Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE |
FRANÇA Armando ( PSE)
|
|
| Committee Opinion | JURI |
GILL Neena ( PSE)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
Treaty on the European Union (after Amsterdam) M 031-p1-aa, Treaty on the European Union (after Amsterdam) M 034-p2b
Legal Basis:
Treaty on the European Union (after Amsterdam) M 031-p1-aa, Treaty on the European Union (after Amsterdam) M 034-p2bEvents
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States; Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties ; Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders ; Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 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; Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions.
However, these different texts do not deal consistently with the issue of decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial ("in absentia"), which results in a certain degree of legal uncertainty as well as delays in implementing judicial decisions. This diversity complicates the work of the practitioner and hampers judicial cooperation.
In order to address these problems, this Framework Decision amends the existing instruments so as to establish precise and consistent grounds for non-recognition by the State of execution of decisions rendered in absentia. Therefore, the recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person should not be refused if:
(a) either he or she was summoned in person and thereby informed of the scheduled date and place of the trial which resulted in the decision, or if he or she actually received, by other means, official information of the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the scheduled trial. The person should have received such information ‘in due time', meaning sufficiently in time to allow him or her to participate in the trial and to effectively exercise his or her right of defence;
(b) the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he or she had given a mandate to do so, ensuring that legal assistance is practical and effective (it should not matter whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or whether this legal counsellor was appointed and paid by the State);
(c) the person concerned was aware of his or her right to a retrial or an appeal , enabling his or her case to be re-examined, taking account of fresh evidence and providing the possibility for the original decision to be reversed.
The amending provisions are designed to set the conditions under which the recognition and execution of a decision rendered in absentia cannot be refused. They are not designed to regulate the forms and methods, including procedural requirements, that are used to achieve the results specified in this Framework Decision (which are a matter for the national laws of the Member States). Technically, the issuing authority (at the origin of the judicial decision) shall complete the document that assures mutual recognition of a judicial decision (the corresponding document of the European arrest warrant or of the relevant certificate under the other Framework Decisions) to indicate to the executing authority that the requirements for the execution of a judicial decision have been met - or will be met -, even if the person concerned was not present at the trial.
Review : by 28 March 2014, the Commission shall draw up a report on the basis of the information received from the Member States. On the basis of the report, the Council shall assess the extent to which Member States have taken the necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision and the application of this Framework Decision. The report shall be accompanied, where necessary, by legislative proposals.
Territorial application : this Framework Decision shall apply to Gibraltar.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: this Framework Decision shall enter into force on 28/03/2009.
TRANSPOSITION BY THE MEMBER STATES: 28/03/2011. However, if a Member State has declared, on the adoption of this Framework Decision, to have serious reasons to assume that it will not be able to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision by this date, this Framework Decision shall apply as from 1 January 2014 at the latest.
The European Parliament adopted by 609 votes to 60, with 14 abstentions, the initiative of several Member States to amend a series of Framework Decisions (2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters) for the purpose of the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia.
The report had been tabled for consideration in plenary by Armando FRANÇA (PES, PT) on behalf of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.
Above all, the legislative resolution calls on both the Council and the Commission to give priority to dealing with any future proposal to amend this text by urgent procedure, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty and once this treaty enters into force.
In concrete, the Parliament strengthened the ‘rights of persons judged in absentia’ section of the initiative by proposing a series of procedural safeguards. It also sought to eliminate the different approaches towards ‘grounds for non-recognition’.
The main amendments can be summarised as follows (note that the same framework of amendments is envisaged for each of the amended Framework Decisions):
Overall objective and amendment to the title : to ensure comprehension of the text, the Parliament specified the overall objective of the Framework Decision, which is to strengthen citizens' rights by promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person. It also added a text to the list of those already established by the initiative: Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences (see CNS/2007/0807 ).
Procedural safeguards : the Parliament asks that adequate procedural guarantees be established to ensure the recognition of judgments in criminal matters. It recalls, in this respect, that a Framework Decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings is essential. In the meantime, the Parliament considers it necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal of the execution of the decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person as well as the discretion left to the executing authority. The Parliament clearly specifies these common grounds for refusal and establishes a series of new provisions to complete, on a strictly technical level, either the relevant section of the European arrest warrant or the certificate in the annex to the other Framework Decisions, so that the issuing authority gives an assurance that the requirements have been or will be met.
Recognition and execution of decisions : the Parliament considers that 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 of the information provided by the issuing State, it is 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; where the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he/she had given an explicit mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective. In this context, it should be immaterial whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, it being understood that the person concerned would have chosen to be represented by a legal counsellor instead of appearing him- or herself at the trial.
Grounds for non-recognition of a decision : the Parliament considers that the common solutions on grounds for non-recognition should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to the right of the person concerned to a retrial or to an appeal . Such a retrial, which aims to safeguard the rights of the defence, is characterised by the following elements: the person concerned has the right to participate in the retrial; the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, and the proceedings may result in the original decision being quashed.
Defence of the rights of persons judged in absentia : the Parliament considers that at a retrial following a conviction resulting from a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, the defendant should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time . Therefore the person concerned should have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, should be (re)examined, the retrial could result in the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.
Technical amendments : in addition to the above amendments that cover the texts of each of the Framework Decisions, technical amendments specific to each Framework Decision are set out by the Parliament. In terms of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant , the Parliament specifies the procedure to follow to inform a person concerned by a European arrest warrant but who has not been ‘officially’ informed. In this case, this person may request a copy of the judgment before being surrendered to the competent authority. If the judgment is rendered in a language which the person concerned does not understand, the issuing judicial authority shall provide an extract of the judgment in a language which the person concerned understands. In this case, the provision of the judgment or an extract of the judgment to the person concerned shall be for information purposes only; it shall not be construed as constituting formal service of the judgment nor shall it activate any time-limits applicable for requesting a retrial or appeal. Other similar amendments were made to the annexes of the different Framework Decisions concerned.
The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Armando FRANÇA (PES, PT) on the initiative of several Member States to amend a series of Framework Decisions (2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant, 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters) for the purpose of the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia, calling on – in its draft resolution – both the Council and the Commission to give priority to dealing with any future proposal to amend this text by urgent procedure, as set out in the Lisbon Treaty.
In concrete, MEPs intended, above all, to strengthen the rights of persons judged in absentia by proposing a series of procedural safeguards as well as to facilitate the application of the principle of mutual recognition by eliminating the different approaches towards ‘grounds for non-recognition’. The same framework of amendment is envisaged for each of the amended Framework Decisions.
These amendments, approved under the consultation procedure, can be summarised as follows:
Overall objective and amendment to the title : to ensure comprehension of the text, MEPs specified the overall objective of the Framework Decision, which is to strengthen citizens' rights by promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person. They also added a text to the list of those already established by the initiative: Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences (see CNS/2007/0807 ).
Procedural safeguards : MEPs ask that procedural guarantees be established to ensure the recognition of judgments in criminal matters. They recall, in this respect, that a Framework Decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings is essential. In the meantime, MEPs consider it necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal of the execution of the decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person as well as the discretion left to the executing authority. MEPs therefore clearly specify these common grounds for refusal and establish a series of new provisions to complete the relevant section of the European arrest warrant or of the relevant certificate under the other Framework Decisions so that the issuing authority gives an assurance that the requirements have been or will be met.
Recognition and execution of decisions : MEPs consider that 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 of the information provided by the issuing State, it is 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; where the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he/she had given an explicit mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective. In this context, it should be immaterial whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, it being understood that the person concerned would have chosen to be represented by a legal counsellor instead of appearing him- or herself at the trial.
Grounds for non-recognition of a decision : MEPs consider that the common solutions on grounds for non-recognition should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to the right of the person concerned to a retrial or to an appeal . Such a retrial, which aims to safeguard the rights of the defence, is characterised by the following elements: the person concerned has the right to participate in the retrial; the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, and the proceedings may result in the original decision being quashed.
Defence of the rights of persons judged in absentia : MEPs consider that at a retrial following a conviction resulting from a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, the defendant should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time . Therefore the person concerned should have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, should be (re)examined, the retrial could result in the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.
Technical amendments : in addition to the above amendments and echoing the texts of the Framework Decisions, technical amendments specific to each Framework Decision are set out by MEPs. In terms of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant , MEPs specify the procedure to follow to inform a person concerned by a European arrest warrant but who has not been ‘officially’ informed. In this case, this person may request a copy of the judgment before being surrendered to the competent authority. If the judgment is rendered in a language which the person concerned does not understand, the issuing judicial authority shall provide an extract of the judgment in a language which the person concerned understands. In this case, the provision of the judgment or an extract of the judgment to the person concerned shall be for information purposes only; it shall not be construed as constituting formal service of the judgment nor shall it activate any time-limits applicable for requesting a retrial or appeal. Other similar amendments were made to the annexes of the different Framework Decisions concerned.
PURPOSE: initiative of Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and Germany on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending related legislation.
PROPOSED ACT: Council Framework Decision.
BACKGROUND: the aim of this proposal is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following proceedings where the person was not present, according to the provisions laid down in the following:
1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (see CNS/2001/0215 ) ;
2) Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (see CNS/2001/0825 );
3) Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (see CNS/2002/0816 ) ;
4) Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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 (not yet adopted, see CNS/2005/0805 ).
The reason for this initiative is that the various Framework Decisions implementing the principle of mutual recognition of final judicial decisions do not deal consistently with the issue of decisions rendered in absentia. This diversity complicates the work of the practitioner and hampers judicial cooperation.
Solutions provided by these Framework Decisions are not satisfactory as regards cases where the person could not be informed of the proceedings. Framework Decisions 2005/214/JHA and 2006/783/JHA allow the executing authority to refuse the execution of such judgments.
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA allows the executing authority to require the issuing authority to give an assurance deemed adequate to guarantee the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant that he or she will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case in the issuing Member State and to be present at the judgment. The adequacy of such guarantee is a matter to be decided by the executing authority and it is therefore difficult to know exactly when execution may be refused.
Accordingly, it is deemed necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal and the discretion left to the executing authority.
CONTENT:
Grounds for refusal : the proposed Framework Decision is limited to the definition of grounds for refusal in instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition. Therefore, provisions such as the definition of the concept of decision rendered in absentia or rules on the right to a retrial have a scope which is limited to the definition of these grounds for refusal. They are not designed to harmonise national legislation.
The main amendments are as follows:
- the definition of a “decision rendered in absentia” which shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision;
- executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant;
- 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 the European arrest warrant conforms to specified conditions;
- the pro forma doe the European arrested warrant is amended;
- amendments are also proposed to Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA with regard to the provisions on certificates, and to the standard form of the certificates on service and confiscation orders;
- implementation will be 18 months after entry into force.
It should be noted that this Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.
PURPOSE: initiative of Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and Germany on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending related legislation.
PROPOSED ACT: Council Framework Decision.
BACKGROUND: the aim of this proposal is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following proceedings where the person was not present, according to the provisions laid down in the following:
1) Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (see CNS/2001/0215 ) ;
2) Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (see CNS/2001/0825 );
3) Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders (see CNS/2002/0816 ) ;
4) Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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 (not yet adopted, see CNS/2005/0805 ).
The reason for this initiative is that the various Framework Decisions implementing the principle of mutual recognition of final judicial decisions do not deal consistently with the issue of decisions rendered in absentia. This diversity complicates the work of the practitioner and hampers judicial cooperation.
Solutions provided by these Framework Decisions are not satisfactory as regards cases where the person could not be informed of the proceedings. Framework Decisions 2005/214/JHA and 2006/783/JHA allow the executing authority to refuse the execution of such judgments.
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA allows the executing authority to require the issuing authority to give an assurance deemed adequate to guarantee the person who is the subject of the European arrest warrant that he or she will have an opportunity to apply for a retrial of the case in the issuing Member State and to be present at the judgment. The adequacy of such guarantee is a matter to be decided by the executing authority and it is therefore difficult to know exactly when execution may be refused.
Accordingly, it is deemed necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal and the discretion left to the executing authority.
CONTENT:
Grounds for refusal : the proposed Framework Decision is limited to the definition of grounds for refusal in instruments implementing the principle of mutual recognition. Therefore, provisions such as the definition of the concept of decision rendered in absentia or rules on the right to a retrial have a scope which is limited to the definition of these grounds for refusal. They are not designed to harmonise national legislation.
The main amendments are as follows:
- the definition of a “decision rendered in absentia” which shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision;
- executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the European arrest warrant;
- 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 the European arrest warrant conforms to specified conditions;
- the pro forma doe the European arrested warrant is amended;
- amendments are also proposed to Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA with regard to the provisions on certificates, and to the standard form of the certificates on service and confiscation orders;
- implementation will be 18 months after entry into force.
It should be noted that this Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.
Documents
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2008)6073
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T6-0381/2008
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0285/2008
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0285/2008
- Debate in Council: 2783
- Committee opinion: PE404.601
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE405.951
- Debate in Council: 2863
- Committee draft report: PE404.491
- Legislative proposal: 05598/2008
- Legislative proposal published: 05598/2008
- Legislative proposal: 05598/2008
- Committee draft report: PE404.491
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE405.951
- Committee opinion: PE404.601
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A6-0285/2008
- Commission response to text adopted in plenary: SP(2008)6073
Activities
- Armando FRANÇA
Plenary Speeches (3)
- 2016/11/22 Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters (A6-0285/2008, Armando França) (vote)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- Kathalijne Maria BUITENWEG
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- Renate WEBER
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- 2016/11/22 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)
- Jim ALLISTER
- Gerard BATTEN
- Philip BRADBOURN
- Mihael BREJC
- Carlo CASINI
- Panayiotis DEMETRIOU
- Jean-Paul GAUZÈS
- Sylvia-Yvonne KAUFMANN
- Baroness Sarah LUDFORD
- Athanasios PAFILIS
- Nicolae Vlad POPA
- Martine ROURE
- Manuel dos SANTOS
- Daciana Octavia SÂRBU
- Jacques TOUBON
Votes
Rapport França A6-0285/2008 - résolution #
PPE-DE
ALDE
Verts/ALE
UEN
GUE/NGL
IND/DEM
NI| Amendments | Dossier |
| 28 |
2008/0803(CNS)
2008/05/08
LIBE
28 amendments...
Amendment 40 #
Draft legislative resolution Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Recital 1 a (new) (1a) It is necessary to strengthen mutual trust in the European area of freedom, security and justice in criminal matters by means of measures at European level designed to ensure greater harmonisation and mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and by adopting some European provisions and practices in criminal matters.
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Recital 1 a (new) (1a) The framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings (still pending in the Council) is a prerequisite for the good functioning of this framework decision; the adoption of the framework decision on procedural rights is a matter of urgency for the implementation of the area of freedom, security and justice.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Recital 4 (4) It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal of the execution of a decision rendered in absentia and the discretion left to the executing authority.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Recital 6 Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Recital 6 (6) Common solutions on grounds for refusal in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to the right to informing the
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act 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) (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) (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 49 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 1 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 1 – paragraph 4 4. For the purpose of this Framework Decision, "decision rendered in absentia" shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the court proceedings resulting in that decision.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a – point a (a) was summoned in person or duly informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative or other means and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a – point a (a) was directly summoned in person or
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a – point a a (new) (aa) being aware of the scheduled trial, had given a mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was paid by the State, and was represented by that counsellor during the trial; or
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a – point c – point i (i) will be personally served with it
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a – point c – point ii (ii) will have
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 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
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex – box d – point 2.3.2 – indent 1 – the person will be personally served with the decision rendered in absentia within ... days after the surrender; and
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex – box d – point 2.3.2 –indent 1 – the person will be
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 2 – point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex – box d (d) Indicate if the
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 3 – point 1 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 1 – point e (e) "Decision rendered in absentia" shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the court proceedings resulting in that decision.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 3 – point 2 - subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7(2) – point i – subpoint i (i) was summoned in person or duly informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative or other mean
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 3 – point 2 – subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7(2) – point i – subpoint iii (iii) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being duly informed about the right to a retrial
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 4 – point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8(2) – point e – subpoint i (i) was summoned in person or duly informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative or other means 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; or
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 4 – point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8(2) – point e – subpoint ii - did not request a retrial or appeal in the applicable timeframe
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 5 – point 2 Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA Article 9(1) – point f (f) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered in absentia, unless the certificate states that, in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State, the person:
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 5 – point 2 Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA Article 9(1) – point f – subpoint i (i) was summoned in person or duly informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative or other means 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; or
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 5 – point 3 Framework Decision 2008/.../JHA Annex – box k – point 1– subpoint b.1 – first paragraph b.1 the person was summoned in person or duly informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative or other means 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
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a decision – amending act Article 5 a (new) source: PE-405.951
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| docs/0 |
|
| docs/2 |
|
| docs/3 |
|
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://nullEN&reference=PE404.601&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-404601_EN.html |
| docs/4 |
|
| docs/5 |
|
| docs/5/docs/0/url |
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=15326&j=0&l=en
|
| events/0/date |
Old
2008-02-13T00:00:00New
2008-02-12T00:00:00 |
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.491New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE404.491 |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE405.951New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=PE405.951 |
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE404.601&secondRef=02New
http://nullEN&reference=PE404.601&secondRef=02 |
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.html |
| docs/4/docs/0/url |
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=15326&j=0&l=en
|
| events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/4/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.html |
| events/6/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20080901&type=CRENew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/EN&reference=20080901&type=CRE |
| events/8 |
|
| events/8 |
|
| events/11 |
|
| events/11 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-285&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.html |
| docs/4/body |
EC
|
| events/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A6-2008-285&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-6-2008-0285_EN.html |
| events/8/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-381New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-6-2008-0381_EN.html |
| activities |
|
| commission |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| council |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| other |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
LIBE/6/59595New
|
| procedure/final/title |
Old
OJ L 081 27.03.2009, p. 0024New
OJ L 081 27.03.2009, p. 0024 |
| procedure/final/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2009:081:TOCNew
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2009:081:TOC |
| procedure/instrument |
Old
DecisionNew
|
| procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
| procedure/summary |
|
| procedure/title |
Old
Judicial cooperation: procedural rights of persons and the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Initiative Slovenia, France, Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Germany. Framework DecisionNew
Judicial cooperation: procedural rights of persons and the application of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions rendered in the absence of the person concerned at the trial. Initiative Slovenia, France, Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Germany. Framework Decision |
| links/European Commission/title |
Old
PreLexNew
EUR-Lex |
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|