BETA


Events

2018/11/28
   Final act published in Official Journal
Details

PURPOSE: to ensure the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders.

CONTENT: the Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State recognises and executes in its territory freezing and confiscation orders issued by another Member State within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters, including terrorism related offences. As crime is often transnational in nature, effective cross-border cooperation is essential in order to freeze and confiscate the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime.

Scope of application

The Regulation applies to all freezing and confiscation orders issued in the context of criminal proceedings. It does not apply to decisions issued in civil or administrative proceedings. It covers a wide range of types of criminal confiscation, such as value-based and non-conviction-based confiscation, including some preventive confiscation systems, provided that there is a link with a criminal offence.

In any event, the guarantees provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union shall apply to all procedures covered by the Regulation.

Transmission, recognition and execution of confiscation and freezing orders

The issuing authority shall transmit a freezing certificate or confiscation certificate, together with the freezing order or confiscation order, where applicable, either directly to the executing authority or to the central authority of the executing State, as applicable, by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the executing authority to establish authenticity of the certificate.

This Regulation shall permit the executing authorities not to recognise or execute confiscation orders on the basis of the principle of ne bis in idem , on the basis of the rights of affected persons or on the basis of the right to be present at the trial.

In exceptional circumstances, it shall be possible not to recognise or execute a freezing order or confiscation order where such recognition or execution would prevent the executing State from applying its constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press or freedom of expression in other media.

Time limits

The Regulation sets a deadline of 45 days for the recognition of a confiscation order and, in urgent cases, a deadline of 48 hours for the recognition and 48 hours for the execution of freezing orders. These deadlines may only be extended under strict conditions.

The non-execution of a confiscation order may only be justified where the property: (i) has already been confiscated; (ii) has disappeared; (ii) has been destroyed; (iv) cannot be found in the location indicated on the confiscation certificate; or (v) cannot be found because its location has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner.

Restitution of frozen property confiscated from the victim

The Regulation contains provisions guaranteeing respect for victims' rights to compensation and restitution in cross-border cases.

Each Member State shall consider:

- establishing a national centralised office responsible for the management of frozen property, with a view to possible later confiscation, as well as for the management of confiscated property. Frozen property and confiscated property could be earmarked, as a matter of priority, for law enforcement and organised crime prevention projects and for other projects of public interest and social utility ;

- establishing a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for victims of crime, such as families of police officers and public servants killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Member States could earmark a portion of confiscated assets for that purpose.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 18.12.2018.

APPLICATION: from 19.12.2020.

2018/11/21
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2018/11/14
   CSL - Draft final act
Documents
2018/11/14
   CSL - Final act signed
2018/11/14
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2018/11/06
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading
2018/11/06
   CSL - Council Meeting
2018/10/04
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2018/10/04
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 531 votes to 51, with 26 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

The European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure amended the Commission proposal as follows:

Scope : the Regulation shall apply to all freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. It also covers other types of order issued without a final conviction. Freezing orders and confiscation orders that are issued within the framework of proceedings in civil or administrative matters shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation.

Such affected persons, who can be natural persons or legal persons, shall include the person against whom a freezing order or confiscation order was issued or the person who owns the property that is covered by that order, as well as any third parties whose rights in relation to that property are directly prejudiced by that order, including bona fide third parties.

The issuing authority shall ensure that, when issuing a freezing order or confiscation order, the principles of necessity and proportionality are respected. In any case, the safeguards under the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall apply to all proceedings covered by this Regulation.

Transmission, recognition and execution of confiscation and freezing orders : a freezing order shall be transmitted by means of a freezing certificate. The issuing authority shall transmit the freezing certificate directly to the executing authority or, where applicable, to the central authority, by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the executing authority to establish the authenticity of the freezing certificate.

The executing authority shall recognise a freezing order transmitted and shall take the measures necessary for its execution in the same way as for a domestic freezing order issued by an authority of the executing State.

The executing authority may decide not to recognise or execute a freezing order only where:

executing the freezing order would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem ; there is a privilege or immunity under the law of the executing State that would prevent the freezing of the property concerned; the freezing certificate is incomplete or manifestly incorrect; the conduct in connection with which the freezing order was issued does not constitute a criminal offence under the law of the executing State; the execution of the freezing order would, in the particular circumstances of the case, entail a manifest breach of a relevant fundamental right as set out in the Charter, in particular the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial or the right of defence.

Time limits : the executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order and execute that order without delay and with the same speed and priority as for a similar domestic case after the executing authority has received the freezing certificate.

The executing authority should start taking the concrete measures necessary to execute such orders no later than 48 hours after the decision on the recognition and execution thereof has been taken. The executing authority shall communicate, without delay and by any means capable of producing a written record, the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order to the issuing authority.

The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and no later than 45 days after the executing authority has received the confiscation certificate.

The non-execution of a confiscation order under this Article may only be justified where the property: (i) has already been confiscated; (ii) has disappeared; (ii) ha s been destroyed; (iv) cannot be found in the location indicated on the confiscation certificate; or (v) cannot be found because its location has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner.

Restitution of frozen property confiscated from the victim : rules for the disposal of frozen or confiscated property should give priority to the compensation of, and restitution of property to, victims .

The obligation to restitute frozen property to the victim shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) the victim’s title to the property shall not be contested, meaning that it is accepted that the victim is the rightful owner of the property and there are no serious claims putting that into question; (ii) the property shall not be required as evidence in criminal proceedings in the executing State; (iii) and the rights of affected persons, in particular the rights of bona fide third parties, should not be prejudiced.

Each Member State shall consider establishing a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for victims of crime, such as families of police officers and public servants killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Member States may earmark a portion of confiscated assets for that purpose.

Documents
2018/10/03
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2018/01/17
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
2018/01/15
   EP - Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
2018/01/12
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
Details

The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ALDE, FR) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as follows.

Respect for fundamental rights : this Regulation is without prejudice to the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right of defence, the right to a fair trial and the right to property.

Freezing and confiscation decisions : Members proposed to reconcile the procedures concerning the mutual recognition of freezing orders and the mutual recognition of confiscation orders or to harmonise this new instrument with other existing European legislative instruments in this area, for example by specifying that: (i) a State shall accept to receive freezing or confiscation orders in at least one other language than its national language; (ii) both decisions shall each be accompanied by a certificate; (iii) the non bis in idem principle shall be respected.

Mandatory and optional grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of a freezing or confiscation order : Members proposed the insertion of a clause of non-recognition and non-execution of freezing or confiscation orders, based on the failure to observe fundamental rights.

They also suggested making non-recognition and non-enforcement compulsory in the event that the confiscation order relates to a specific item of property which is not the property of the natural or legal person against whom the confiscation order was made in the issuing Member state or of any other natural or legal person who was a party to the proceedings in the issuing State.

On the other hand, the executing authority may decide not to recognise and not to execute confiscation orders if the standard certificate for issuing a confiscation order is incomplete, manifestly incorrect or manifestly does not correspond to the confiscation order or if the conduct on which the confiscation order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State.

Procedures for recognition of freezing and confiscation orders : Members suggested improving the efficiency and speed of these procedures by, inter alia :

facilitated procedures for forwarding decisions; a stepped-up role for central national authorities , whose support role is important; tighter deadlines for authorities to communicate with each other, decide to execute (or not) orders forwarded by issuing states, and give immediate notification that such decisions have been taken and orders executed. The executing authority shall: (i) take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and, no later than 10 working days after the executing authority has received the confiscation order; (ii) carry out the confiscation without delay, no later than 10 working days following the taking of the decision and no later than 48 hours after the executing authority has received the freezing order; (iii) communicate the decision on a freezing order to the issuing authority immediately and at the latest within 12 hours by any means capable of producing a written record.

Procedural safeguards : Members proposed to strengthen the provisions on procedural safeguards concerning the right to an effective remedy for all concerned as well as the right to information of such persons and also the procedural rights of third persons who might be affected by these decisions of freezing and confiscation.

Re-use of frozen property : each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish a national centralised office responsible for the management of frozen property with a view to possible later confiscation and confiscated assets and properties. Such property shall be earmarked as a matter of priority for law enforcement and organised crime prevention projects and for other projects of public interest and social utility . They shall also take the necessary measures, including the setting up of a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for the families of police officers and public servants killed in the line of duty and police officers and public servants permanently disabled in the line of duty. Each Member State shall earmark a portion of confiscated assets for this purpose.

Documents
2018/01/11
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading
2018/01/11
   EP - Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee
2017/12/08
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/12/06
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/11/08
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/10/27
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/10/13
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2017/10/13
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/09/28
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2017/05/09
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2017/05/08
   ES_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2017/04/11
   EP - MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in ECON
2017/04/03
   CZ_CHAMBER - Contribution
Documents
2017/04/03
   DE_BUNDESRAT - Contribution
Documents
2017/03/28
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2017/03/28
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/03/09
   EP - GRIESBECK Nathalie (ALDE) appointed as rapporteur in LIBE
2017/02/13
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
2017/02/02
   EP - SVOBODA Pavel (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2016/12/23
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2016/12/23
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2016/12/21
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to lay down the rules for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

BACKGROUND: after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, confiscation was given strategic priority at EU level as an effective instrument to fight organised crime.

Directive 2014/42/EU establishes common minimum rules for the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union.

Based on the European Agenda on Security of 28 April 2015 which highlighted the need for measures to address terrorist financing in a more effective and comprehensive manner, the Commission adopted, in February 2016, a communication on an action plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing , highlighting the need to ensure that criminals who fund terrorism are deprived of their assets.

In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the fight against corruption which once again called on the Commission to submit a proposal on the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

Recent research estimates that illicit markets in the European Union generate about EUR 110 billion , i.e. approximately 1% of the EU's GDP in 2010. However, and although existing statistics are limited, the amount of money currently being recovered from proceeds of crime within the EU is only a small proportion: 98.9% of estimated criminal profits are not confiscated and remain at the disposal of criminals.

The implementation reports on Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA were adopted in 2008 and 2010. A comparative law study on the implementation of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU20 was carried out in 2013 and concluded that one coherent instrument for mutual recognition could be envisaged.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the preferred option of the Commission is a mutual recognition instrument with an extended scope and improved provisions that ensure a wider circulation of freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of criminal proceedings in the European Union.

The requirement to recognise a greater range of freezing and confiscation orders should increase the amount of criminal assets frozen and seized across Member State borders.

CONTENT: based on existing EU legislation on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the proposed Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and execute in its territory a freezing or a confiscation order issued by another Member State within the framework of criminal proceedings .

This proposal covers all confiscation orders imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It covers all criminal offences. It is not limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension so-called ‘Eurocrimes’.

The proposed Regulation seeks to improve the current mutual recognition legal framework in several ways:

apply directly a legal instrument in the Member States to improve mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders bringing clarity and eliminating problems with transposition into national systems; extend the scope compared to the current mutual recognition instruments and Directive 2014/42/EU : the proposed Regulation will cover third-party confiscation and criminal non-conviction based confiscation , for instance in the cases of death of a person, immunity, prescription, cases where the perpetrator of an offence cannot be identified. This requires the court to establish that an advantage was derived from a criminal offence; set clear deadlines for freezing and confiscation orders : the executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order as soon as possible and at the latest within 24 hours after the receipt of the freezing order. The executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order as soon as possible and not later than 30 days after the receipt of the confiscation order. improve the speed and efficiency of the mechanism thanks to a standardised certificate for mutual recognition of confiscation orders and a standard form for freezing orders which are annexed to the proposal; ensure that, in cases where the issuing State confiscates property, the victim’s right to compensation and restitution has priority over the executing and issuing States’ interest. introduce a general obligation of competent authorities to consult each other where necessary during the mutual recognition procedure.

DELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0001/2018 - Nathalie Griesbeck - Am 145 04/10/2018 12:07:38.000 #

2018/10/04 Outcome: +: 531, -: 51, 0: 26
DE IT FR ES RO SE AT BE HU BG CZ GB NL FI PT EL SK LT HR SI IE DK PL MT LU EE LV CY ??
Total
80
61
61
41
24
19
17
15
15
14
15
54
22
11
15
19
9
10
8
8
7
11
43
6
5
5
3
6
2
icon: PPE PPE
166

Belgium PPE

2

United Kingdom PPE

2

Finland PPE

2

Lithuania PPE

2

Croatia PPE

2

Ireland PPE

3

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Latvia PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
158

Belgium S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

2

Czechia S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

For (1)

1

Slovakia S&D

2

Croatia S&D

2

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Cyprus S&D

2
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

Germany ALDE

2

Romania ALDE

2

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Portugal ALDE

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
48

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
36

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

For (1)

4

Ireland GUE/NGL

3

Denmark GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: ENF ENF
29

Germany ENF

For (1)

1

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

4

Poland ENF

Abstain (1)

1
icon: ECR ECR
56

Italy ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Sweden ECR

2

Belgium ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2
2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Slovakia ECR

2

Lithuania ECR

Against (1)

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Cyprus ECR

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
33

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

Abstain (1)

3

Czechia EFDD

Against (1)

1

Lithuania EFDD

For (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1
icon: NI NI
19

Germany NI

2

France NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4

Denmark NI

1
AmendmentsDossier
327 2016/0412(COD)
2017/09/12 JURI 59 amendments...
source: 610.639
2017/09/18 ECON 58 amendments...
source: 609.566
2017/10/27 LIBE 210 amendments...
source: 612.375

History

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

docs/2
date
2017-06-27T00:00:00
docs
title: PE606.278
type
Reasoned opinion
body
CZ_SENATE
docs/8
date
2017-05-08T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
ES_PARLIAMENT
docs/9
date
2017-05-09T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
PT_PARLIAMENT
docs/9
date
2017-05-09T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
ES_PARLIAMENT
docs/10
date
2017-04-03T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
CZ_CHAMBER
docs/10
date
2017-05-10T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
PT_PARLIAMENT
docs/11
date
2017-04-03T00:00:00
docs
url: https://connectfolx.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
DE_BUNDESRAT
docs/11
date
2017-04-04T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
CZ_CHAMBER
docs/12
date
2017-04-04T00:00:00
docs
url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819
type
Contribution
body
DE_BUNDESRAT
links/Research document/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2018)628225
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2018)628225
committees/0/shadows/3
name
SPINELLI Barbara
group
European United Left - Nordic Green Left
abbr
GUE/NGL
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE609.537
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-PR-609537_EN.html
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE612.375
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/LIBE-AM-612375_EN.html
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE608.163&secondRef=02
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/ECON-AD-608163_EN.html
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.855&secondRef=03
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AD-599855_EN.html
docs/8/docs/0/url
/oeil/spdoc.do?i=30610&j=0&l=en
events/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading
events/4/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading
events/6
date
2018-01-12T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0001_EN.html title: A8-0001/2018
summary
events/6
date
2018-01-12T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0001_EN.html title: A8-0001/2018
summary
events/7
date
2018-10-03T00:00:00
type
Debate in Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181003&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/7
date
2018-01-15T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations announced in plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
events/8
date
2018-01-17T00:00:00
type
Committee decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 71)
body
EP
events/9
date
2018-10-03T00:00:00
type
Debate in Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181003&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/9
date
2018-10-04T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0380_EN.html title: T8-0380/2018
summary
events/9/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181003&type=CRE
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-8-2016-10-03-TOC_EN.html
events/11
date
2018-10-04T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0380_EN.html title: T8-0380/2018
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Notes
  • 17/01/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
docs/8/body
EC
events/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0001&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0001_EN.html
events/9/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0380
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0380_EN.html
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie date: 2017-03-09T00:00:00 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
2017-03-09T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
rapporteur
name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio date: 2017-04-11T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2017-04-11T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel date: 2017-02-02T00:00:00 group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
activities
  • date: 2016-12-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0819/COM_COM(2016)0819(ANN)_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0819 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52016PC0819:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers Commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2017-02-13T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee: ECON date: 2017-04-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio body: EP responsible: False committee: JURI date: 2017-02-02T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico group: S&D name: PAVEL Emilian group: ECR name: MACOVEI Monica group: GUE/NGL name: SPINELLI Barbara group: Verts/ALE name: JOLY Eva group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio group: ENF name: FONTANA Lorenzo responsible: True committee: LIBE date: 2017-03-09T00:00:00 committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs rapporteur: group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3528 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3528*&MEET_DATE=28/03/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3528 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2017-03-28T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3564 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3564*&MEET_DATE=13/10/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3564 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2017-10-13T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
commission
  • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
date
2017-03-09T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: GRIESBECK Nathalie group: Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe abbr: ALDE
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
ECON
date
2017-04-11T00:00:00
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
rapporteur
group: EPP name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Economic and Monetary Affairs
committee
ECON
date
2017-04-11T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
JURI
date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: SVOBODA Pavel group: Group of European People's Party abbr: EPP
committees/2
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
LIBE
date
2017-03-09T00:00:00
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
rapporteur
group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Economic and Financial Affairs ECOFIN meeting_id: 3646 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3646*&MEET_DATE=06/11/2018 date: 2018-11-06T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3584 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3584*&MEET_DATE=08/12/2017 date: 2017-12-08T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3564 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3564*&MEET_DATE=13/10/2017 date: 2017-10-13T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3528 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3528*&MEET_DATE=28/03/2017 date: 2017-03-28T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2016-12-23T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2016:0468:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2016)0468 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2016-12-23T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2016:0469:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2016)0469 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2017-06-27T00:00:00 docs: title: PE606.278 type: Reasoned opinion body: CZ_SENATE
  • date: 2017-09-28T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE609.537 title: PE609.537 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2017-10-27T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE612.375 title: PE612.375 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2017-11-08T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE608.163&secondRef=02 title: PE608.163 committee: ECON type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2017-12-06T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE599.855&secondRef=03 title: PE599.855 committee: JURI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-14T00:00:00 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=[%n4]%2F18&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 00038/2018/LEX type: Draft final act body: CSL
  • date: 2018-11-21T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=30610&j=0&l=en title: SP(2018)755 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2017-05-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819 type: Contribution body: ES_PARLIAMENT
  • date: 2017-05-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819 type: Contribution body: PT_PARLIAMENT
  • date: 2017-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819 type: Contribution body: CZ_CHAMBER
  • date: 2017-04-04T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0819 title: COM(2016)0819 type: Contribution body: DE_BUNDESRAT
events
  • date: 2016-12-21T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0819/COM_COM(2016)0819(ANN)_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0819 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2016&nu_doc=0819 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE: to lay down the rules for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council. BACKGROUND: after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, confiscation was given strategic priority at EU level as an effective instrument to fight organised crime. Directive 2014/42/EU establishes common minimum rules for the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union. Based on the European Agenda on Security of 28 April 2015 which highlighted the need for measures to address terrorist financing in a more effective and comprehensive manner, the Commission adopted, in February 2016, a communication on an action plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing , highlighting the need to ensure that criminals who fund terrorism are deprived of their assets. In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the fight against corruption which once again called on the Commission to submit a proposal on the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. Recent research estimates that illicit markets in the European Union generate about EUR 110 billion , i.e. approximately 1% of the EU's GDP in 2010. However, and although existing statistics are limited, the amount of money currently being recovered from proceeds of crime within the EU is only a small proportion: 98.9% of estimated criminal profits are not confiscated and remain at the disposal of criminals. The implementation reports on Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA were adopted in 2008 and 2010. A comparative law study on the implementation of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU20 was carried out in 2013 and concluded that one coherent instrument for mutual recognition could be envisaged. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the preferred option of the Commission is a mutual recognition instrument with an extended scope and improved provisions that ensure a wider circulation of freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of criminal proceedings in the European Union. The requirement to recognise a greater range of freezing and confiscation orders should increase the amount of criminal assets frozen and seized across Member State borders. CONTENT: based on existing EU legislation on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the proposed Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and execute in its territory a freezing or a confiscation order issued by another Member State within the framework of criminal proceedings . This proposal covers all confiscation orders imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It covers all criminal offences. It is not limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension so-called ‘Eurocrimes’. The proposed Regulation seeks to improve the current mutual recognition legal framework in several ways: apply directly a legal instrument in the Member States to improve mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders bringing clarity and eliminating problems with transposition into national systems; extend the scope compared to the current mutual recognition instruments and Directive 2014/42/EU : the proposed Regulation will cover third-party confiscation and criminal non-conviction based confiscation , for instance in the cases of death of a person, immunity, prescription, cases where the perpetrator of an offence cannot be identified. This requires the court to establish that an advantage was derived from a criminal offence; set clear deadlines for freezing and confiscation orders : the executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order as soon as possible and at the latest within 24 hours after the receipt of the freezing order. The executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order as soon as possible and not later than 30 days after the receipt of the confiscation order. improve the speed and efficiency of the mechanism thanks to a standardised certificate for mutual recognition of confiscation orders and a standard form for freezing orders which are annexed to the proposal; ensure that, in cases where the issuing State confiscates property, the victim’s right to compensation and restitution has priority over the executing and issuing States’ interest. introduce a general obligation of competent authorities to consult each other where necessary during the mutual recognition procedure. DELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
  • date: 2017-02-13T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-03-28T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3528*&MEET_DATE=28/03/2017 title: 3528
  • date: 2017-10-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3564*&MEET_DATE=13/10/2017 title: 3564
  • date: 2018-01-11T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2018-01-11T00:00:00 type: Committee decision to open interinstitutional negotiations with report adopted in committee body: EP
  • date: 2018-01-12T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2018-0001&language=EN title: A8-0001/2018 summary: The Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs adopted the report by Nathalie GRIESBECK (ALDE, FR) on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The committee recommended that the European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure should amend the Commission proposal as follows. Respect for fundamental rights : this Regulation is without prejudice to the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the TEU and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular the right of defence, the right to a fair trial and the right to property. Freezing and confiscation decisions : Members proposed to reconcile the procedures concerning the mutual recognition of freezing orders and the mutual recognition of confiscation orders or to harmonise this new instrument with other existing European legislative instruments in this area, for example by specifying that: (i) a State shall accept to receive freezing or confiscation orders in at least one other language than its national language; (ii) both decisions shall each be accompanied by a certificate; (iii) the non bis in idem principle shall be respected. Mandatory and optional grounds for non-recognition and non-execution of a freezing or confiscation order : Members proposed the insertion of a clause of non-recognition and non-execution of freezing or confiscation orders, based on the failure to observe fundamental rights. They also suggested making non-recognition and non-enforcement compulsory in the event that the confiscation order relates to a specific item of property which is not the property of the natural or legal person against whom the confiscation order was made in the issuing Member state or of any other natural or legal person who was a party to the proceedings in the issuing State. On the other hand, the executing authority may decide not to recognise and not to execute confiscation orders if the standard certificate for issuing a confiscation order is incomplete, manifestly incorrect or manifestly does not correspond to the confiscation order or if the conduct on which the confiscation order is based does not constitute an offence under the law of the executing State. Procedures for recognition of freezing and confiscation orders : Members suggested improving the efficiency and speed of these procedures by, inter alia : facilitated procedures for forwarding decisions; a stepped-up role for central national authorities , whose support role is important; tighter deadlines for authorities to communicate with each other, decide to execute (or not) orders forwarded by issuing states, and give immediate notification that such decisions have been taken and orders executed. The executing authority shall: (i) take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and, no later than 10 working days after the executing authority has received the confiscation order; (ii) carry out the confiscation without delay, no later than 10 working days following the taking of the decision and no later than 48 hours after the executing authority has received the freezing order; (iii) communicate the decision on a freezing order to the issuing authority immediately and at the latest within 12 hours by any means capable of producing a written record. Procedural safeguards : Members proposed to strengthen the provisions on procedural safeguards concerning the right to an effective remedy for all concerned as well as the right to information of such persons and also the procedural rights of third persons who might be affected by these decisions of freezing and confiscation. Re-use of frozen property : each Member State shall take the necessary measures to establish a national centralised office responsible for the management of frozen property with a view to possible later confiscation and confiscated assets and properties. Such property shall be earmarked as a matter of priority for law enforcement and organised crime prevention projects and for other projects of public interest and social utility . They shall also take the necessary measures, including the setting up of a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for the families of police officers and public servants killed in the line of duty and police officers and public servants permanently disabled in the line of duty. Each Member State shall earmark a portion of confiscated assets for this purpose.
  • date: 2018-10-03T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20181003&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2018-10-04T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=30610&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2018-10-04T00:00:00 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=P8-TA-2018-0380 title: T8-0380/2018 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 531 votes to 51, with 26 abstentions, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The European Parliament’s position adopted at first reading under the ordinary legislative procedure amended the Commission proposal as follows: Scope : the Regulation shall apply to all freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters. It also covers other types of order issued without a final conviction. Freezing orders and confiscation orders that are issued within the framework of proceedings in civil or administrative matters shall be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. Such affected persons, who can be natural persons or legal persons, shall include the person against whom a freezing order or confiscation order was issued or the person who owns the property that is covered by that order, as well as any third parties whose rights in relation to that property are directly prejudiced by that order, including bona fide third parties. The issuing authority shall ensure that, when issuing a freezing order or confiscation order, the principles of necessity and proportionality are respected. In any case, the safeguards under the Charter of Fundamental Rights shall apply to all proceedings covered by this Regulation. Transmission, recognition and execution of confiscation and freezing orders : a freezing order shall be transmitted by means of a freezing certificate. The issuing authority shall transmit the freezing certificate directly to the executing authority or, where applicable, to the central authority, by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the executing authority to establish the authenticity of the freezing certificate. The executing authority shall recognise a freezing order transmitted and shall take the measures necessary for its execution in the same way as for a domestic freezing order issued by an authority of the executing State. The executing authority may decide not to recognise or execute a freezing order only where: executing the freezing order would be contrary to the principle of ne bis in idem ; there is a privilege or immunity under the law of the executing State that would prevent the freezing of the property concerned; the freezing certificate is incomplete or manifestly incorrect; the conduct in connection with which the freezing order was issued does not constitute a criminal offence under the law of the executing State; the execution of the freezing order would, in the particular circumstances of the case, entail a manifest breach of a relevant fundamental right as set out in the Charter, in particular the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial or the right of defence. Time limits : the executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order and execute that order without delay and with the same speed and priority as for a similar domestic case after the executing authority has received the freezing certificate. The executing authority should start taking the concrete measures necessary to execute such orders no later than 48 hours after the decision on the recognition and execution thereof has been taken. The executing authority shall communicate, without delay and by any means capable of producing a written record, the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order to the issuing authority. The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and no later than 45 days after the executing authority has received the confiscation certificate. The non-execution of a confiscation order under this Article may only be justified where the property: (i) has already been confiscated; (ii) has disappeared; (ii) ha s been destroyed; (iv) cannot be found in the location indicated on the confiscation certificate; or (v) cannot be found because its location has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner. Restitution of frozen property confiscated from the victim : rules for the disposal of frozen or confiscated property should give priority to the compensation of, and restitution of property to, victims . The obligation to restitute frozen property to the victim shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) the victim’s title to the property shall not be contested, meaning that it is accepted that the victim is the rightful owner of the property and there are no serious claims putting that into question; (ii) the property shall not be required as evidence in criminal proceedings in the executing State; (iii) and the rights of affected persons, in particular the rights of bona fide third parties, should not be prejudiced. Each Member State shall consider establishing a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for victims of crime, such as families of police officers and public servants killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Member States may earmark a portion of confiscated assets for that purpose.
  • date: 2018-11-06T00:00:00 type: Act adopted by Council after Parliament's 1st reading body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2018-11-14T00:00:00 type: Final act signed body: CSL
  • date: 2018-11-14T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
  • date: 2018-11-28T00:00:00 type: Final act published in Official Journal summary: PURPOSE: to ensure the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders. CONTENT: the Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State recognises and executes in its territory freezing and confiscation orders issued by another Member State within the framework of proceedings in criminal matters, including terrorism related offences. As crime is often transnational in nature, effective cross-border cooperation is essential in order to freeze and confiscate the instrumentalities and proceeds of crime. Scope of application The Regulation applies to all freezing and confiscation orders issued in the context of criminal proceedings. It does not apply to decisions issued in civil or administrative proceedings. It covers a wide range of types of criminal confiscation, such as value-based and non-conviction-based confiscation, including some preventive confiscation systems, provided that there is a link with a criminal offence. In any event, the guarantees provided for in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union shall apply to all procedures covered by the Regulation. Transmission, recognition and execution of confiscation and freezing orders The issuing authority shall transmit a freezing certificate or confiscation certificate, together with the freezing order or confiscation order, where applicable, either directly to the executing authority or to the central authority of the executing State, as applicable, by any means capable of producing a written record under conditions that allow the executing authority to establish authenticity of the certificate. This Regulation shall permit the executing authorities not to recognise or execute confiscation orders on the basis of the principle of ne bis in idem , on the basis of the rights of affected persons or on the basis of the right to be present at the trial. In exceptional circumstances, it shall be possible not to recognise or execute a freezing order or confiscation order where such recognition or execution would prevent the executing State from applying its constitutional rules relating to freedom of the press or freedom of expression in other media. Time limits The Regulation sets a deadline of 45 days for the recognition of a confiscation order and, in urgent cases, a deadline of 48 hours for the recognition and 48 hours for the execution of freezing orders. These deadlines may only be extended under strict conditions. The non-execution of a confiscation order may only be justified where the property: (i) has already been confiscated; (ii) has disappeared; (ii) has been destroyed; (iv) cannot be found in the location indicated on the confiscation certificate; or (v) cannot be found because its location has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner. Restitution of frozen property confiscated from the victim The Regulation contains provisions guaranteeing respect for victims' rights to compensation and restitution in cross-border cases. Each Member State shall consider: - establishing a national centralised office responsible for the management of frozen property, with a view to possible later confiscation, as well as for the management of confiscated property. Frozen property and confiscated property could be earmarked, as a matter of priority, for law enforcement and organised crime prevention projects and for other projects of public interest and social utility ; - establishing a national fund to guarantee appropriate compensation for victims of crime, such as families of police officers and public servants killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. Member States could earmark a portion of confiscated assets for that purpose. ENTRY INTO FORCE: 18.12.2018. APPLICATION: from 19.12.2020. docs: title: Regulation 2018/1805 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32018R1805 title: OJ L 303 28.11.2018, p. 0001 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2018:303:TOC
links/Research document
title
Briefing
url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI(2018)628225
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/Notes
  • 17/01/2018 Decision to enter into interinstitutional negotiations confirmed by plenary (Rule 69c)
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
LIBE/8/08869
New
  • LIBE/8/08869
procedure/final
title
Regulation 2018/1805
url
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32018R1805
procedure/instrument
Old
Regulation
New
  • Regulation
  • See also JHA act 2003/577/JHA 2001/0803(CNS) See also JHA act 2006/783/JHA 2002/0816(CNS)
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Procedure completed
procedure/subject
Old
  • 2.50.04.02 Electronic money and payments, cross-border credit transfers
  • 7.30.30.08 Capital outflow, money laundering
  • 7.40.04 Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
New
2.50.04.02
Electronic money and payments, cross-border credit transfers
7.30.30.08
Capital outflow, money laundering
7.40.04
Judicial cooperation in criminal matters
procedure/summary
  • See also JHA act 2003/577/JHA
  • See also JHA act 2006/783/JHA
activities/3
body
CSL
meeting_id
3564
docs
url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3564*&MEET_DATE=13/10/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3564
council
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
date
2017-10-13T00:00:00
type
Council Meeting
other/0
body
CSL
type
Council Meeting
council
Former Council configuration
activities/0/commission/0
DG
Commissioner
JOUROVÁ Věra
other/0
body
EC
dg
commissioner
JOUROVÁ Věra
activities/1/committees/0/date
2017-04-11T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio
committees/0/date
2017-04-11T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: MARTUSCIELLO Fulvio
activities/1/committees/2/shadows
  • group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico
  • group: S&D name: PAVEL Emilian
  • group: ECR name: MACOVEI Monica
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SPINELLI Barbara
  • group: Verts/ALE name: JOLY Eva
  • group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
  • group: ENF name: FONTANA Lorenzo
committees/2/shadows
  • group: EPP name: POGLIESE Salvatore Domenico
  • group: S&D name: PAVEL Emilian
  • group: ECR name: MACOVEI Monica
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SPINELLI Barbara
  • group: Verts/ALE name: JOLY Eva
  • group: EFD name: CORRAO Ignazio
  • group: ENF name: FONTANA Lorenzo
activities/2
body
CSL
meeting_id
3528
docs
url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3528*&MEET_DATE=28/03/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3528
council
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
date
2017-03-28T00:00:00
type
Council Meeting
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0819:EN
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0819:EN
activities/1/committees/2/date
2017-03-09T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
committees/2/date
2017-03-09T00:00:00
committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: ALDE name: GRIESBECK Nathalie
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: to lay down the rules for the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

    PROPOSED ACT: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council.

    ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the European Parliament decides in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and on an equal footing with the Council.

    BACKGROUND: after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, confiscation was given strategic priority at EU level as an effective instrument to fight organised crime.

    Directive 2014/42/EU establishes common minimum rules for the freezing and confiscation of instrumentalities and proceeds of crime in the European Union.

    Based on the European Agenda on Security of 28 April 2015 which highlighted the need for measures to address terrorist financing in a more effective and comprehensive manner, the Commission adopted, in February 2016, a communication on an action plan for strengthening the fight against terrorist financing, highlighting the need to ensure that criminals who fund terrorism are deprived of their assets.

    In October 2016, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the fight against corruption which once again called on the Commission to submit a proposal on the strengthening of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders.

    Recent research estimates that illicit markets in the European Union generate about EUR 110 billion, i.e. approximately 1% of the EU's GDP in 2010. However, and although existing statistics are limited, the amount of money currently being recovered from proceeds of crime within the EU is only a small proportion: 98.9% of estimated criminal profits are not confiscated and remain at the disposal of criminals.

    The implementation reports on Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA were adopted in 2008 and 2010. A comparative law study on the implementation of mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders in the EU20 was carried out in 2013 and concluded that one coherent instrument for mutual recognition could be envisaged.

    IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the preferred option of the Commission is a mutual recognition instrument with an extended scope and improved provisions that ensure a wider circulation of freezing and confiscation orders issued within the framework of criminal proceedings in the European Union.

    The requirement to recognise a greater range of freezing and confiscation orders should increase the amount of criminal assets frozen and seized across Member State borders.

    CONTENT: based on existing EU legislation on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the proposed Regulation lays down the rules under which a Member State shall recognise and execute in its territory a freezing or a confiscation order issued by another Member State within the framework of criminal proceedings.

    This proposal covers all confiscation orders imposed by a court following proceedings in relation to a criminal offence and all freezing orders issued with a view to possible subsequent confiscation. It covers all criminal offences. It is not limited to the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension so-called ‘Eurocrimes’.

    The proposed Regulation seeks to improve the current mutual recognition legal framework in several ways:

    • apply directly a legal instrument in the Member States to improve mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders bringing clarity and eliminating problems with transposition into national systems;
    • extend the scope compared to the current mutual recognition instruments and Directive 2014/42/EU: the proposed Regulation will cover third-party confiscation and criminal non-conviction based confiscation, for instance in the cases of death of a person, immunity, prescription, cases where the perpetrator of an offence cannot be identified. This requires the court to establish that an advantage was derived from a criminal offence;
    • set clear deadlines for freezing and confiscation orders: the executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the freezing order as soon as possible and at the latest within 24 hours after the receipt of the freezing order. The executing authority must take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order as soon as possible and not later than 30 days after the receipt of the confiscation order.
    • improve the speed and efficiency of the mechanism thanks to a standardised certificate for mutual recognition of confiscation orders and a standard form for freezing orders which are annexed to the proposal;
    • ensure that, in cases where the issuing State confiscates property, the victim’s right to compensation and restitution has priority over the executing and issuing States’ interest.
    • introduce a general obligation of competent authorities to consult each other where necessary during the mutual recognition procedure.

    DELEGATED ACTS: the proposal contains provisions empowering the Commission to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

activities/1
date
2017-02-13T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
LIBE/8/08869
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
committees/1/date
2017-02-02T00:00:00
committees/1/rapporteur
  • group: EPP name: SVOBODA Pavel
activities
  • date: 2016-12-21T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0819/COM_COM(2016)0819(ANN)_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0819 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52016PC0819:EN type: Legislative proposal published body: EC commission:
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Economic and Monetary Affairs committee: ECON
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE
links
other
    procedure
    reference
    2016/0412(COD)
    subtype
    Legislation
    legal_basis
    Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 082-p1
    stage_reached
    Preparatory phase in Parliament
    summary
    instrument
    Regulation
    title
    Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders
    type
    COD - Ordinary legislative procedure (ex-codecision procedure)
    subject