Activities of Clare DALY related to 2019/2207(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Amendments (59)
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 12 a (new)
Citation 12 a (new)
- having regard to Directive 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the Presumption of Innocence,
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19
Citation 19
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EAW is a simplified and fast-track judicial surrender procedure which was adopted in haste after 9/11 and which has, since its launch, has beenbecome the flagship and most commonly used instrument for mutual recognition in criminal matters;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EAW is a success and has replaced extraditions with transfsurrenders; whereas transfers have been shortened to 4he duration of surrender procedures decreased to 40 days on average in 2017 from 50 days on average in2016 where the individual does not consent; whereas some Member States reported surrender procedures lasting up to 90 days where the individual does not consent1a; _________________ 1aReplies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of theEuropean arrest warrant – Year 2017, SWD(2019) 318 final.
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas EU judicial cooperation on criminal matters is based on mutual recognition introducformulated by the 1999 Tampere European Council; whereas the Treaty of Lisbon significantly changed the EU’s prerogativesconstitutional setting and provided an explicit legal basis for rules and procedures for ensuring mutual recognition of all forms of judgments and judicial decisions in Article 82 TFEU;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas mutual recognition is not a new but was developed in the area of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital (Cassis de Dijon logic)concept developed in the AFSJ, but was initially developed in the internal market (Cassis de Dijon logic); whereas, however, mutual recognition in the AFSJ has specific peculiarities, given the implications for fundamental rights and national sovereignty and the extent to which it needs to be facilitated by the harmonisation of substantive and procedural criminal law, particularly as regards procedural safeguards;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas mutual recognition means the direct recognition of judicial decisions from at a judicial decision should not be refused only on the basis that it is issued in another Member States, with non- recognition as an exception; whereas it also entail based on the grounds for refusal laid down by a legal instrument; whereas it requires cooperation between the competent judicial authorities;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas mutual recognition is a consequence of mutual trustpresupposes a high level of mutual trust between Member States, which should be based on a common understanding of the rule of law and fundamental rights; whereas reinforcing trust is key for the EAW to operate smoothly;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the EAW is the foundation for establishing an area of fone tool used in the consolidation of an area of freedom, security and justice; whereas Article 6 TEU on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, security and justiceArticle 8 TFEU, Article 15(3) TFEU, Article 16 TFEU, and Articles 18 to 25 TFEU are crucial elements of the framework of the AFSJ; whereas itsthe incorrect application of the EAW could have devastnegatingve effects on the functioning of the Schengen area and on fundamental rights;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a Union of equality that protects must ensure protection for all victims of crime12 ; rom fundamental rights violation for all, including suspects, convicts, and victims of crime12 ; whereas the EU has adopted instruments that aim to strengthen victims’ rights, which do not prescribe detention and surrender of suspects or convicted persons; _________________ 12EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020- 25).
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas most issues raised by the application of the EAW have been to some extent clarified by the CJEU, such as ne bis in idem13 , judicial authority14 , primacy and EU harmonisation15 , independence of the judiciary16 , fundamental rights17 , double criminality18, grounds for refusal, and the extradition of EU citizens to third countries19 ; _________________ 13 C-261/09, Mantello. 14 C-453/16 PPU, Özçelik; C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak; C-477/16 PPU, Kovalkovas; Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, OG and PI. 15C-399/11, Melloni or C-42/17, M.A.S. and M.B. 16C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality. 17Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru; C-128/18, Dorobantu. 18 C-289/15, Grundza. 19C-182/15, Petruhhin, judgment of 6 September 2016; C-191/16, Pisciotti, judgment of 10 April 2018; C-247/17 Raugevicius, judgment of 13 November 2018 and C-897/19 PPU, Ruska Federacija, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020, etc.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas double criminality is a concept of international extradition and, although theoretically is scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; whereas the list of offences without a double criminality check should be reassessed; whereas in its initi, in practice it may be an important safeguard for requested persons; whereas double criminality is only an optional pgroposal, the Commission sought an exhaustive list for which surrender could be refused (‘negative list’)und for refusal of the EAW and is rarely invoked by executing authorities; whereas the list of offences without a double criminality already includes a broad array of offences, many of which are not highly harmonised in the EU Member States yet;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas the concept of mutual recognition needsas such would not require the harmonisation of criminal material law and procedure, but the practice of judicial cooperation has shown that common standards and definitions are necessary to facilitate mutual recognition, as acknowledged by Art. 82(2) TFEU; whereas some progress has been made in the last few years, such asfor example with the six directives on procedural rights, Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights20 , and the harmonisation of criminal offences; _________________ 20and the harmonisation of some criminal offences; whereas, however, the six directives on procedural safeguards are scarcely implemented and contain only minimum standards, which are not sufficient to ensure an effective and high quality legal defence, especially when facing surrender proceedings; OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
K a. Whereas increasing procedural safeguards for suspects should not only be instrumental to facilitate mutual recognition, but should rather be a EU priority in itself, also in order to uphold the values that EU proclaims it stands for;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas there are difficulties with Commission has stressed that there are difficulties in the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer and the EAW, in particular as regards the possibility of accessing a lawyer both in the executing and the issuing Member State; whereas the transposition of the other Directives on procedural safeguards containing specific provisions on the EAW (Directive 2010/64EU; Directive 2012/13/EU; Directive 2016/800/EU; Directive 2016/1919/EU) has been inadequate so far; whereas such a low level of implementation makes equality of arms between prosecution and defence utopian and impossible;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas other instruments have clarified some EAW issues, such as Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order21, and Regulation (EU) 1805/2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders22 , have applied the mutual recognition principles to other types of judicial decisions; whereas these instruments, contrary to the EAW, explicitly provide for a ground for refusal based on a potential violation of fundamental rights in the issuing Member State; _________________ 21 OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1. 22 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
M a. Whereas the 2009 EU Roadmap for Criminal Procedural Rights recognises that ‘excessively long periods of pre-trial detention are detrimental for the individual, can prejudice judicial cooperation between the Member States and do not represent the values for which the European Union stands’; whereas 25% of prisoners suffer from violence each year, their access to justice is often limited, and they are isolated, stigmatised and have limited access to information2a; _________________ 2a EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights, COM/2020/258
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M b (new)
Recital M b (new)
M b. Whereas prison conditions in many Member States are far from being acceptable in a Union founded on the values enshrined in Art. 2 TEU;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M c (new)
Recital M c (new)
M c. Whereas the rule of law is deteriorating in some Member States; whereas violations of fundamental rights in the criminal justice context happen in most Member States, as identified by numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M d (new)
Recital M d (new)
M d. Whereas mutual trust cannot be blind trust, nor it can be taken for granted, but needs to be earned and constantly nourished;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M e (new)
Recital M e (new)
M e. Whereas in 2014 the European Parliament called, inter alia, for the introduction of 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 Art. 6 TEU and the CFREU3a; _________________ 3aEuropean Parliament resolution of 27 February 2014 with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (2013/2109(INL))
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M f (new)
Recital M f (new)
M f. Whereas in 2017, fundamental rights issues led to refusal to surrender in 109 cases;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas mutual recognition requires practitioners, including criminal lawyers, to be trained in EU law;
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P
Recital P
P. whereas data comparisons shows a trend of increased EAWthe available data shows a trend of increased EAWs, with the number of EAWs issued increasing year-on-year in every year between 2010 and 2017, which represents a cause for concern with regard to proportionality, especially considering that EAWs are widely issued for less serious offences;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas a harmonisedfull and correct EAW implementation will prevent forum shoppingin all Member States is necessary to properly assess the functioning of the relevant legislative instruments and the need for possible amendments;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the EAW is a major achievement and an effecn effective and useful instrument to bring perpetrators of serious crimes to justivce and indispensable instrument; statin the Member State where criminal proceedings have taken or are taking place; recognises that the EAW has substantiallyfacilitated and improved cooperation on surrenders;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the existence of particular problems; finds that these do not necessarily call the system into question but call into question national criminal justice policies and approaches to detention, in particular pre-trial detention and detention pending surrender;
Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that such problems relate to prison conditions, proportionality, the execution of custodial sentences23 , time limits24 and in absentia decisions; acknowledges that certain casthe independence of judicial authorities, raised the issue of double criminality25 espect for rule of law and fundamental rights; _________________ 23 CJEU, C-579/15, Popławski. 24 CJEU, C-168/13 PPU, Jeremy F. 25With guidance from C-289/15, Grundza, referring to Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA.
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that some issues were solvaddressed by a combination of soft law (EAW handbook), mutual assessments, the assistance of Eurojust, CJEU case law and supplementing legislation (Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA and Directive 2013/48/EU);
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the Treaties (Protocols 21 and 22) provide special status for two Member States – Ireland has an opt-in option and Denmark does not take part in EU criminal law; highlights the importance of ensuring consistency on JHA;
Amendment 98 #
7. UnderlineInsists that the EAW should not be misused for minor offences or for purposes that do not necessarily require people to be detained, such as initial questioning of suspects and pre-trial questioning; urges the use of less intrusive legal instruments such as the European Investigation Order; points out that issuing authorities should carry out proportionality checks; considers that in exceptional circumstances the executing authority should be allowed to carry out a proportionality check in order to suggest the adoption of a less intrusive measure;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that according to the CJEU, the refusal to execute an EAW is an exception to mutual recognition and must be interpreted strictly26 ; _________________ 26 See, for example, highlights that the CJEU has also acknowledged that, subject to certain conditions, the executing judicial authority has the power to bring the surrender procedure to an end where surrender may result in the requested person being subject to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter4a or where there is a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed by the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on account of systemic or generalised deficiencies concerning the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary5a; _________________ 4aCase C-404/15and C-659/15 PPU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru EU:C:2016:198,paragraph 104. 5aCase C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality.
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to provide fobetter uanderstandable clearer data, as the existing data is confusing and can offer a false impression of the (non)efficiencyoperation of EAWs; calls onurges Member States to collect and transfer data to the Commission; reiterates its call to the Commission to request from Member States comprehensive data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism and to include such data in its next implementation report;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that a double criminality check limits mutual recognition and, according to the CJEU, must be interpreted restrictively; notes that mutual recognition should ideally work automatically27 ; _________________ 27See, for example, the Commission communication of 26 July 2000 on the Mnot be refused, unless there are the conditions to invoke one of the grounds for refusal exhaustively listed in the EAW FD or unless there are other circumstances in which, as recognised by the CJEU, limitations may be placed on the principles of mutual Rrecognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters (COM(2000)0495).and mutual trust between Member States;
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to analyse common offences in the Member States and to assess the possibility of expandStresses that, as regards offences not included ing the list of offences that do not require a double criminality check; highlights the importance of assessing the inclusion of additional offences such as particular environmental crimes (e.g. ship-source pollu, executing authorities have the option to refuse to execute the EAW if the act on which the EAW is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, but are not obliged to do so; highlights, therefore, that including additional offences), hate crimes, sexual abuse, offences committed through digital means such as identity theft, offences against public order and the constitutional integrity of the Member St in that list is not a priority; stresses the important role of such a limited optional ground for refusal as a ‘safety net’, especially considering that, contrary to traditional extradition treaties, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimthe EAW FD makes no exception for political offences;
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. CRecalls on the Commission to analyse the possibility of reducing the three-year threshold in Article 2(2) of the EAW for certain offences, such as trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children and child pornographythat the three-year threshold in Article 2(2) of the EAW aims to ensure the proportionality of EAW;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to clarify accessory or relatedonsider updating the Handbook, including the indication of Member States that allow surrender for offences punishable by a lower sanction than the threshold set out in Article2(1) when they are accessory to the main offences that meet that threshold; in this regard, recalls that the EAW does not regulate surrender for accessory or related offences and that, therefore, if the executing Member State does not surrender for accessory offences, the rule of speciality might preclude the issuing Member State from prosecuting those offences;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the importance of defining more precisely the duties and competencies of the national authorities and EU bodies involved in EAW procedures and ensuring that they are specialised and have practical experience; affirms that a broadconsiders that the margin of discretion for the executing authority is scarcelyprovided by Art. 4 EAW is compatible with mutual recognition; considers that discretion should be limited in cases of double criminality, since it allows a judicial authority to take a balanced decision limiting a person’s freedom - for example whether the requested person should serve the sentence where he or she resides - and represents a safeguard against automatic recognition; affirms that the improvement of rule of law, fundamental rights, prison conditions, and practitioner’s knowledge of other legal systems, will contribute to strengthening mutual trust and mutual recognition more than the abolishing the executing authorities’ discretion;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to implement the EAW, and alternatives well as other legal instruments on criminal matters in a timely and proper fashion; Stresses that instruments such as the FD on Transfer of Prisoners, the FD on Probation and Alternative Sanctions, the European Investigation Order, the European Supervision Order, the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, both complement the EAW and provide useful and less intrusive alternatives to it; stresses that the EAW should only be used if all other alternative options have been exhausted; Urges MemberStates’ authorities, where possible, to use such instruments instead of issuing an EAW;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the Commission’s worrisome report on the implementation of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in EAW proceedings; calls on, which concludes, inter alia, that ‘The legislation in four Member States does not at all reflect the right of requested persons to appoint a lawyer in the issuing Member State. Some five Member States do not clearly ensure that requested persons receive information about this right without undue delay... The legislation in 10 Member States does not transpose the requirement for the competent authority of the issuing Member State to provide without undue delay the requested persons with information to help them appoint a lawyer there’ (p. 18); urges the Commission to continue to assess Member States’ compliance with the directive and to take appropriate measures, including infringement proceedings, to ensure conformity with its provisions; urges the Commission to step up the efforts to ensure a full implementation of all Directives on procedural safeguards, in order to make sure that requested persons can have recourse to effective defence in cross-border proceedings, which should be free of charge if they have insufficient means; urges the Commission also to bring forward legislation to establish minimum rules on the protection of procedural rights of vulnerable suspects and accused persons in light of the inadequate implementation of the Commission Recommendation of 27 November 2013 on procedural safeguards for vulnerable persons suspected or accused in criminal proceedings, in particular with respect to vulnerable adults;
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to launch a training platform for experts and practitioners on mutual recognition instruments, including the EAW; affirms that it should provide them with knowledge about the close relationship between instruments, including a common space to exchange experiences; Stresses that in order to ensure equality of arms, lawyers should have access to targeted, accessible and affordable training; calls on the Commission to promote and facilitate the provision of such training;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23 a (new)
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Calls on the Commission to facilitate the establishment of a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters and to provide adequate funding to them;
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
Paragraph 24
24. Notes that cooperation between authorities, including compliance on fundamental rights, canmay be improved by using secure technology and digitalisation; welcomes the establishment of the FRA Criminal Detention Database; requests that a centralised database be developed on national EAW application (as with other areas of EU law)28 ; _________________ 28See the EPRS European Implementation Assessment of June 2020 on the EAW.
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
Paragraph 25
25. Calls on the CommissionEmphasises that, should the Commission decide to propose legislative acts to strengthen procedural safeguards, it is essential to conduct wide consultations and to take account of the opinions of national parliaments in line with Protocol 2, as their participation provides a democratic check on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in EU criminal law;
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that although Article 7(1) TEU can affect mutual recognition, according to the CJEUexisting CJEU case law, the executing authority must assess in each specific case whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender, the person will run the risk of having their fundamental rights contravened; undnotes, however, that the CJEU will soon clarify the consequences of systemic and generalines that the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU does not amount to automatic non-sed deficiencies relating to the independence of the issuing Member State’s judiciary, even in the absence of specific concerns related to the requested person’s personal situation (cases C-354/20 PPU andC-412/20 PPU); underlines that Recital 10 of the EAW provides that the implementation of the EAW in one Member State may only be suspended following the Council determination of a serious and persistent breach pursuant to Art. 7(1); stresses, however, that the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU by the Commission or the EP may have an impact on mutual recognition;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 a (new)
Paragraph 27 a (new)
27 a. Highlights that the CJEU has recognised that - although not explicitly provided in the EAW FD - in certain circumstances the EAW should be refused if there is a risk of a requested person’s fundamental rights being violated in the executing country, due to inhumane prison conditions (C-404/15and C-659/15 PPU as regards Art. 4 CFREU) or non- independent judiciaries (C-216/18 PPU as regards Art. 47 CFREU); stresses that the surrender to another Member State may also lead to other types of violations of the right to a fair trial, or to violations of the essence of other fundamental rights, such as the right to health care (Art. 35 CFREU) or the right to education in the case of children subject to EAW proceedings (Art. 14 CFREU); calls on the Member State's executing authority, therefore, to bear in mind the potential violations of all fundamental rights and to verify whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the surrender ‘would be incompatible with the executing State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter’, as expressly provided for by more recent instruments on judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 b (new)
Paragraph 27 b (new)
27 b. Highlights the link between detention conditions and EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article 3 of the ECHR and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried out if such rights are violated; calls on Member States to take particular account of the rights of vulnerable persons and in general to thoroughly examine alternatives to detention;
Amendment 182 #
27 c. In order to ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework, calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention, including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention;
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27 d (new)
Paragraph 27 d (new)
27 d. Calls on Member States to ensure, in accordance with the Charter, the established case-law of the ECJ and the ECtHR, that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission in the application of the EAW has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal;
Amendment 193 #
29. Calls on the Commission to issue supplementing instruments on procedural rights, such as on admissibility and prison conditions in pre-trial detention, matching or surpassing CoEuncil of Europe standards, including time limits on pre-trial detention; states that the Commission should aim for the highest standards;
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission to provide an assessment of ne bis in idem and possible legislative actionconflicts of jurisdiction, with a view to possible legislative actions pursuant to Art. 82(1) TFEU;
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Points out that shortcomings with the EAW can lead to a denial of access to justice and a lack of protection for victims; emphasises that impunity, as a result of deficiencies in judicial cooperation, has a very negative impact on the rule of law, judicial systems and societydeficiencies in judicial cooperation might run counter to the interests of victims;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. States that the EAW is effective; believes, however, that the main issue relates to coherenceeffectiveness is not the only or main criterion to assess an instrument that is used to limit personal freedom;
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to provide for a coherent policy on mutual recognition to avoid different answers to the same issu, which takes into account the CJEU case law, the current level of harmonisation of Member States criminal law and procedure, and the existing risks of fundamental rights violations in several Member States;
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the Commission to conduct a cross-case study of instruments so as to prevent abnormalities, as with the rules on transfer of prisoners and EAWsensure their coordination and correct interplay, for example as regards the rules on transfer of prisoners and EAWs, in order to avoid national authorities issuing EAWs when other instruments could provide a more proportionate and less-intrusive solution;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. States that coherency issues must be addressed bythe identified issues related to the implementation of the EAW FD can be addressed by a combination of practical measures (training of practitioners), soft law (handbooks and recommendations), very targeted legislation (the definition of judicial authority, ne bis in idem, fundamental rights, etc.) and supplementing legislation (pre-trial detention); considers that the Commission should work towards a full and correct implementation of the EAW in all Member States before presenting new legislative proposals aiming at amending the Framework Decision; stresses that the introduction, in national law, of an explicit ground for non- execution based on the violation of fundamental rights cannot be considered as an incorrect transposition of the EAW FD and that, therefore, the Commission should not launch infringement procedures with regard to this specific aspect;
Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Recommends, in the medium term, the promotion of an EU judicial cooperation code in criminal matters to guarantee legal certainty and the coherence of the various extant EU instruments;