Activites

• 2009/12/15 Final act published in Official Journal
• #2979
• 2009/11/30 Council Meeting
• 2009/11/30 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2009/11/30 Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
• 2009/10/08 Results of vote in Parliament
  • Results of vote in Parliament
  • T7-0027/2009 summary

    The European Parliament adopted by 544 votes to 184 with 17 abstentions, a legislative resolution amending, under the consultation procedure, the initiative of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of Sweden for adoption of a Council framework decision 2009/.../JHA on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.Parliament calls the Council not to formally adopt the initiative prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon so as to allow the final act to be finalised ensuring a full role and control by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Commission and Parliament (Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon on transitional provisions). This being the case Parliament states that it is committed to considering any further proposal by urgent procedure.The main amendments were as follows:Competent authority: any matter concerning jurisdiction should be dealt with by judicial authorities, meaning a judge, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor.Obligation to make contact with the competent authority of another country: in accordance with the Eurojust Decision, the contacting authority shall inform Eurojust at the same time as contacting the other Member States where parallel proceedings are taking place. Obligation to reply: the contacted authority shall reply to a request submitted within any reasonable deadline indicated by the contacting authority, or, if no deadline has been indicated, within 30 days, and inform the contacting authority whether parallel  proceedings are taking place in its Member State. Required information: minimum information should be included such as name, nationality, date of birth and address of the suspected or accused person and of the victims, if applicable, and other details that are relevant where there is a suspicion that the identity of the suspected or accused person is false.Obligation to enter into direct consultations: since no time limit was set in the proposal, Parliament specified that, when it is established that parallel proceedings exist, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall without undue delay enter into direct consultations. It added that in cases where the suspected or accused person is held in provisional detention or custody, direct consultations shall aim to reach consensus as a matter of urgency.Procedure of reaching consensus: Parliament gives an indicative list of factors that must be considered when reaching consensus. These  are: (i) the place where the major part of the crime was committed; (ii) the place where the major part of the loss was sustained; (iii) the location of the suspected or accused person and the possibilities for securing his or her surrender or extradition to another jurisdiction; (iv) the nationality or residence of the suspected or accused person; (v) any significant interests of the suspected or accused person; (vi) any significant interests of victims and witnesses; (vii) the admissibility of evidence or any delays that may occur.Procedural guarantees: Parliament inserts a new article that states that the person formally charged shall notably at the trial stage: (i) be notified of exchanges of information and consultations between authorities of Member States and between authorities of a Member State and Eurojust, as well as of solutions chosen or failure to reach agreement under this Framework Decision, including of actors involved, contents and reasons; (ii) have a right to make representations as to the best placed jurisdiction before a solution is chosen; (iii) have a right to appeal against any decision taken in accordance with Framework Decision or, in case of failure to reach agreement, to have it re-examined.Member States shall ensure that appropriate translation, interpretation and legal aid are guaranteed.Fundamental rights: a new article stipulates that any consensus reached on the basis of the Framework Decision must constitute an expression of fairness, independence and objectivity and must be reached by applying the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, so as to ensure that the human rights of the suspected or  accused person are protected. Cooperation with Eurojust: any national authority shall be free, at any stage of a national procedure, to ask for Eurojust's advice and to refer to Eurojust specific cases which raise the question of the best placed jurisdiction. If Member States decide not to comply with the opinion of Eurojust, they shall inform Eurojust in writing of their decision.Relation to other legal instruments and other arrangements: Parliament specified that the protection afforded to the suspected or accused person must not reduced when applying bilateral or multilateral arrangements. Inclusion in annual report: a new clause states that the cases referred to Eurojust on which consensus has not been reached among Member States shall be included in the annual report of Eurojust.

• 2009/10/07 Debate in Parliament
  • Debate in Parliament
• 2009/10/01 Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
  • A7-0011/2009
• 2009/09/30 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
• 2009/05/19 Legislative proposal published
  • 08535/2009 summary

    PURPOSE: to promote a closer cooperation between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting criminal proceedings whilst maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice.PROPOSED ACT: Council Framework Decision (initiative of the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden).BACKGROUND: the Hague Programme, which was approved by the European Council on 4 and 5 November 2004, requires Member States to consider legislation on conflicts of jurisdiction, with a view to increasing the efficiency of prosecutions while guaranteeing the proper administration of justice. The measures provided for in the draft Framework Decision should aim to prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of those proceedings in two or more Member States. The draft Framework Decision therefore seeks to prevent an infringement of the principle of "ne bis in idem", as set out in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and France on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders as interpreted by the European Court of Justice.Direct contact between competent authorities is the leading principle of cooperation established under the proposal. CONTENT: the objective of this proposal is to promote a closer cooperation between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting criminal proceedings, with a view to improving the efficient and proper administration of justice.Such closer cooperation aims to:prevent situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States in respect of the same facts, which might lead to the final disposal of the proceedings in two or more Member States thereby constituting an infringement of the principle of "ne bis in idem"; andreach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings.With a view to achieving these objectives, the draft Framework Decision establishes a framework on:a procedure for establishing contact between the competent authorities of Member States, with a view to confirming the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person;the exchange of information, through direct consultations, between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person, in case they already have knowledge of the existence of parallel criminal proceedings, with a view to reaching consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings.The basic principle is that when a competent authority of a Member State has reasonable grounds to believe that parallel proceedings are being conducted in another Member State, it shall contact the competent authority of that other Member State to confirm the existence of such parallel proceedings, with a view to initiating direct consultations. The contacted authority is under an obligation to reply and the proposal sets out the minimum information to be provided in the request and in the response. When it is established that parallel proceedings exist, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall enter into direct consultations in order to reach consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising from such parallel proceedings, which may, where appropriate, lead to the concentration of the criminal proceedings in one Member State. The draft Framework Decision shall be complementary and without prejudice to the Eurojust Decision.As Eurojust is particularly well suited to provide assistance in resolving conflicts of jurisdiction, the referral of a case to Eurojust should be a usual step, when it has not been possible to reach consensus.In addition, as long as consensus on the concentration of criminal proceedings has not been reached, the competent authorities of the Member States should be able to continue criminal proceedings for any criminal offence which falls within their national jurisdiction.The draft Framework Decision shall not apply to proceedings which are covered by the terms of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. It is proposed that Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the provisions of this Framework Decision 30 months after publication of this Framework Decision in the Official Journal.

• #2936
• 2009/04/06 Council Meeting
  • 2936 summary

    The Council reached agreement on a general approach for a draft framework decision on prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings.The agreement on the general approach (agreement awaiting the opinion of the EuropeanParliament) followed a debate focusing on outstanding issues such as: the role of Eurojust in dealing with cases where the competent authorities could not reach a consensus; the interaction with rules of European Community competition law, and the implementation period for the new legislation.In line with the ministerial discussions on 27 February 2009, the scope of the instrument has been restricted to situations where the same person(s) is (are) subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different member states in respect of the same facts, which might lead to an infringement of the "ne bis in idem" principle.The framework decision contains the following measures:a procedure for establishing contact between the competent authorities of Member States, with a view to confirming the existence of parallel criminal proceedings in respect of the same facts involving the same person(s);rules on the exchange of information, through direct consultations, between the competent authorities of two or more Member States conducting such parallel criminal proceedings(s), with a view to reaching a consensus on any effective solution aimed at avoiding the adverse consequences arising therefrom.The framework decision does not affect any right of individuals to argue that they should be prosecuted in their own or in another jurisdiction, if such a right exists under national law.

• #2927
• 2009/02/26 Council Meeting
  • 2927 summary

    The Council held a policy debate on key elements of a Draft Framework decision on prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, with a view to providing political guidance for carrying out further work.EU delegations acknowledged the merit of this joint initiative put forward by the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Sweden last January.The debate focused, in particular, on:·         the objectives and scope of the future instrument, ·         the nature of the competent authorities which would be able to act under the Framework  decision, ·         the communication procedures.A broad consensus has emerged on the advisability of restricting the scope of the instrument  to situations where the same person(s) is (are) subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States, which might lead to the double final disposal of those proceedings (the "ne bis in idem" legal principle).In a common area of freedom, security and justice it is necessary to ensure that national authorities are made aware, at an early stage, of facts of a case which fall within the jurisdiction of two or more Member States and that agreement is reached to concentrate, as far as possible, criminal proceedings for such facts in a single jurisdiction.In order to achieve these principles, the following measures are proposed:avoiding, as early in the proceedings as possible, situations where the same person is subject to parallel criminal proceedings in different Member States;ensuring that there is sufficient exchange of information between Member States, from an early stage, about ongoing proceedings which are significantly linked to another jurisdiction;putting in place transparent rules and common criteria which will be applied when Member States are seeking agreement on the best placed jurisdiction;making it possible for the national authorities concerned to enter into direct consultations with each other in order to quickly reach an agreement.

• 2009/02/03 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading

Documents

• Debate in Council: 2927
• Debate in Council: 2936
• Legislative proposal published: 08535/2009
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A7-0011/2009
• Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
• Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0027/2009

History

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