Procedure completed
2013/2109(INL) Review of the European Arrest Warrant
Lead committee dossier: LIBE/7/12924
Legal Basis RoP 046
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | LIBE | LUDFORD Baroness Sarah (ALDE) | GÁL Kinga (PPE), SIPPEL Birgit (S&D), SARGENTINI Judith (Verts/ALE), KIRKHOPE Timothy (ECR), DE JONG Dennis (GUE/NGL) |
Legal Basis RoP 046
Subjects
Activites
-
2014/02/27
Results of vote in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament
-
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: problems 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.
- 2014/02/26 Debate in Parliament
-
2014/01/28
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
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. Problems 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.
-
A7-0039/2014
summary
-
2014/01/13
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
-
2013/06/13
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Documents
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0039/2014
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0174/2014
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 150 |
2013/2109(INL)
2013/12/23
LIBE
150 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) - having regard to Articles 3 and 6 and of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 9 a (new) - having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on Member States to implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments including the European Investigation Order once adopted and the European Supervision Order; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor their correct implementation as well as their impact on the functioning of the EAW and the EU area of criminal justice;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – point a (new) (a) Calls on Member States to ensure that their judicial authorities resort to EAWs only in cases of suspects involved in major offences;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Calls on Member States to apply the European arrest warrant in such a way as to ensure that it does not result in the unnecessary trial and detention of people arrested outside their home countries, in particular where it is possible for them to be tried using exclusively national means, without a European arrest warrant being issued;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls for Member States to compensate damage arising from
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Calls for Member States to provide for legal mechanisms which allow for compensat
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6.
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new) Calls on the Council of the European Union to include in its revised version of the European Handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant (17195/1/10 REV 1) a six day time limit for the transmission of translated EAWs in order to provide greater clarity and certainty;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Calls on Member States and the Commission to cooperate in strengthening contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to facilitate effective and well-informed EAW proceedings, and to offer relevant training at national and European level to judicial and legal practitioners including defence lawyers acting in such proceedings
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Calls on Member States and the Commission to cooperate in strengthening contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to facilitate effective and well-informed EAW proceedings, and to offer relevant training including language training programmes at national and European level to judicial and legal practitioners including defence lawyers acting in such proceedings
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 – point a (new) (a) Calls on the Member States to address the shortcomings related to the EAW's implementation at national level.
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. Whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Calls on the Commission to provide adequate funding to bodies such as the Eurojust and European Judicial Training Network
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 – introductory part 8. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new) Calls on the Commission to establish and make easily accessible an EU database collecting all national case law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings to facilitate the work of practitioners and the monitoring and assessment of implementation and any problems arising;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new) (1) Highlights the link between detention conditions and EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article 3 of the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried out if such rights are violated; Calls Member States to take particular account of the rights of vulnerable persons and in general thoroughly examine alternatives to detention.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 a (new) 8a. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal setting out a common definition of organised crime, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 b (new) 8b. Calls on the Commission to prepare a study on comparative EU criminal codes across the EU in order to help Member States when conducting the proportionality test
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to submit legislative proposals establishing minimum standards regarding the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the use of alternatives to detention, the regular review of detention; Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions within Member States.
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. Whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition and
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9.
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions in Member States since shortcomings, such as prison overcrowding and allegations of poor treatment of detainees, may undermine the trust which must underpin judicial cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions by Member States.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new) (1) Reminds the Commission of its previous call for EU wide legislative action on minimum standards in the field of pre-trial detention (European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)) and notes with great disappointment that such a proposal was not among the legislative measures on procedural rights proposed by the Commission on 27 November 2013. Reiterates therefore its call on the Commission to submit legislative proposals establishing minimum standards regarding the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the use of alternatives to detention, the regular review of pre-trial detention such as to prevent excessive periods of detention, and detention conditions in Member States.
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Confirms that the recommendations respect fundamental rights
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new) Considers that any financial implications of the requested proposals for the budget of the Union should be covered by the existing budgetary allocations; stresses that for both Member States and citizens, the adoption and implementation of those proposals would lead to substantial cost and time savings, and will thus be beneficial both in economic and social terms, as clearly pointed out in the EU Added Value Assessment of EU measures concerning the review of the EAW. (Add link to the EAVU study in footnote)
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – title Recommendations as to a legislative proposal
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 1 – indent 1 - There are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 1 - indent 1 - There are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 2 - title Proportionality check for the issuing and execution of the EAW, and other Union mutual recognition legal instruments:
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. Whereas the introduction of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1 -
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1 -
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1 - When issuing
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1 - When issuing a decision to be executed in another Member State, the competent authority shall carefully assess the need for the requested measure on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and apply the least intrusive available measure to achieve the intended objectives.
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 3 - title Consultation procedure between the competent judicial relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state to be used for the European Arrest Warrant, and other Union mutual recognition legal instruments:
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1 - A standardised and documented consultation procedure whereby the competent judicial authorities
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1 - A standardised procedure whereby the competent authorities of the issuing and executing States shall exchange information and consult each other with a view to facilitating the smooth and
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1 -
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 4 - title Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 4 - indent 1 Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. Whereas the European Union has set itself the task of developing an area of freedom, security and justice, and whereas, pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, it respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby taking on positive obligations which it must meet in order to honour that commitment and whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition and has been very successful in speeding up surrender compared to traditional extradition procedures among Member States;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 4 - indent 1 – point i) Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 4 - indent 1 – point ii) Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - title Provision on effective legal remedies applicable to the EAW, and other mutual recognition instruments:
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1 - Member States shall ensure that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission including errors in the application of an instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing state and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1 - Member States shall ensure that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by an unlawful issuing or execution of an EAW, or by a decision, action or omission in the application of another instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing state and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by the applicable mutual recognition instrument or, in the absence of explicit time limits, with sufficient promptness to ensure that the purpose of the mutual recognition process is not jeopardised
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1a (new) 1a. Review of non-executed EAWs The Commission shall carry out a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consider whether they, together with the corresponding SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn. All EAWs, and the corresponding alerts, which have been refused on mandatory grounds, including the new mandatory grounds relating to human rights, proportionality and trial readiness, should be withdrawn automatically.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1b (new) 1b. Pre-trial detention All decisions relating to pre-trial detention made by Member States shall comply with minimum standards legislated under a separate proposal submitted by the Commission, including in relation to: a) the substance and procedure of pre- trial detention decision-making, b) the use of alternatives to detention; c) the regular review of pre-trial detention and the need for special diligence to be applied during investigations; and d) conditions in pre-trial detention facilities.
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 a (new) – title Regular Review of non-executed or refused EAWS
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Annex - recommendation 5 - indent 1a (new) 1a. a regular review of non-executed EAWs shall be carried out, accompanied with a thorough consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn where an EAW has been refused on grounds such as human rights and insufficient proportionality; the SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts shall be mandatorily updated with information on the refusal of EAW execution by other Member States on the basis of a lack of proportionality
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation5 - indent 1a (new) 1a. Review of non-executed EAWs The Commission shall carry out a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consider whether they, together with the corresponding SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn. There should be an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts.
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas all existing mutual recognition instruments in the field of criminal justice complement each other, therefore that very instrument should be used, which can lead to the best result; and whereas both the issuing and executing authorities have the duty to cooperate and to find the best solution to a case;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1b (new) 1b. Pre-trial detention The Commission shall submit a legislative proposal for minimum standards in the area of pre-trial detention, including rules on: a) the substance and procedure of pre- trial detention decisions; b) the use of alternatives to detention; c) the regular review of pre-trial detention such as to prevent excessive periods of detention and the need for special diligence to be applied during investigations; d) detention conditions in pre-trial detention facilities.
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. Whereas the introduction of the European Arrest Warrant system was intended to increase the speed and ease of extradition throughout EU countries, and has in most part been successful in achieving this;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. Whereas to be effective, the principle of mutual recognition must be premised upon mutual trust which can only be achieved if respect for the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons and procedural rights in criminal proceedings are guaranteed throughout the EU area of freedom, security and justice; whereas mutual trust is enhanced through training, cooperation and dialogue between judicial authorities and legal practitioners creating a genuine European judicial culture;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas problems have however arisen
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) - having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas clearly defined and effective instruments for mutual recognition of judicial measures are of key importance to national prosecution services in connection with investigations into serious cross-border crimes and will be equally important in investigations carried out by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office once it has been set up;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas in its final report the Special Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering (CRIM) stressed the need to ensure swift mutual recognition, whilst fully respecting the principle of proportionality, of all judicial measures, with particular reference to criminal judgments, confiscation orders and European arrest warrants;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point i (i) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments of an explicit ground for refusal based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights, which has led to
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ii (ii) the absence of a provision in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii (iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts with the result that persons subject to refused EAWs are unable to move freely within the area of freedom, security and justice for fear of future arrest and surrender;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii (iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii (iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Interpol and Europol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts which may risk to lead to a factual restriction of the right to move and reside freely within the Union for fear of future arrest for those persons requested for surrender;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) - having regard to Articles 2, 6, and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii (iii) 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 a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts with the result that persons subject to EAWs are unable to move freely within the area of freedom security and justice without the risk of future arrest and surrender;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii (iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Interpol and Europol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts; which can have severe human impacts as persons subject to refused EAWs are not able to move freely in the European Union since they must fear arrest and surrender;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii – point a (new) a) the lack of harmonised application of EAW across Member States for crimes perpetuated prior to the entry into force of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii a (new) (iiia) Judicial decisions not to execute European Arrest Warrants not always being respected and leading to repeated arrests and hearings in other EU countries;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii a (new) (iiia) The lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list related to the European Arrest Warrant but also to other EU instruments which make constant reference to that list, and the inclusion of crimes which seriousness is not envisaged in all EU criminal code and which may not overcome the proportionality test.
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iii b (new) (iiib) The lack of definition of organised crime at EU level, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iv (iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants (and of their families), and unjustified and often excessive time spent in pre-trial detention and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iv (iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, disproportionate impact on a person's private and family life, excessive time spent in pre-trial detention and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iv (iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, unjustified and often excessive time spent in pre-trial detention leading to interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iv (iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, often unjustified and excessive time spent in pre-trial detention
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 1 a (new) - having regard to Articles 2, 6 and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point iv (iv) disproportionate and inappropriate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, time spent in pre-trial detention and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point v Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point vii Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point vii (vii) the absence of
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point vii (vii) the absence of
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point vii (vii) the absence of
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point vii (vii) the absence of
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point viii (viii) the
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point viii (viii) the
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point viii (viii) the extensive periods that some individuals are spending in pre-trial detention,
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 5 a (new) – having regard to its resolution of 23 October 2013 on organised crime, corruption, and money laundering: recommendations on action and initiatives to be taken (final report) (2013/2017(INI)),
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix (ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has on the fundamental rights and dignity of the individuals concerned as well as the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix (ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has on the
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix (ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has not only on the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned but on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix (ix) the poor and inhuman conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments as well as on mutual confidence;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix (ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point ix a (new) (ixa) A lack of legal representation being provided for those persons sought under a European Arrest Warrant in the issuing Member State as well as the executing Member State;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point x Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point x a (new) Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point x a (new) (xa) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of deadlines for the transmission of the translated EAWs, leading to variable practices and uncertainty;
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C – point x b (new) (xb) The lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which the test of dual criminality no longer applies;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 a (new) - having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme (COM(2011)0759 – C7- 0439/2011 – 2011/0369(COD)),
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Keeping in mind the new legal framework from 2014 under the Lisbon Treaty, considers that this report should not deal with problems arising directly from the incorrect implementation of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA since it is more appropriate that such problems are remedied by way of enforcement proceedings brought by the Commission; underlining that many of the occurred problems can be solved through better and correct implementation of the Framework Decision;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Points out that full recognition and rapid enforceability of judicial measures are a step towards the establishment of a European criminal justice area, and emphasises the European arrest warrant’s importance as an effective means of combating serious cross-border crime;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that as the problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that, as the problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice,
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Considers that as the problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address both;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new) Considers that the weaknesses identified not only undermine mutual trust but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families and society in general.
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – introductory part 3.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – introductory part 3. Therefore requests the Commission to submit, within a year following the adoption of this resolution, on the basis of Article 82 of the
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – introductory part 3. Therefore requests the Commission to submit, on the basis of Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, a legislative proposal
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 b (new) - having regard to the Commission Communication 'Building Trust in EU- wide justice, a new dimension to European Judicial Training', 13.09.2011, COM(2011)551 final,
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point a (a) a mandatory refusal ground based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights applicable to mutual recognition instruments; in the same time calls on Member States to explore all the existing possibilities in the current Framework Decision (e.g. Article 12 of the Preamble) in order to better safeguard the protection of fundamental rights of citizens;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point a (a) a mandatory refusal ground based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point a (a) a mandatory refusal ground based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights a
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point a (a) a mandatory refusal ground
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point a a (new) (aa) A clear and consistent application by all Member States of EU legislation regarding procedural rights in criminal proceedings linked to the use of the European Arrest Warrant; including the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings; the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and on the right to communicate upon arrest; and the right to information in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point b (b) a proportionality check
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point b (b) a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on the seriousness of the offence and the availability of
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point b (b) a proportionality check
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point b (b) a proportionality check
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point b a (new) (ba) a better definition of the crimes where the European Arrest warrant should apply in order to facilitate the proportionality test
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 c (new) - having regard to its Resolution on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point c (c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions, for example in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness; against clear and objective criteria, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that the case is trial-ready in the issuing state;
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point c (c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions, for example in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness against clear and objective criteria, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that the case is trial-ready in the issuing state;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point c (c) a standardised and documented consultation procedure whereby the
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point c (c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state can exchange
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point d Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point d (d) a procedure whereby a mutual recognition measure
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point e (e) consistent legal remedies to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, bearing in mind that all mutual recognition instruments are in need to secure the right to an effective remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, thus a horizontal approach is welcomed;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point e (e) consistent legal remedies to secure the right to an effective legal remed
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point e (e) consistent legal remedies to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 13 of the European Convention of Human Rights, such as the automatic right to appeal to the requested execution of a European Arrest Warrant in the executing state and the right for the requested person to challenge in court any failure from the issuing state to comply with given assurances provided to the executing state;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 – point e (e) consistent legal remedies, which should include the automatic right to appeal in the executing state against a mutual recognition decision prior to the mutual recognition decision being put into action as well as the right to challenge failure by the issuing state to comply with assurances provided to the executing state prior to surrender, in order to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 6 d (new) - having regard to its report with a recommendation to the Council on the rights of prisoners in the European Union (2003/2188(INI)),
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission to require from Member States the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism and to include such data in its next implementation report with a view to proposing appropriate action in any problems: (a) the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial; (b) the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to an EAW; (c) the extent to which pre-trial detention as ordered in each case and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long; (d) the operation of the procedure under Art 16 of the Framework Decision for resolving cases of multiple EAW requests relating to the same person.
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Underlines the need for more data on the operating of the EAW and therefore calls on the Commission to collect the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism within each Member State: (a) in the case of an accusation warrant, the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial as well as the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to such a warrant; (c) the number of cases where pre-trial detention was ordered and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a regular review of non- executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a regular review of non- executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4. Calls for a regular review of non- executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; also calls for the withdrawal of EAWs and the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts where the EAW has been refused on
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 – point a (new) (a) Calls on Member States to take all appropriate measures needed to ensure that Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA can apply to crimes committed prior to June 2002;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Calls on the Commission to collect the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism within each Member State: a) for accusation warrants, the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial; b) the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to an accusation warrant; and c) the extent to which pre-trial detention was ordered in each case and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long.
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 – introductory part 5. Calls on Member States to timely and effectively implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures such as inter alia the already agreed directives on procedural rights and to actively push for further binding legal instruments in this area as judicial cooperation in criminal matters needs to be based on respect for standards in the area of fundamental rights and the necessary approximation of the rights of suspects and accused persons and of procedural rights in criminal proceedings and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Calls on Member States to make appropriate use of the European arrest warrant and to implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments;
source: PE-524.766
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2015-01-07Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
| activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
| committees/0/shadows/4/mepref |
Old
545fbdc8d1d1c57505000000New
4f1ac952b819f25efd00012c |
2014-11-09Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|