial where necessary.
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22
Recital 22
(22) This Regulation should not apply to the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in civil, commercial and criminal proceedings where such use is already foreseen in the legal acts, listed in Annex I and Annex II. This Regulation should neither apply to the use of videoconferencing nor to other audiovisual transmission technology in purely domestic criminal proceedings.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In accordance with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13April 2016 on Better Law-Making45 , the Commission should evaluate this Regulation on the basis of the information collected through specific monitoring arrangements and independent quantitative and qualitative assessments for each of the legal acts, listed in Annexes I and II to this Regulation in order to assess the actual effects of this Regulation and to detect, prevent or rectify impact on legality, accessibility, and effectiveness the EU and Member States justice systems, and the need for any further action. _________________ 45 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1–14).
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)
Recital 28 a (new)
(28 a) Member States should pay particular attention to ensuring that any lack of digital skills does not become an obstacle to the use of the decentralized IT system. Member States should ensure that training is provided to and easily accessible for the professionals who will act as end users of the IT system in order to ensure that they can use the system efficiently.
Amendment 144 #
(30) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council and Directive (EU) 2016/68048 of the European Parliament and the Council, apply to the processing of personal data carried out in the decentralised IT system. In order to clarify the responsibility for the processing of personal data sent or received through the decentralised IT system, this Regulation should indicate the controller of the personal data. For this purpose, each sending or receiving entity should be regarded as having determined the purpose and means of the personal data processing separately. _________________ 48 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31
Recital 31
(31) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation as regards the establishment of the decentralised IT system, implementingdelegated powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council49 . _________________ 49 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission'se adoption of these delegated acts should be based on a proper consultation of the relevant expercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13)ts and legal practitioners.
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4
(4) “decentralised IT system” means a network of IT systems and interoperable access points, operating under the individual responsibility and management of each Member State, Union agency or body that enables the auditable, secure and reliable cross-border exchange of information;
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)
(6 a) “Hearing through videoconferencing” means a hearing held through videconferencing tools or other audiovisual transmission technology enabling the remote participation of persons in the pre-trial or trial phase of a proceeding. In the context of criminal proceedings, “Hearing through videoconferencing” means a hearing held in cross-border proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, at the request of a Member State that is different from the one where at least one of the persons to be heard or questioned are located, and for which the persons to be heard or questioned gave their consent to be heard or questioned through videconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology.
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1
Article 3 – paragraph 1
1. Written communication between competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out through an auditable, secure and reliable decentralised IT system.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2
Article 3 – paragraph 2
2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system or due to other reasons invoked by a concerned competent authority, the nature of the transmitted material or exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need towhile ensureing a secure and reliable exchange of information.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The requirements under applicable national law concerning the admissibility of documents or information shall remain unaffected by this Regulation.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1
Article 4 – paragraph 1
1. A European electronic access point shall be established on the European e- Justice Portal, to be used for electronic communication between natural or legal persons, their legal representatives, and competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I.
Amendment 195 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3
Article 4 – paragraph 3
3. The European electronic access point shall contain information for natural and legal persons on their right to legal assistance, including in cross-border proceedings. The European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons or their legal representatives to file claims, launch requests, request and obtain access to digitalised case files, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities, including in the pre-trial and trial stages of cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters. The European electronic access point shall ensure that national procedural requirements, such as forms, language and legal representation in the concerned proceedings, are respected.
Amendment 205 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Written communication between natural or legal persons, their legal representatives and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:
Amendment 221 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title
Article 7 – title
Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology in civil and commercial matters
Amendment 224 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Without prejudice to specific provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, and upon request of a party to proceedings falling under the scope of these legal acts or in other civil and commercial matters where one of the parties is present in another Member State, or upon request of their legal or authorised representative, competent authorities shall allow their participation to a hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology, provided that:
Amendment 228 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the other party or parties to the proceedings were given the possibility to submit an opinion on or refuse the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.
Amendment 236 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2
Article 7 – paragraph 2
2. A request for conducting an oral hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology may be refused by the competent authority where the particular circumstances of the case are not compatible with the use of such technology.
Amendment 239 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3
Article 7 – paragraph 3
3. Competent authorities may on their own motion allow the participation of parties to hearings by videoconference, provided that all parties to the proceedings are given the possibility to submit an opinion on or refuse the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technologyaudiovisual transmission technology based on justifications pertaining to the particular circumstances of the case.
Amendment 243 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)
4 a. The confidentiality of communication between the parties and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall be ensured at all times and in any circumstances. Any breach of this confidentiality shall result in the invalidity of the hearing, and of any information that arise from such breach.
Amendment 247 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title
Article 8 – title
Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology in cross-border criminal proceedings
Amendment 250 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. Where the competent authority of a Member State requests the hearing of a suspect, accused or convicted person in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, the competent authority shall allowwho are located in another Member States, the corresponding competent authority of that other Member State shall authorise their participation to the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology, provided that:
Amendment 253 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a
(a) such technology is availablethe videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology available allows for the authentication of the persons to be heard, and enables both verbal and non-verbal communications during the hearing;
Amendment 255 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
(a a) the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology would not be contrary to the fundamental principle of the law of the authorising state;
Amendment 256 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)
(a b) the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology would not be incompatible with the authorising State’s obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter;
Amendment 258 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b
(b) the particular circumstances of the caseand procedural needs of the case, including where relevant the need to guarantee the publicity of the criminal trial, justify the use of such technology;
Amendment 261 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c
(c) the suspect, accused or convicted persons expressed consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technologywaiving their right to be present in person, and the suspect, accused or convicted persons agreed to the use of videoconferencing for that hearing. Before expressing consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology the suspect or the accused person shall have the possibility to seek access to a lawyer to seek advice in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU. Competent authorities shall provide suspects, accused or convicted persons with accesss to qualified translation or interpretation services, and with information about the procedure for conducting a hearing through videoconferencing or other advice of a lawyer in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EUudiovisual transmission technology, including the right to interpretation in accordance with the Directive 2010/64/EU and the right of access to legal assistance in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU, before such persons are required to consent or object on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.
Amendment 263 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)
(c a) the consent of a suspect, accused or convicted person to the use of videoconferencing, is given voluntarily and unequivocally, and that the competent authority conducting the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology has verified that consent prior to starting such hearing. The consent shall be recorded in the case file, and shall be confirmed and recorded at the begining of the video- conferencing hearing. The form and the validity of the consent shall be compatible with the criminal laws of both the Member State making the request, and of the Member State authorising the request. Such consent may be withdrawn at any time during the trial.
Amendment 266 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)
(c b) without prejudice to national law governing the procedure and time limits for submission of evidence, the technology used for the purposes of conducting the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology ensures it is possible to submit, review and examine evidence, including through the examination of witnesses.
Amendment 267 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The competent authorities in the requesting and authorising Member States shall agree the practical arrangements of the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology.When agreeing such arrangements, the competent authority authorising the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall undertake to: (a) summon the suspected, accused or convicted persons to appear for the hearing in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the law of the executing State and inform such persons about their rights under the law of the issuing State, in such a time as to allow them to exercise their rights of defence effectively; (b) ensure the identity of the person to be heard; (c) ensure that the suspected, accused or convicted persons receive materials of the case essential to safeguard the right of the defence translated into their native language.
Amendment 270 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2
Article 8 – paragraph 2
2. Paragraphs 1 isand 1a are without prejudice to the provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in the legal acts listed in Annex II.
Amendment 273 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3
Article 8 – paragraph 3
3. Subject to this Regulation, the procedure for conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State conducting the videoconference.Where a hearing is held by videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology, the following rules shall apply:
Amendment 274 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a (new)
(a) the competent authority of the State authorising the hearing through videconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall be present during the hearing, where necessary assisted by an interpreter, and shall also be responsible for ensuring both the identity of the person to be heard and respect for the fundamental principles of the law of the authorising State. If the competent authority in the Member State authorising the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology is of the view that during the hearing the fundamental principles of the law of their State are being infringed, it shall immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that the hearing continues in accordance with those principles;
Amendment 275 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b (new)
(b) measures for the protection of the person to be heard shall be agreed, where necessary, between the competent authorities of the requesting State and the authorising State;
Amendment 276 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c (new)
(c) the hearing shall be conducted directly by, or under the direction of, the competent authority of the requesting State in accordance with its own laws;
Amendment 277 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d (new)
(d) at the request of the requesting State or the person to be heard, the State authorising the hearing through videoconferenging or other audiovisual transmission technology shall ensure that the person to be heard is assisted by an interpreter;
Amendment 278 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point e (new)
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point e (new)
(e) suspected, accused and convicted persons shall be informed in advance of the hearing of the procedural rights which would accrue to them, including the right not to testify, under the law of the requesting State and the authorising State.
Amendment 281 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4
Article 8 – paragraph 4
4. The confidentiality of communication between suspects, accused or convicted persons and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology shall be ensured at all times and in any circumstances. Any breach of this confidentiality shall result in the invalidity of the hearing, and of any information that arise from such breach.
Amendment 283 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5
Article 8 – paragraph 5
5. Before hearing a child through videoconferencing or other distance communicataudiovisual transmission technology, holders of parental responsibility as defined in Article 3, point 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 or another appropriate adult as referred to in Article 5(2) of that Directive shall be informed promptly, or a legal representative, shall be informed promptly and express consent pursuant to paragraph 1(ca) of this Article. When deciding whether to hear a child through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, the competent authority shall take into account the best interests of the child. Equivalent guarantees to those provided in this paragraph for hearing children through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall apply when the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology concern vulnerable adults having notably communication and/or learning disabilities. _________________ 50 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1–20).
Amendment 285 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6
Article 8 – paragraph 6
6. Where the recording of hearings is provided for under the national law of a Member State for domestic cases, the same rules shall apply also to hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border cases. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that such records are secured and not publicly disseminated. Without prejudice to any measures agreed for the protection of persons, on the conclusion of the hearing, the requesting authority shall draw up minutes indicating the date and place of the hearing, the identity of the person heard, the identities and functions of all other persons in the authorising State participating in the hearing, any oaths taken and the technical conditions under which the hearing took place. The document shall be forwarded by the authority competent to authorise the hearing through videconferencing or other audivisual transmission technology, to the competent authority in the requesting State.
Amendment 287 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7
Article 8 – paragraph 7
7. A suspect, an accused and the convicted person shall have the right to an effective legal remedy under national law in the event of a breach of their rights deriving from the implementation of this Article.
Amendment 293 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3
Article 9 – paragraph 3
3. Where a document transmitted as part of the electronic communication under Article 5 of this Regulation requires or features a seal or handwritten signature, advanced electronic seals, advanced electronic signatures, qualified electronic seals or qualified electronic signatures as defined in Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 may be used instead.
Amendment 297 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – title
Article 12 – title
Adoption of implementingdelegated acts by the Commission
Amendment 298 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part
1. The Commission shall adopt implementingdelegated acts establishing the decentralised IT system, setting out the following:
Amendment 300 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. The specifications, objectives and related technical requirements listed in paragraph 1 shall be established in close consultation with the relevant experts and legal practitioners.
Amendment 301 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Article 12 – paragraph 2
Amendment 302 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3
Article 12 – paragraph 3
3. The implementing acts establishing the decentralised IT systemdelegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be adopted by: (a) [1 year after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 3 and 4 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 2, 6 and 10 (b) [2 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 1, 8 and 9 and the legal act listed in Annex II, point 11. (c) [3 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] acts for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 6, 10, 11 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 3, 4, 5 and 9 shall be adopted by [5 years after the entry into force]. (d) [4 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 3 2, 5, 7 and 412 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 21, 67 and 108 shall be adopted by [26 years after the entry into force].
Amendment 303 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Article 12 – paragraph 4
Amendment 304 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Article 12 – paragraph 5
Amendment 305 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Article 12 – paragraph 6
Amendment 308 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a (new)
Article 13 a Training Member States shall ensure that the professionals concerned and competent authorities receive the necessary specialised training for the efficient use of the decentralised IT systems, and for the appropriate deployment of videoconferencing and other audiovisual transmission technologies in judicial proceedings, including in cross-border settings.
Amendment 312 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 16
Article 16
Amendment 314 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1
Article 17 – paragraph 1
1. Every fivthree years after the date of application of Article 25, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report supported by information supplied by the Member States and collected by the Commission.
Amendment 321 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2
Article 18 – paragraph 2
2. Member States mayshall notify the Commission if they are in a position to operate the decentralised IT system earlier than required by this Regulation. The Commission shall make such information available electronically, in particular through the European e-Justice Portal.
Amendment 339 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2
Article 25 – paragraph 2
It shall apply from [the first day of the month following the period of twoone years after the date of entry into force].