Activities of Giuliano PISAPIA related to 2019/2207(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States
Amendments (3)
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that implementingBelieves that the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW) has put legal systems in many Member States under strain; notes thatis a successful instrument of judicial cooperation that has led to a considerable simplification and speeding up of handover procedures between EU member states; recognises, however, that the FDEAW has put legal systems in many Member States under strain and has revealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal law; underlines that improvements to the application of the FDEAW arevealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal law; needed and include: - the further harmonisation of procedural rights of suspected persons, including the right to a fair trial and the rights of defence, of the ‘ne bis in idem’ principle, and of the rules regarding the execution of an arrest warrant if the person who is the subject of a European arrest warrant is a minor and may not, owing to his age, be held criminally responsible for the acts on which the arrest warrant is based under the law of the executing State; and - targeted changes to the FDEAW, already highlighted in the European Parliament’s resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant, such as including a clear definition of ‘judicial authority’ and introducing a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. 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 and fundamental rights (Articles 2 and 6 of the TEU); underlines that concerns over the lack of independence of national judicial authorities and failure to comply with European and international standards on detention conditions in certain Member States have contributed to undermining mutual confidence in recent years; takes note of the significant developments in the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the application of the FDEAW, and in particular on the link between the execution of European arrest warrants and the respect of the rule of law and fundamental rights; calls on the European Commission to update its ‘Handbook on How to Issue and Execute a European arrest warrant’ in order to reflect such developments and to give further guidance with regards to European arrest warrants issued by Member States who are the subject of an ongoing Article 7 TEU procedure; calls on the Commission to include such guidance in its upcoming first annual Rule of Law Report;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that further horizontal measures need to be adopted in order to increase mutual confidence in national criminal justice systems, thereby leading to more efficient judicial cooperation; underlines, in this regard, the important role of agencies, such as the EU Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation (Eurojust), and of initiatives, such as the recent establishment of the European Arrest Warrant coordination group, aimed at developing mutual trust;