BETA


2013/2109(INL) Review of the European Arrest Warrant

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead LIBE LUDFORD Baroness Sarah (icon: ALDE ALDE) GÁL Kinga (icon: PPE PPE), SIPPEL Birgit (icon: S&D S&D), SARGENTINI Judith (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), KIRKHOPE Timothy (icon: ECR ECR), DE JONG Dennis (icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 046

Events

2014/07/22
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2014/02/27
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/02/27
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 495 votes to 81, with 11 abstentions, a resolution on containing recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW).

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been successful in meeting its aim of speeding up surrender procedures throughout the Union compared to the traditional extradition system among Member States. It constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.

Problems regarding the implementation of the EAW Decision : p roblems have however arisen in its operation and resulting from gaps in the Framework Decision. Other problems are shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments. In particular, the following cause concern:

the absence of explicit references to Fundamental Right guarantees; the absence of a provision on an effective remedy, this right should be governed by national law which leads to legal uncertainty; the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of an EAW and the removal of such alerts; the lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list; disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences; the lack of a definition of the term ‘judicial authority’; the absence of minimum standards to ensure effective judicial oversight of mutual recognition measures; the absence of minimum standards on pre-trial detention; the unacceptable conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union; a lack of legal representation being provided for those persons sought under an EAW; the lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which the test of dual criminality no longer applies.

Recommendations for the revision of the EAW : in the light of the weaknesses outlined, the Commission was requested to submit, within a year, on the basis of Article 82 of the TFEU, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex of this report and providing for:

a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term “judicial authority”; a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impact on the rights of the requested person, including the protection of private and family life, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure; a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions such as on the assessment of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness; a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union; the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the right to appeal in the executing Member State against the requested execution of a mutual recognition instrument and the right for the requested person to challenge before a tribunal any failure by the issuing Member State to comply with assurances given to the executing Member State; a better definition of the crimes where the EAW should apply in order to facilitate the application of the proportionality test.

Parliament, furthermore, called for:

a clear and consistent application by all Member States of Union law regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the EAW; a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; better cooperation between the Member States and the Commission to strengthen contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers, and to offer relevant training at national and Union level to judicial and legal practitioners in inter alia languages, on the proper use of the EAW.

The Commission is called upon to:

facilitate the setting up of a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters; establish and make easily accessible a Union database collecting all national case-law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings; ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework and to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention.

Documents
2014/02/27
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/02/26
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2014/01/28
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Details

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report by Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) containing recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) ( Initiative – Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure ).

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been successful in meeting its aim of speeding up surrender procedures throughout the Union compared to the traditional extradition system among Member States. It constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters.

P roblems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting from gaps in the Framework Decision such as failing to explicitly include fundamental rights safeguards or a proportionality check as well as from the incomplete and inconsistent implementation thereof. Other problems are shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice.

The Commission was requested to submit, within a year, on the basis of Article 82 of the TFEU, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex of this report and providing for:

a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term “judicial authority”; a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impact on the rights of the requested person, including the protection of private and family life, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure; a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions such as on the assessment of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness; a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union; the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the right to appeal in the executing Member State against the requested execution of a mutual recognition instrument and the right for the requested person to challenge before a tribunal any failure by the issuing Member State to comply with assurances given to the executing Member State; a better definition of the crimes where the EAW should apply in order to facilitate the application of the proportionality test.

The report, furthermore, called for:

a clear and consistent application by all Member States of Union law regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the EAW; a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; better cooperation between the Member States and the Commission to strengthen contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers, and to offer relevant training at national and Union level to judicial and legal practitioners in inter alia languages, on the proper use of the EAW.

The Commission is called upon to:

facilitate the setting up of a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters; establish and make easily accessible a Union database collecting all national case-law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings; ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework and to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention.

Documents
2014/01/13
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2013/12/23
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2013/11/19
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/06/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2013/04/08
   EP - LUDFORD Baroness Sarah (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE

Documents

AmendmentsDossier
150 2013/2109(INL)
2013/12/23 LIBE 150 amendments...
source: PE-524.766

History

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

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
2013-04-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
docs/2/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0039&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2014-0039_EN.html
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0174
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0174_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2013-06-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GÁL Kinga group: S&D name: SIPPEL Birgit group: Verts/ALE name: SARGENTINI Judith group: ECR name: KIRKHOPE Timothy group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GÁL Kinga group: S&D name: SIPPEL Birgit group: Verts/ALE name: SARGENTINI Judith group: ECR name: KIRKHOPE Timothy group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
  • date: 2014-01-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0039&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0039/2014 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2014-02-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140226&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-02-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24051&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0174 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0174/2014 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: REDING Viviane
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
2013-04-08T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
LIBE
date
2013-04-08T00:00:00
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
docs
  • date: 2013-11-19T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE522.805 title: PE522.805 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2013-12-23T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE524.766 title: PE524.766 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2014-07-22T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=24051&j=0&l=en title: SP(2014)447 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2013-06-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2014-01-28T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0039&language=EN title: A7-0039/2014 summary: The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted a report by Sarah LUDFORD (ALDE, UK) containing recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) ( Initiative – Rule 42 of the Rules of Procedure ). Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been successful in meeting its aim of speeding up surrender procedures throughout the Union compared to the traditional extradition system among Member States. It constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. P roblems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting from gaps in the Framework Decision such as failing to explicitly include fundamental rights safeguards or a proportionality check as well as from the incomplete and inconsistent implementation thereof. Other problems are shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice. The Commission was requested to submit, within a year, on the basis of Article 82 of the TFEU, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex of this report and providing for: a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term “judicial authority”; a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impact on the rights of the requested person, including the protection of private and family life, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure; a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions such as on the assessment of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness; a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union; the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the right to appeal in the executing Member State against the requested execution of a mutual recognition instrument and the right for the requested person to challenge before a tribunal any failure by the issuing Member State to comply with assurances given to the executing Member State; a better definition of the crimes where the EAW should apply in order to facilitate the application of the proportionality test. The report, furthermore, called for: a clear and consistent application by all Member States of Union law regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the EAW; a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; better cooperation between the Member States and the Commission to strengthen contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers, and to offer relevant training at national and Union level to judicial and legal practitioners in inter alia languages, on the proper use of the EAW. The Commission is called upon to: facilitate the setting up of a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters; establish and make easily accessible a Union database collecting all national case-law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings; ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework and to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention.
  • date: 2014-02-26T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140226&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-02-27T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24051&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2014-02-27T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0174 title: T7-0174/2014 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 495 votes to 81, with 11 abstentions, a resolution on containing recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has been successful in meeting its aim of speeding up surrender procedures throughout the Union compared to the traditional extradition system among Member States. It constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. Problems regarding the implementation of the EAW Decision : p roblems have however arisen in its operation and resulting from gaps in the Framework Decision. Other problems are shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments. In particular, the following cause concern: the absence of explicit references to Fundamental Right guarantees; the absence of a provision on an effective remedy, this right should be governed by national law which leads to legal uncertainty; the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of an EAW and the removal of such alerts; the lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list; disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences; the lack of a definition of the term ‘judicial authority’; the absence of minimum standards to ensure effective judicial oversight of mutual recognition measures; the absence of minimum standards on pre-trial detention; the unacceptable conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union; a lack of legal representation being provided for those persons sought under an EAW; the lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which the test of dual criminality no longer applies. Recommendations for the revision of the EAW : in the light of the weaknesses outlined, the Commission was requested to submit, within a year, on the basis of Article 82 of the TFEU, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex of this report and providing for: a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term “judicial authority”; a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impact on the rights of the requested person, including the protection of private and family life, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure; a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions such as on the assessment of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness; a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union; the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the right to appeal in the executing Member State against the requested execution of a mutual recognition instrument and the right for the requested person to challenge before a tribunal any failure by the issuing Member State to comply with assurances given to the executing Member State; a better definition of the crimes where the EAW should apply in order to facilitate the application of the proportionality test. Parliament, furthermore, called for: a clear and consistent application by all Member States of Union law regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the EAW; a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; better cooperation between the Member States and the Commission to strengthen contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers, and to offer relevant training at national and Union level to judicial and legal practitioners in inter alia languages, on the proper use of the EAW. The Commission is called upon to: facilitate the setting up of a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters; establish and make easily accessible a Union database collecting all national case-law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings; ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework and to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention.
  • date: 2014-02-27T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: REDING Viviane
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
LIBE/7/12924
New
  • LIBE/7/12924
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 046
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 046
procedure/subject
Old
  • 7.30.20 Action to combat terrorism
  • 7.30.30 Action to combat crime
  • 7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
New
7.30.20
Action to combat terrorism
7.30.30
Action to combat crime
7.40.04
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000
New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c
activities
  • date: 2013-06-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GÁL Kinga group: S&D name: SIPPEL Birgit group: Verts/ALE name: SARGENTINI Judith group: ECR name: KIRKHOPE Timothy group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
  • date: 2014-01-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GÁL Kinga group: S&D name: SIPPEL Birgit group: Verts/ALE name: SARGENTINI Judith group: ECR name: KIRKHOPE Timothy group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
  • date: 2014-01-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0039&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0039/2014 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2014-02-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140226&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-02-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24051&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0174 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0174/2014 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: GÁL Kinga group: S&D name: SIPPEL Birgit group: Verts/ALE name: SARGENTINI Judith group: ECR name: KIRKHOPE Timothy group: GUE/NGL name: DE JONG Dennis responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2013-04-08T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: LUDFORD Baroness Sarah
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: REDING Viviane
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
LIBE/7/12924
reference
2013/2109(INL)
title
Review of the European Arrest Warrant
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 046
stage_reached
Procedure completed
subtype
Request for legislative proposal
Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
type
INL - Legislative initiative procedure
subject