Activites

• 2009/11/11 Final act published in Official Journal
• #2969
• 2009/10/23 Council Meeting
• 2009/10/23 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2009/10/23 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 2009/04/02 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T6-0199/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 550 votes to 37, with 35 abstentions, in the context of a renewed consultation, the proposal on the draft Council Framework Decision on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention.The main amendments adopted by the plenary are as follows:Non residents: for the purpose of this Framework Decision, a person is considered as ‘non resident’ when his/her lawful and ordinary residence is fixed in a Member State different from the Member States where the proceeding is going on. The purpose of this is to dissuade competent authorities placing in provisional detention (and before their proceeding has taken place), EU non-residents, because of the risk of absconding.Definitions: a decision on supervision measures may only be taken by a competent judicial authority. The Parliament considers that, like the Commission, one of the most important procedural safeguards is that decisions involving personal freedom should be adopted only by judicial authorities. It deleted the provision allowing Member States to designate non-judicial authorities as competent authorities. It inserted definitions for “competent authority in the issuing State” and “competent authority in the executing State”.Personal data: a new article notes that the processing of personal data must comply with at least the basic principles laid down in Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA and in the Council of Europe Convention nr 108 of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of individuals with regard to Automated Processing of their personal data and the subsequent protocols.Types of supervision measures: the Parliament calls on the Member States to recognize freedom on the basis of a deposit of money as a supervision measure. This specific measure must include an obligation to deposit a certain sum of money or to give another type of security, which may either be provided in a specific number of instalments or in one lump-sum.Right of the suspect to be informed in a language he understands: the Parliament states that any decision relating to supervision measures must be drawn up by the competent authority of the Member State in which the person is legally resident, in a language he understands.Adaptation of the supervision measures: the adapted supervision measure shall be of a technical nature only and shall not of itself impose additional obligations on the person concerned. It shall not be more severe than the supervision measure which was originally imposed.Double criminality: Parliament deleted the provisions on double criminality. It considers that this framework decision aims to apply the least coercive measures to suspects who would otherwise most likely be subject to the application of a prison pre-trial measure. A certain number of other provisions that are related to the deletion of the article on double criminality were deleted from the draft Framework Decision.Surrender of the person: lastly, the Parliament deleted the provision in the draft Framework Decision stating that each Member State should notify the General Secretariat of the Council, when transposing this Framework Decision or at a later stage, that it will also apply Article 2(1) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant in deciding on the surrender of the person concerned to the issuing State. 

• 2009/03/19 Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation
  • A6-0147/2009
• 2009/03/16 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2009/01/08 Formal reconsultation of Parliament
• 2008/12/12 Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published
  • 17002/2008 summary

    At its meeting on 27/28 November 2008, the Justice and Home Affairs Council unanimously reached a general approach on the proposal for a Council Framework Decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union. This general approach introduces a certain number of substantial modifications in the text of the initial proposal as proposed by the Commission on 29 August 2006 (see the summary of the initial proposal), thus requiring a reconsultation of the European Parliament. The new draft Framework Decision introduces, inter alia, the following modifications:(1) the introduction of a draft certificate and a draft form on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (as given in the Annex to the draft Framework Decision): the form aims, in particular, to indicate any breach of a supervision measure, and any other finding which could result in taking any subsequent decision; the certificate, which should be forwarded together with the decision on supervision measures to the competent authority of the executing State, should specify the address where the person concerned will stay in the executing State, as well as any other relevant information which might facilitate the monitoring of the supervision measures in the executing State;(2) the introduction of several new recitals reaffirming that the Framework Decision: (i) aims to enhance protection of the general public, through enabling a person resident in one Member State but subject to criminal proceedings in a second Member State, to be supervised by the authorities in the State in which he or she is resident whilst awaiting trial; (ii) aims to enhance the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence in the European Union and, in this context, to promote, where appropriate, the use of non-custodial measures as an alternative to provisional detention; (iii) respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (iv) respects the relevant provisions of the future Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters;(3) the introduction of provisions on the European arrest warrant: the Framework Decision should cover all crimes and not be restricted to particular types or levels of crime. That is why the majority of the provisions of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant should also apply, in the situation when the competent authority in the executing State has to decide on the surrender of the person concerned. Note that a joint declaration by the Council and by the Commission inserted in the minutes of the Council meeting states that “Article 14(4) does not constitute a precedent for future instruments on judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the European Union” (this paragraph relates to the non-implementation, caused by Member States, of certain provisions of the Framework Decision related to the European Arrest Warrant). At the end of the Council meeting, the DK, IE, FR, NL and SE delegations noted that they still maintain a Parliamentary scrutiny reservation.

  • DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, BARROT Jacques
• #2908
• 2008/11/27 Council Meeting
  • 2908
• #2838
• 2007/12/06 Council Meeting
  • 2838
• 2007/11/29 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T6-0551/2007 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a report drawn up by Ioannis VARVITSIOTIS (EPP-ED, EL) and made some amendments to the proposal on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the EU.  The main amendments are as follows:- the wording regarding the European supervision order is changed slightly to clarify the definition of the residence. It is now described as a judicial decision issued by a competent authority of a Member State in respect of a non-resident suspect for the purpose of the return of that person to the Member State of his current lawful and ordinary residence, or to any other Member State, in cases where the suspect so requests and the Member State concerned has granted its consent;- Article 3 on the Obligation to execute the European Supervision Order is deleted, since it overlapped with Article 9;- a new Article clarifies that the costs incurred in the execution of a European supervision order in the territory of the executing Member State shall be borne by that Member State. All other costs shall be borne by the issuing Member State ;- obstructing the course of justice or engaging in criminal activity shall (rather than “may”) constitute a breach of the European supervision order;- the suspect is obliged to inform the executing authority of any change of his place of residence in the executing State;- Parliament deleted the provision obliging the suspect to surrender his passport(s) or other identification papers to the executing authority;- the suspect will be obliged to avoid contact with specified persons or objects;- the suspect may undergo specified medical treatment, but subject to the suspect's consent.- he may be subject to electronic monitoring;- a new clause states that each Member State shall notify the General Secretariat of the Council, when transposing the Framework Decision, of the obligations, apart from those laid down in paragraphs 1 and 2, that it is prepared to supervise. The General Secretariat of the Council shall make the information received available to all Member States and to the Commission;- at the request of the suspect, the European supervision order shall be transmitted to any other Member State whose competent authority consents to such transmission. The basic principle of this proposal is that the suspect should be given opportunity to return to his/her country of ordinary residence. However, in situations where the suspect has closer links with any other Member State (i.e. of his nationality), the Framework Decision should provide for an opportunity to go to that country; - the issuing authority shall inform the suspect of any postponement of the recognition and execution of the European supervision order;- video links may be used accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 10 of the Convention of 29 May 2000;- if the issuing authority decides that the suspect must be arrested and transferred to the issuing State, it shall issue a European arrest warrant in accordance with the provisions of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002;Parliament deleted Article 20 (time limits for transfer) and Article 21(transit) stating that they shall be regulated by the provisions of the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant;Lastly, a new Chapter was inserted on data protection. Parliament stated that the Framework Decision on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters is not yet adopted. To avoid lacunae and to ensure appropriate protection of data transmitted it is necessary to include a Chapter on Data protection in this Framework Decision. An article was inserted on the rights of the data subject.

• 2007/11/07 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A6-0428/2007
• 2007/11/05 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• #2818
• 2007/09/18 Council Meeting
  • 2818 summary

    The Council debated a proposal for a Framework Decision on the European supervision order, and took note of a progress report in respect of a draft Framework Decision on "probation".These two draft legal instruments aim at reinforcing the application of the principle of mutual recognition in the common area of freedom, security and justice. Both instruments have as their objective to allow persons to comply in their Member State of residence with a non-custodial supervision or probation measure which has been imposed in another Member State.The Commission proposal on the European Supervision Order (ESO) addresses the pre-trial phase. The Franco-German initiative on "probation" addresses the post-trial phase. Whereas a lot of work has already been carried out on this latter initiative - which is reflected in the Progress report – work on the proposal on the ESO has yet not started.The Presidency considered it appropriate to have firstly a policy debate in the Council in respect of this Commission proposal and to revise the text accordingly, before starting the work in the Council preparatory bodies. Following the debate, the Presidency drew the following conclusions:all Member States support the objectives of the Commission proposal. However, many Member States have doubts regarding the way in which the Commission proposal is drafted. They feel that various practical aspects of the proposal should be reconsidered. A clear example of this is the mechanism for returning suspects to the issuing Member State; almost all Member States support the Presidency's view that work on this proposal should be carried forward, but on the basis of a new, completely revised text. Such revision of the text should adhere to the following principles: i) the European Supervision Order should be based on the principle of mutual recognition; ii) specific features of the national systems of criminal justice and criminal procedure as regards the criteria and conditions for issuing a European Supervision Order should be respected as much as possible; iii) however, some limits should be set on the discretion of the issuing Member State so as to make for simple, swift and effective cooperation within Member States; iv) coherence should be ensured with the approach taken in other instruments of mutual-recognition, by establishing flexible rules on cross-border recognition and enforcement of a European Supervision Order. Further consideration should also be given to the mechanism for returning suspects to the issuing Member State. In this context, particular attention should be paid to the solutions used in the draft Framework Decision on "probation"; v) although the Commission proposal for a European Supervision Order is to a certain extent linked the draft Framework Decision on "probation", the work on both instruments should, at least for the time being, be kept separate, as they involve specific technical aspects (relating to the pre-trial and post-trial phase) and are at different stages of the negotiation.On the basis of these principles, the Presidency will make a revision of the text of the proposal, in consultation with Commission services, and will submit the revised text to the Council preparatory bodies.

• 2006/10/12 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2006/08/29 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2006)0468 summary

    PURPOSE: the establishment of a European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between EU Member States.PROPOSED ACT: Council Framework Decision.BACKGROUND:  one of the EU’s most important objectives is to develop an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is guaranteed. In addition, and by virtue of Article 6, of the Treaty on European Union, the EU is committed to applying the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms” (ECHR). This Convention states that everyone has the right to liberty and security and anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. Indeed, the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence are fundamental principles in a democratic society. The ECHR states that, a person suspected of having committed a criminal offence may be deprived of his liberty only in exception circumstances – such as if there is a risk of absconding.Recent studies highlight that non-resident suspects are more frequently kept in pre-trial detention or are subject to a non-custodial supervision measure in a foreign country, for fear of absconding. Typically, a foreign suspect will be in a more vulnerable position than a person who normally is resident in the country. Firstly, they are cut off from family and friends and secondly, there is a clear risk that a non-resident suspect in such a situation could lose his or her job through travel restrictions. Non-resident suspects are susceptible to receiving unequal treatment between the two categories, which can also be seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons. Nonetheless, keeping suspects in pre-trial detention has an important cost implication. Further, it can lead to prison overcrowding and can seriously undermine improved detention conditions.The purpose of this proposed Decision, therefore, is to reinforce the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence in the EU and to promote equal treatment of all citizens in the common area of freedom, security and justice.CONTENT: the mandate for presenting this proposal is indicated in the “Programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters”, which was agreed to in 2000. In addition, the Tampere European Council in 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition as the cornerstone of judicial co-operation in both civil and criminal matters. This should also apply to pre-trial orders. This proposal should be seen in connection with another Commission proposal for a Framework Decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the EU and which contains provisions, amongst others, on the right to legal advice and interpretation. For a summary of this proposal, refer to: CNS/2004/0113.As far as existing provisions are concerned, there are no international instrument that specifically allow the transfer of pre-trial supervision measures from one Member State to another. The introduction of a mutual recognition scheme for pre-trial supervision measures at EU level must therefore be considered in light of the legal framework that governs pre-trial detention in general.Concretely speaking, the proposed European supervision order will be issued by a judicial authority in one Member States and that it must then be recognised by a competent authority in another Member State. Judicial authorities will not be obliged to issue a European supervisions order. It “may” do so. A suspect will have no right to it. If issued, a suspect will have to follow one or more obligation in order to reduce the three classical dangers associated with pre-trial detention under national law – i.e. the danger of suppressing evidence; the danger of re-offending and the danger of absconding. The proposed obligations correspond, largely, to recommendations of the Council of Europe on custody pending trial. The obligations that may be imposed by the issuing authority are all optional,  other than the following two:the obligation on the suspect to make him/herself available for the purpose of receiving summons for his or her trial;the obligation not to obstruct the course of justice or engage in criminal activity.The other “optional” obligations refer to travel prohibition, reporting, to the policy, curfew and house arrest.The Member State of normal residence will be responsible for the supervision of the suspect and will be obliged to report any breaches to the issuing judicial authority. Strict time limits apply. Before a decision is taken, the suspect has the right to be heard by the issuing authority. This may be done through the use of video links between the issuing and the executing States. The transfer procedure will need to be proportionate to the aim of the proposal.On a final point, the proposal entails no additional operational expenditure to be charged to the budgets of the Member States or to the budget of the European Union.

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

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2006)0468
• Debate in Council: 2818
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0428/2007
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0551/2007
• Debate in Council: 2838
• Debate in Council: 2908
• Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published: 17002/2008
• Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation: A6-0147/2009
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T6-0199/2009

History

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