Activities of Timothy KIRKHOPE related to 2013/2109(INL)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant PDF (188 KB) DOC (88 KB)
Amendments (11)
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the introduction of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constituwas createsd the cornerstone of mutual recognitiono increase the speed and heas been very successful in speeding up surrendere of extradition throughout EU countries compared to traditional extradition procedures among Member Statesby creating a judiciary based system; the Framework Decision has in most part been successful in achieving this, and now constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant system was intended to increase the speed and ease of extradition throughout EU countries, and has in most part been successful in achieving this;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting largely from poorinconsistent implementation, but others shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice and a lack of proportionality in its application;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii a (new)
Recital C – point iii a (new)
(iiia) Judicial decisions not to execute European Arrest Warrants not always being respected and leading to repeated arrests and hearings in other EU countries;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point vii
Recital C – point vii
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point ix a (new)
Recital C – point ix a (new)
(ixa) A lack of legal representation being provided for those persons sought under a European Arrest Warrant in the issuing Member State as well as the executing Member State;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that as theexisting problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address botharising from European extradition measures are a consequence of inconsistent and disproportionate implementation of both Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other European criminal justice instruments, which requires that the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA be reviewed and reformed;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point a a (new)
(aa) A clear and consistent application by all Member States of EU legislation regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the European Arrest Warrant; including the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest; and the right to information in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point b
Paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on the seriousness of the offence and the availability of another appropriate less intrusive alternative measures;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9