Activites

• 2008/12/05 Final act published in Official Journal
• #2908
• 2008/11/27 Council Meeting
• 2008/11/27 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2008/11/27 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 2007/10/25 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T6-0476/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Ioannis VARVITSIOTIS (EPP-ED, EL), and approved the draft Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgements in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU. It made one amendment: a new recital states that procedural rights in criminal proceedings are a crucial element for ensuring mutual confidence among the Member States in judicial cooperation, and despite the efforts of the German Presidency, no agreement has thus far been reached following the presentation of a draft framework decision on procedural rights by the Commission, backed by the European Parliament at first reading. 

• 2007/10/24 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2007/10/08 Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation
  • A6-0362/2007
• 2007/10/03 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2007/07/03 Formal reconsultation of Parliament
• 2007/05/22 Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published
  • 09688/2007 summary

    At its meeting on 15 February 2007 the Justice and Home Affairs Council reached an agreement on a general approach on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union.The Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters and the JHA Counsellors further examined the proposal and finalised the work on the certificate annexed to it, as well as the form for the notification of the person.The European Parliament is now being reconsulted on the final text resulting from these discussions.A Council declaration is introduced in relation to the rehabilitation purpose of this Framework Decision: it underlines that the successful rehabilitation of the sentenced person in a State with which he or she has the closest links is the fundamental purpose of this Framework Decision. It underlines that this purpose should be a factor of primary importance for the issuing State each time the decision on the need of the forwarding of the judgment and the certificate to the executing state is being made.The text of the proposal is subject to parliamentary reservations entered by DK/IE/NL/UK/SE.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, FRATTINI Franco
• #2781
• 2007/02/15 Council Meeting
  • 2781 summary

    The Council agreed on a general approach concerning a draft Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU.The agreement reached on this instrument will allow the transfer of sentenced persons to another Member State for the purpose of enforcement of the sentence imposed, taking into account the possibility of social rehabilitation of the sentenced person.The Council recognised that Poland needed more time than the other Member States to face the practical and material consequences of transfer of Polish citizens convicted in other Member States, especially in the light of an increased mobility of Polish citizens within the European Union. For that reason, Poland was granted a temporary derogation of limited scope for a maximum period of 5 years.All Member States have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983. Under that Convention, sentenced persons may be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence only to their State of nationality, and only with their consent and that of the States involved. The Additional Protocol to the Convention of 18 December 1997, which allows transfer without the person's consent, subject to certain conditions, has not been ratified by all the Member States. Neither instrument imposes any basic duty to take charge of sentenced persons for enforcement of a sentence or order.Relations between the Member States, which are characterised by special mutual confidence in other Member States' legal systems, enable recognition by the executing State of decisions taken by the issuing State's authorities. Therefore, this legal instrument envisages further development of the cooperation provided for in the Council of Europe instruments concerning the enforcement of criminal judgments, in particular where EU nationals or other persons legally residing in one Member State have been the subject of a criminal judgment and have been sentenced to a custodial sentence or a measure involving deprivation of liberty in another Member State. Enforcement of the sentence in the executing Member State enhances the possibility of social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, giving him or her the opportunity to maintain family, linguistic, cultural and other links.

• #2768
• 2006/12/04 Council Meeting
  • 2768
• #2752
• 2006/10/05 Council Meeting
  • 2752 summary

    The Council examined certain outstanding questions in connection with this legal instrument/§         the ground for refusal in relation to social rehabilitation;§         the inclusion of third country nationals in the scope of the instrument.Regarding social rehabilitation, a large majority of delegations favoured the approach by the Presidency which consisted of providing for an obligation for the issuing State to forward a judgment only if this could facilitate the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, rather than to provide for a ground for refusal for the executing State.Concerning third country nationals, it was generally agreed that they should be included in the scope of the instrument. However, it was recognised that the proposal involved a differentiation between Union citizens and third country nationals. The Presidency proposed to introduce a recital on the issue of third country nationals.The Council mandated its preparatory bodies to carry out work on this draft Framework Decision with a view to reaching an agreement in December 2006.

• 2006/06/14 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0256/2006 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Ioannis VARVITSIOTIS (EPP-ED, EL) and made some amendments to the proposed initiative. The resolution was adopted by 484 votes to 53 against with 9 abstentions.  Parliament proposed several amendments, particularly with regard to transfer deadlines and prisoners’ rights. The main amendments are as follows:- in order to reflect two essential aspects of the document produced by the Council's working party, i.e. the mutual recognition and the enforcement of custodial sentences, the title should be amended to "Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union". MEPs argued that the recognition and enforcement should take place not on the basis of a 'European enforcement order' but rather on the basis of the judgment and a certificate. A series of amendments sought to reflect these changes in the body of the text;- on the question of whether or not the sentenced person should give consent for the transfer, the committee amended the wording of recital 5 which had said that Member States had "a basic duty" to take charge of nationals or residents sentenced in another country, "irrespective of their consent, unless there are specific reasons for refusal". The amendment stipulated that, "notwithstanding the necessity of providing the sentenced person with adequate safeguards, his or her involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant by requiring his or her consent" for demanding the transfer;- a judgment, together with a certificate as provided, may be forwarded to one of the prescribed list of Member States; Parliament deleted a clause that allowed transfers to be refused if the prisoner is neither a national, permanent resident or ‘has ‘close links to’ the country to which they are being sent.- the judgment forwarded to the Member State to which the sentenced person would be transferred may include data in any form concerning that person's prison record;- a series of amendments were designed to ensure that the receiving Member state can refuse the transfer if the necessary requisites are not met;- the final decision on the recognition of the judgment and the enforcement of the sentence should be taken within 30 days (or, in some cases, within 60 days) of receipt of the judgment and the certificate (rather than 3 weeks as originally proposed); - an amnesty or pardon may be granted by the state issuing the sentence only in consultation with the receiving state;- the victims of the crime shall also be informed of the existence of an application for recognition and transfer of the enforcement of the sentence, and of the outcome of the procedure, including the order to transfer the sentenced person from the issuing State to the executing State;- transfers should only be possible if the prisoner has at least six months of their sentence still to serve, not four months as proposed;- Member States through which the prisoner must transit en route to the state of destination should be merely “informed” of the transfer, rather than having to request their permission to transit;- Finally, the certificate, the standard form of which is set out in the Annex, must be translated into the official language, or one of the official languages, of the executing State.

• 2006/06/13 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• #2732
• 2006/06/01 Council Meeting
  • 2732 summary

    The Council examined two questions relating to a proposal for a Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union:the consent of the sentenced person, andthe consent of the executing State to the forwarding of the judgement.The main aim of this draft Framework Decision is to establish cases where the consent of the executing State is not necessary and to limit the need for the consent of the person concerned. Without prejudice to observations by some delegations on specific points, a large majority of delegations broadly agreed on the following principles:as far as the consent of the sentenced person is concerned, consent is needed for transferring the person to a Member State other than the Member State in which the person has his or her permanent legal residence. This would also apply where the intention is to transfer the person to his or her State of nationality in the case where the person has his or her legal residence in another Member State.regarding the consent of the executing State, it would not be needed where the judgment together with the certificate is forwarded to:a)      the State of nationality of the sentenced person where he or she lives/resides,b)      the State of nationality or the State of permanent legal residence of the sentenced person to which he or she would anyway be deported/expelled as a consequence of the judgment after having served the sentence,c)      the State of permanent legal residence of the sentenced person unless he or she has lost or will loose his or her residence permit as a consequence of the judgment.On this basis, the Council preparatory bodies will continue work on the text of the Framework Decision, in particular regarding the definition of residence, with a view to reaching an agreement as soon as possible.On 24 January 2005 Austria, Finland and Sweden submitted this proposal with a view to establishing the rules under which a Member State recognises and enforces on its territory a sanction imposed by a court of another Member State irrespective of whether or not enforcement has already been started.Under the existing arrangements (the 1983 Convention on transfer of sentenced persons and its 1997 Protocol and Articles 67-69 of the Schengen Convention), the consent of the State asked to enforce the sentence is always needed. The consent of the sentenced person is also necessary, except in two cases: where the sentenced person has fled to his or her State of nationality or where the sentenced person will be deported to that State as a consequence of the conviction after having served his or her sentence.

• 2006/05/17 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0187/2006
• 2006/05/15 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• #2725
• 2006/04/27 Council Meeting
  • 2725 summary

    The Council instructed its preparatory bodies to further examine this proposal on the following basis: as a starting point, a derogation from double criminality for 32 offences as in the original proposal will apply. However, Member States may opt out of this principle. The working party will examine whether the possibility to opt out should be absolute or limited, or only be made for specified reasons (e.g. where the derogation from double criminality would be against fundamental principles of law of the executing State or could aggravate the situation for the sentenced person).On 24 January 2005 Austria, Finland and Sweden submitted a proposal for a Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union.The purpose is to establish the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and enforce on its territory a sanction imposed by a court of another Member State irrespective of whether or not enforcement has already been started.The original proposal provided for a derogation from double criminality for 32 offences corresponding to the derogation found in previous instruments on mutual recognition (e.g. the European Arrest Warrant).

• 2005/05/26 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2005/04/12 Legislative proposal published
  • 07307/2005 summary

    PURPOSE : to simplify and make more rapid the existing arrangements for the transfer of prisoners between EU Member States.PROPOSED ACT : Council Framework Decision.CONTENT : the draft Framework Decision, which has been proposed by Austria, Finland and Sweden, is intended to simplify and make more rapid the existing arrangements for the transfer of prisoners between EU Member States, whether under the 1983 Council of Europe Convention or the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Member States would be permitted to continue to apply existing bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements in force at the time of adoption of the Framework Decision, but only insofar as they allow the objectives of the Framework Decision to be extended or enlarged and help to simplify or facilitate further the procedures for the enforcement of sanctions. The main elements of the proposal are:- a duty on the executing State to allow nationals, permanent residents and persons with other close links to serve their custodial sentences or detention orders on the territory of that State, Subject to certain grounds for refusal;- waiver of the double criminality requirement with regard to convictions for certain offences on a list corresponding to that contained in the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, OJ L 190 of 18 July 2002;- if the sentenced person is in the issuing State, he shall, if possible, be given an opportunity to state his opinion orally or in writing before a European enforcement order is issued;- the consent of the sentenced person is not required when he is a national of the executing State or when he has his permanent legal residence in that State;- recognition of the foreign final custodial sentence or detention order and its execution on the basis of a form (so-called European enforcement order);- time-limits for the decision on the European enforcement order and for the transfer of the sentenced person to the executing State;- enforcement of the final custodial sentence or detention order imposed by the sentencing State without conversion proceedings;- the duration of the sentence may be adapted to the maximum level provided for a criminal act under the national law of the executing State only where the sanction is incompatible with fundamental principles of the law of the executing State;- the nature of the sentence may, if it is incompatible with the law of the executing State, be adapted to the punishment or measure provided for under the national law of the executing State for a criminal offence of the same type.Some provisions in the proposal also apply to the enforcement of sanctions imposed on nationals of the executing State or on persons resident therein who were surrendered to the issuing State, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant, subject to thecondition that they be returned to the executing State in order to serve the sanction. The same applies where the executing Member State undertakes, pursuant to Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision, to execute the sanction on which the European arrest warrant is based. These sets of circumstances are currently unregulated.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, FRATTINI Franco

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: 07307/2005
• Debate in Council: 2725
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0187/2006
• Debate in Council: 2732
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0256/2006
• Debate in Council: 2752
• Debate in Council: 2768
• Debate in Council: 2781
• Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published: 09688/2007
• Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation: A6-0362/2007
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0476/2007

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)