Activities of Baroness Sarah LUDFORD related to 2008/0803(CNS)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Judicial Network - Strengthening of Eurojust and amendment of Decision 2002/187/JHA - Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters (debate)
Amendments (6)
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 6
Recital 6
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 6 a (new)
Recital 6 a (new)
(6a) The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused if, on the basis the information provided by the issuing State, it can be satisfactorily established that the defendant was summoned in person, or by other means actually received official information of the scheduled date and place of the trial. In this context it is understood that the person should have received such information in good time, i. e. sufficiently in advance to allow him or her to participate in the trial and to effectively exercise his/her right of defence. All information should be provided in a language which the defendant understands.
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7a) The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused where the defendant, having been duly informed of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor of his/her own choice, to whom he/she had given a written mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Recital 7 a (new)
Recital 7 a (new)
(7b) At a retrial following a conviction in absentia, the defendant should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time. Therefore the person concerned shall have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, shall be (re)examined, the retrial could result in the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 2 – point 2
Article 2 – point 2
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Article 4a
Article 4a
The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered in absentia, unless, on the European arrest warrant states that the person: (a) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, ofbasis of the information provided by the issuing judicial authority, it can be satisfactorily established that the person: (a) in due time, and in a language which he/she understood, (i) was summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the hearingtrial which lresulted toin the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such, in such a manner that it may be unequivocally established that he/she was aware of the trial, and (ii) was personally informed, in writing and by an official authority, that a decision maycould be handed down in case the person does not appear forf he/she did not appear at the trial, or (b) having been personally summoned or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial, had given a written mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him/her at the trial; , or (bc) after being personally served with the decision renderand being expressly informed, in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trialwriting, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision: (i) expressly stated that he or /she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia; or (ii) did not request a retrial or appeal in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […]H days; or (ca) was not personally served with the decision rendered in absentia but: (i) will be served with it at the latest on the fifth day afterbefore the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and (ii) will havein a language which he/she understands about the right to a retrial, in which he/she has the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, the retrial can lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she can appeal against the new decision and (ii) will be informed that he/she has at least […]H...]¹ days to request such a retrial.";
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act
Article 2 – point 4
Article 2 – point 4
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Annex – box d
Annex – box d
(d) Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia: 1. No, it was not 2. Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed: …………………………………………… Describe how the person was informed: …………………………………………… OR 2.2 the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia: …………………………………………… OR 2.3 the person was entitled to a retrial under the following conditions: with the decision rendered in absentia on ……………. (day/month/year); and – the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and – after being informed of this right, the person had …. days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period. OR 2.3.2 the person was not served with the decision rendered in absentia, and – the person will be served with the decision rendered in absentia within … days after the surrender; and – when served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and – after being served with the decision rendered in absentia, the person will have … days to request a retrialperson appeared in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision: 1. Yes, the person appeared in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision. 2. No, the person did not appear in person at the proceedings resulting in the decision. 2.1 If you answered “no” to the above question, please indicate if: 2.1 the person was summoned in person 2.1.1 the person was summoned in person or by other means actually received official information, in a language which he/she understood, of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled trial and was personally informed, in writing and by an official authority, that a decision may be handed down if he/she does not appear for the trial Time and place when and where the person was summoned or personally received the official information by other means: .................................................................. Language in which the information was delivered ................................................................. Describe how the person was informed and attach documentary evidence: .................................................................. OR 2.1.2 having been personally summoned or having actually received official information by other means, in a language he/she understood, of the scheduled date and place of the trial, the defendant had given a written mandate to a legal counsellor to defend him/her at the trial, and did in fact receive practical and effective legal assistance and representation; Provide information on how this condition has been met: ..................................................................... OR 2.1.3 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in writing, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the proceedings may lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision, and attach documentary evidence: ..................................................................... OR 2.1.4 the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in writing, by an official authority and in a language which he/she understood, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, did not request a retrial within the applicable timeframe, i.e. at least […]>¹ days OR 2.3.1 the person was personally served 2.1.5 the person, was not personally served with the decision and was not expressly informed of the right to a retrial, in which he/she would have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision, and – the person will be personally served with this decision before the surrender; and – when served with this decision, the person will be expressly informed, in writing and by an official authority, about the right to a retrial, in which he/she will have the right to be present, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, the retrial may lead to the original decision being quashed and he/she may appeal against the new decision; and – after being served with the decision, the person will have the right to request a retrial within the applicable timeframe, which is of at least […]>¹ days. The above information will be provided to the person in a language which he/she understands, and evidence of the delivery of this information will be given by the issuing authority to the executing authority prior to the surrender. ¹ Period to be provided.