2021/0394(COD) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13

(13) ~~In order to provide swift, secure and efficient assistance to applicants, w~~Written communication between competent authorities, such as courts and Central Authorities established under Council Regulation (EC) 4/200936 and Council Regulation (EU) 2019/111137 , should~~, as a rule,~~ be carried out through the decentralised IT system~~. In exceptional cases, o~~ to the greatest extent possible. Other means of communication may be used if those are found to be more appropriate for the purposes of ensuring flexibility. ~~However~~Unless circumstances mitigate against it, the decentralised IT system should ~~always~~ be considered the most appropriate means for exchanging forms between ~~competent~~ authorities ~~established by~~competent in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II to this Regulation. _________________ 36 Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1–79) 37 Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, p. 1).

Amendment 101 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) Transmission through the decentralised IT system could be impossible due to a disruption of the system or where the nature of what has to be transmitted makes transmission by digital means impracticable, such as the transmission of physical/material evidence. It may also not be possible in circumstances where the system is functioning, but the user does not have access due to technical issues, or because the Member State has not yet made it available to them, or because the user has not yet received training in using the system. In addition, transmission through the decentralised IT system may not be appropriate in especially sensitive criminal cases, where the number of people involved in the procedure must be kept as small as possible, and therefore physical information exchange might be required. Where the decentralised IT system is not used, communication should be carried out by the most appropriate alternative means. Such alternative means should entail, inter alia, transmission being performed as swiftly as possible and in a secure manner by other secure electronic means or by postal service.

Amendment 102 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

(14) In exceptional cases, other means of communication than the decentralised IT system may be used. Transmission through the decentralised IT system could be impossible due to a disruption of the system or where the nature of what has to be transmitted makes transmission by ~~digital means~~the decentralised IT system impracticable, such as the transmission of physical/material evidence. Where the decentralised IT system is not used, communication should be carried out by the most appropriate alternative means. Such alternative means should entail, inter alia, transmission being performed as swiftly as possible and in a secure manner by other secure electronic means or by postal service. In any case, documents submitted by means other than the decentralised IT system should not be considered inadmissible solely on that basis. However, the decentralised IT system should always be considered the most appropriate means for exchanging forms between competent authorities established by the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II to this Regulation.

Amendment 103 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14

Amendment 104 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) For the purposes of ensuring the flexibility of judicial cooperation in certain cross-border judicial procedures, other means of communication could be more appropriate. In particular, this may be appropriate for direct communication between courts under Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 and Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and the Council38 , as well as direct communication between competent authorities under the Union legal acts in criminal matters. In such cases, less formal communication means, such as e- mail, could be used. _________________ 38 Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 19).deleted

Amendment 105 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15

(15) For the purposes of ensuring the flexibility of judicial cooperation in certain cross-border judicial procedures, other means of communication could be more appropriate. In particular, this may be appropriate for direct communication between courts under Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 and Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and the Council38 , as well as direct communication between competent authorities under the Union legal acts in criminal matters. In such cases, less formal communication means, such as e-mail, could be used. Such a situation may arise in particular when there is a need to communicate informally. The decision as to whether to use a particular means of communication should be left to the discretion of the competent authority in each individual case. _________________ 38 Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 19).

Amendment 106 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 15 a (new)

(15 a) In order to safeguard the principle of equality of arms, it is important that when other parties in a case and their legal or authorised representative have the right to access case materials, such as communication between competent authorities, they can do so via the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 107 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16

(16) In relation to the components of the decentralised IT system, which are under the responsibility of the Union, the entity managing the system’s components should have sufficient resources in order to ensure their proper and fully secure functioning.

Amendment 108 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) For the purpose of facilitating access of natural and legal persons to the competent authorities, this Regulation should establish an access point at Union level (European electronic access point), as part of the decentralised IT system through which natural and legal persons or their legal representatives should be able to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information ~~and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation~~, access digitalised cases files in cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial, and criminal matters, and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation. Remote access to digitalised case files through the European electronic access point, including in cross-border criminal proceedings, can support effective implementation of procedural rights and fair trials guarantees. It can facilitate the production and handling of case data, as well as the possibility to access or read data from different locations and workstations, enabling effective defence preparation from the early stages of a proceeding. The European electronic access point should be hosted on the European e-Justice Portal, which serves as a one-stop-shop for judicial information and services in the Union.

Amendment 109 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) For the purpose of facilitating access of natural and legal persons to the competent authorities, this Regulation should establish an access point at Union level (European electronic access point), as part of the decentralised IT system through which natural and legal persons should be able to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation. The European electronic access point should be hosted on the European e-Justice Portal, which serves as a one-stop-shop for judicial information and services in the Union. The e-Justice portal should contain information on possible training courses on how to use the decentralised IT system for natural and legal persons involved in a cross-border judicial case and on how to access the platform. It should also have a helpline that enables citizens to obtain assistance on how to use the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 110 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

(17) For the purpose of facilitating access of natural and legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives to the competent authorities, this Regulation should establish an access point at Union level (European electronic access point), as part of the decentralised IT system through which natural and legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives should be able to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities, for cases covered by this Regulation. The European electronic access point should be hosted on the European e-Justice Portal, which serves as a one-stop-shop for judicial information and services in the Union.

Amendment 111 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17

Amendment 112 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, maintenance and development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, whilst fully respecting the specificities of national justice systems including the roles and responsibilities of the various actors involved, including Bars and Law Societies, and Notary Councils.

Amendment 113 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, maintenance and development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, as well as for the training of competent authorities and citizens involved in a cross border judicial procedure that uses the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 114 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, maintenance and development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I. The Commission must provide Member States with assistance in setting up, maintaining and developing national electronic portals.

Amendment 115 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, maintenance and development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I.

Amendment 116 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

(18) Member States should be responsible for the establishment, ~~maintenance and~~ development of national electronic portals (national IT portals) for the purposes of electronic communication between natural and legal persons and the respective authorities which are competent in the proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I and the training of staff for the use of the portals.

Amendment 117 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18

Amendment 118 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) In the context of the communication in cross-border cases of natural and legal persons with competent authorities, electronic communication should be used as an alternative to the existing means of communication. Notwithstanding, to ensure that access to justice through digital means does not contribute to further widening of the digital divide, the choice of the means of communication between electronic communication, as provided by this Regulation, and other means of communication should be left to the discretion of the individuals concerned. The possibility of communication and exchanges by paper other means should be maintained to respond to certain situations, in order to prevent infringements of the rights of the defence and access to justice, and more generally to the law. This is particularly important in order to cater for the specific circumstances of disadvantaged groups and people in situation of vulnerability, such as children or older people, who may lack the requisite technical means or digital skills to access digital services.

Amendment 119 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) In the context of the communication in cross-border cases of natural and legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives with competent authorities, electronic communication should be used as an alternative to the existing means of communication. Notwithstanding, to ensure that access to justice through digital means does not contribute to further widening of the digital divide, the choice of the means of communication between electronic communication, as provided by this Regulation, and other means of communication should be left to the discretion of the ~~individual~~natural persons concerned. This is particularly important in order to cater for the specific circumstances of disadvantaged groups and people in situation of vulnerability, such as children or older people, who may lack the requisite technical means or digital skills to access digital services. However, for legal persons communication with competent authorities should take place, by default, via electronic means.

Amendment 120 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19

(19) In the context of ~~the~~ communication ~~in cross-border cases of~~by natural and legal persons with competent authorities in cross-border cases, electronic communication should be used as an alternative to ~~the~~ existing means of communication. Notwithstanding, to ensure that access to justice through digital means does not contribute to further widening of the digital divide, the choice of the means of communication between electronic communication, as provided by this Regulation, and other means of communication should be left to the discretion of the individuals concerned. This is particularly important in order to cater for the specific circumstances of disadvantaged groups and people in situation of vulnerability, such as children or older people, who may lack the requisite technical means or digital skills to access digital services.

Amendment 121 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 19 a (new)

(19 a) The Commission shall make provision for, and fund, training at Member State level for legal professionals in the use of the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 122 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to enhance electronic cross-border communication and transmission of documents through the decentralised IT system, the European electronic access point and national IT portals, where available, those documents should not be denied legal effect and should not be considered inadmissible in the proceedings solely on the grounds that they are in electronic form. However, that principle should be without prejudice to the assessment of the legal effects or the admissibility of those documents, which may constitute evidence in accordance with national law. It should also be without prejudice to national law regarding the conversion of documents. The requirements under applicable national law concerning the admissibility of documents or information, pertaining to their authenticity, accuracy, reliability, trustworthiness and their appropriate legal form shall remain unaffected by this Regulation.

Amendment 123 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 20

(20) In order to en~~hanc~~courage electronic cross-border communication and transmission of documents through the decentralised IT system, the European electronic access point and national IT portals, where available, those documents should not be denied legal effect and should not be considered inadmissible in the proceedings solely on the grounds that they are in electronic form. However, that principle should be without prejudice to the assessment of the legal effects or the admissibility of those documents, which may constitute evidence in accordance with national law. It should also be without prejudice to national law regarding the conversion of documents.

Amendment 124 #

(21) In order to facilitate oral hearings in cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters ~~with cross-border implications~~, this Regulation should provide for the optional use of video conferencing or other distance communication technology for the participation of the parties in ~~such hearings. The procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or o~~, as well as for the participation of all other persons entitled, under Member State law, to participate. The use of videoconferencing is a restriction of the right to be present1a and consequently the use of remote proceedings must serve a legitimate aim, and the arrangements for giving evidence must comply with requirements for due process. Remote participation in criminal proceedings cannot be treated as equivalent to physical participation and must therefore remain an exception. Remote proceedings pose significant risks to the fairness of trials, and as a result, caution must be exercised in regard to the use of remote hearings because virtual participation significantly impacts how effectively persons are able to exercise their d~~istance commun~~efence rights, including the right to counsel and the right to examine evidence and witnesses. In regard to criminal matters, and in view of the restrication ~~technology should be governed by the law of the Member State conducting the videoconference. C~~on fair trial rights that videoconferencing entails, the optional use of videoconferencing should be restricted to circumstances where the defendant is located in another country, and opts to be heard remotely to avoid extradition or having to travel to the country where the criminal proceedings are being undertaken. Videoconferencing should not be used for hearings on detention pre- trial, or for trials on merits in criminal proceedings. The procedure for applying and conducting aof hearing bys through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology should not be refused solely based on the non-existence of national rules governing the use of distance communication technology. In such cases the most appropriate rules available under the national law, such as rules for taking of evidence, should apply mutatis mutandis. be governed by the law of the Member State conducting the videoconference, but should always be optional, and steps taken to ensure that the risks and disadvantages of remote participation are fully explained before any decision is taken, and informed consent is freely given by both parties. Particular safeguards must apply in regard to the use of videoconferencing in cases involving minors,persons with cognitive impairment, persons who require technical assistance, and persons in need of interpretation assistance. Member States should make appropriate video-conferencing technology available for cross-border proceedings. All video- conferencing technology used in remote proceedings must enable all participants to follow the proceedings and to be heard without technical impediments, as well as ensuring that the right to effective and confidential communication with a lawyer, the right to file and inspect evidence, and the right to examine witnesses, is upheld. _________________ 1a ECtHR, Marcello Viola v. Italy (No.2), App. No. 45106/04

Amendment 125 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) In order to ~~facilita~~enable remote oral hearings in cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters ~~with cross-border implications~~, this Regulation should provide for the optional use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology for the participation of the parties in such hearings. The procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology should be governed by the law of the Member State conducting the videoconferencAt the same time, the use of videoconferencing or other audiovisual communication technologies in cross- border criminal proceedings should remain exceptional, and it should always respond to the interests and needs of all the concerned parties, including suspects, accused and convicted persons. The use of videoconferencing in judicial proceedings restricts the right to be present at trial, and remote participation to cross-border hearings significantly impacts the ability to exercise defence rights, including the right to a lawyer, and the right to examine evidence and witnesses. In civil and commercial matters, the procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology in cross-border proceedings should be governed by the law of the Member State where the proceedings take place. In cross-border criminal proceedings falling under the acts listed in Annex II, the procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology should be governed by the law of the requesting Member State. Conducting a hearing by videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology should not be refused solely based on the non-existence of national rules governing the use of distance communication technology. Int s~~uch cases the most appropriate rules available under the national law, such as rules for taking of evidence, should apply mutatis mutandis~~hould always be possible to refuse a hearing by videoconferencing or by other audiovisual transmission technology when the use of such technology gives raise to risks for to the interests of the person(s) concerned, including their fundamental right of defense.

Amendment 126 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

(21) In order to facilitate oral hearings in proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters with cross-border implications, this Regulation should provide for the optional use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology for the participation of the parties, as well as other relevant participants in proceedings, such as translators and the parties’ legal or authorised representatives, in such hearings. The procedure for applying and conducting of hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology should be governed by the law of the Member State conducting the videoconference. The specific videoconferencing or other distance communication technology used should meet applicable privacy, data protection and information security standards irrespective of the type of hearing for which they are used. Conducting a hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology should not be refused solely based on the non-existence of national rules governing the use of distance communication technology. In such cases the most appropriate rules available under the national law, such as rules for taking of evidence, should apply mutatis mutandis. In all cases where videoconferencing or other distance communication technology is used, the software used should be made freely available to all parties and other relevant participants to the proceedings. Moreover, in such cases, all parties and other relevant participants to the proceedings should have the necessary infrastructure to use videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, such as a stable internet connection and a suitable device. Any necessary adjustments should also be made to respect the principle of non-discrimination and all other fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter.

Amendment 127 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21

Amendment 128 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)

(21 a) When videoconferencing is used for conducting hearings in cross-border civil, commercial or criminal proceedings, technical arrangements should be provided to guarantee a high-quality connection, and a visual and logistical setting that replicates that of an in-person hearing, and that enables visual and non- verbal communication. Translations and intepretations should be guaranteed before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology to ensure that all concerned parties fully understand the merits of the case and how to exercise their rights in the proceedings. Where necessary, qualified translations and interpretation in sign languages should also be put in place to prevent the risk that the use of technologies create new barriers for vulnerable persons, including those with communication and/or learning disabilities. The authorities respectively responsible for requesting and authorising the holding of a hearing by videoconferencing should carefully assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether the use of remote communication technology is compatible with national procedural rules applying to the hearings in question. Member States should ensure that the videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology used in cross-border proceedings enable all participants to follow the hearing, and allow all parties and persons concerned to be heard without technical or material impediments. Videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology should only be used in full respect of the right to effective and confidential communication with a lawyer, the right to file and inspect evidence, and the right to examine witnesses. Informed consent of the parties on the use of videoconferencing should be a general principle applicable in all proceedings. The use of videoconferencing should enable a fair representation of the reality of the situation of the persons involved, and ensure the publicity of the trial where necessary.

Amendment 129 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)

(21 a) Each Member State should bear the costs of establishing and adjusting its national IT systems to make them interoperable with the access points, should bear the costs of administering, operating and maintaining those systems, and should organise training courses for legal representatives, competent authorities and citizens on how to use those national IT systems.

Amendment 130 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 21 a (new)

(21 a) Member States should ensure that any procedural rights foreseen in national law are respected regardless of whether an oral hearing takes place in person or via videoconferencing or any other distance communication technology and regardless of any unforeseen technical or logistical difficulties that may arise.

Amendment 131 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 22

(22) This Regulation should not apply to the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in civil, commercial and criminal proceedings where such use is already foreseen in the legal acts, listed in Annex I and Annex II. This Regulation should neither apply to the use of videoconferencing nor to other audiovisual transmission technology in purely domestic criminal proceedings.

Amendment 132 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) For the purposes of facilitating payment of fees in cases with cross-border implications falling under the scope of the Union legal acts in civil and commercial matters, electronic payment of fees should be possible in an online environment by payment methods widely available throughout the Union and enabling proof of payment to be provided, such as credit cards, debit cards, e-wallet and bank transfers.

Amendment 133 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) For the purposes of facilitating payment of fees in cases with cross-border implications falling under the scope of the Union legal acts in civil and commercial matters, electronic payment of fees should be possible in an online environment by accessible payment methods widely available throughout the Union, such as credit cards, debit cards, e-wallet and bank transfers.

Amendment 134 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24

(24) For the purposes of facilitating payment of fees in cases with cross-border implications falling under the scope of the Union legal acts in civil and commercial matters, electronic payment of fees should be possible ~~in an online environment by~~via payment methods widely available throughout the Union, such as credit cards, debit cards, e-wallet and bank transfers.

Amendment 135 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 24 a (new)

(24 a) Member States should assess how digitalisation of proceedings impacts the costs related to the management and governance of their justice systems, as well as consider whether any cost reductions and savings made possible by digitalisation could result in lower legal fees, thereby improving access to justice by making it more affordable and less dependent on economic or social factors.

Amendment 136 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26

(26) In accordance with paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13April 2016 on Better Law-Making45 , the Commission should evaluate this Regulation on the basis of the information collected through specific monitoring arrangements and independent quantitative and qualitative assessments for each of the legal acts, listed in Annexes I and II to this Regulation in order to assess the actual effects of this Regulation and to detect, prevent or rectify impact on legality, accessibility, and effectiveness the EU and Member States justice systems, and the need for any further action. _________________ 45 Interinstitutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on Better Law-Making (OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1–14).

Amendment 137 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27

(27) The reference implementation software developed by the Commission as a back-end system should programmatically collect the data necessary for monitoring purposes and such data should be transmitted to the Commission. Where Member States choose to use a national IT system instead of the reference implementation software developed by the Commission, such a system ~~may~~should be equipped to programmatically collect those data and, in that case, those data should be transmitted to the Commission.

Amendment 138 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)

(28 a) Member States should pay particular attention to ensuring that any lack of digital skills does not become an obstacle to the use of the decentralized IT system. Member States should ensure that training is provided to and easily accessible for the professionals who will act as end users of the IT system in order to ensure that they can use the system efficiently.

Amendment 139 #

Nathalie COLIN-OESTERLÉ

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28 a (new)

(28a) The representative bodies of justice professionals should be involved in the development of new electronic communication processes.

Amendment 140 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) The application of this Regulation should be without prejudice to the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary across the Member States, as well as to procedural rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union46 and Union law, such as the procedural rights directives47 , and in particular to the right to an interpreter, the right of access to a lawyer, the right of access to the case file, the right to legal aid, and the right to be present at the trial. _________________ 46 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407). 47 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280/1) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142/1); Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294/1); Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65/1);- Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 132/1); Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297, 4.11.2016).

Amendment 141 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29

(29) The application of this Regulation is~~hould be~~ without prejudice to procedural rights as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union46 and Union law, such as the procedural rights directives47 , and in particular to the right to an interpreter, the right of access to a lawyer, the right of access to the case file, the right to legal aid, and the right to be present at the trial. _________________ 46 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 391–407). 47 Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ 2010 L 280/1) Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142/1); Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party informed upon deprivation of liberty and to communicate with third persons and with consular authorities while deprived of liberty (OJ 2013 L 294/1); Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 65/1);- Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ 2016 L 132/1); Directive (EU) 2016/1919 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 October 2016 on legal aid for suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings and for requested persons in European arrest warrant proceedings (OJ L 297, 4.11.2016).

Amendment 142 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 a (new)

(29 a) In their application of this Regulation, the Union and the Member States should have due regard to the environmental impact of the digitialisation of cross-border judicial cooperation and should therefore aim to put in place measures that mitigate or reduce such impact to the extent possible and in view of promoting environmental sustainability.

Amendment 143 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 29 b (new)

(29 b) For the purposes of complying with this Regulation in full respect of the Charter, given the highly sensitive nature of the information exchanged, Member States should strive to put in place national measures that would ensure a level of cybersecurity that is comparable to that of the NIS2 proposal.

Amendment 144 #

(30) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725, Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and the Council and Directive (EU) 2016/68048 of the European Parliament and the Council, apply to the processing of personal data carried out in the decentralised IT system. In order to clarify the responsibility for the processing of personal data sent or received through the decentralised IT system, this Regulation should indicate the controller of the personal data. For this purpose, each sending or receiving entity should be regarded as having determined the purpose and means of the personal data processing separately. _________________ 48 Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89).

Amendment 145 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 31

(31) In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation as regards the establishment of the decentralised IT system, ~~implementing~~delegated powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council49 . _________________ 49 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by the Member States of the Commission'se adoption of these delegated acts should be based on a proper consultation of the relevant exper~~cise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13)~~ts and legal practitioners.

Amendment 146 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. This Regulation establishes a uniform legal framework for the implementation and use of electronic communication between competent authorities in judicial cooperation procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters and for the implementation and use of electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities in judicial procedures in civil and commercial and criminal matters.

Amendment 147 #

~~(c) the legal effects of electronic documents;~~deleted

Amendment 148 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 – point d

~~(d) electronic payment of fees.~~deleted

Amendment 149 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. This Regulation shall apply only to existing procedures and does not amend rules of these procedures in substance.

Amendment 150 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2

2. This Regulation shall apply to: (a) electronic communication between competent authorities in the context of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II; (b) electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities, and electronic payment of fees in cross-border civil and commercial matters, in the context of the legal acts listed in Annex I; and (c) videoconferencing in proceedings falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II or in other civil and commercial matters, where one of the parties is present in another Member State.deleted

Amendment 151 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point b

(b) electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities~~, and electronic payment of fees in cross-border civil and commercial matters, in the context of the legal act~~ in the context of the legal acts listed in Annex I, insofar as this lis~~ted in Annex I~~ provided for in national proceedings for specific procedures; and

Amendment 152 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1

(1) “competent authorities” means courts, public prosecutors~~, Union agencies and bodies and other authorit~~ and other national or Union bodies taking part in judicial cooperation procedures in accordance with the provisions of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II;

Amendment 153 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 2

(2) “electronic communication” means digital exchange of ~~information~~data over the internet or another electronic communication network;

Amendment 154 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3

(3) “electronic document” means a ~~document transmitted as part of electronic communication, including scanned paper documents~~n information storage medium which allows its contents to be consulted;

Amendment 155 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) “decentralised IT system” means ~~a network of IT systems and interoperable access points, operating under the individual responsibility and m~~the e-CODEX system within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2022/850 of 30 May 2022 on a computerised system for the cross-border electronic exchanage~~ment of each Member State, Union agency or body that enables the secure and reliable cross-border exchange of information~~ of data in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and criminal matters (e-CODEX system), and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1726;

Amendment 156 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4

(4) “decentralised IT system” means a network of IT systems and interoperable access points, operating under the individual responsibility and management of each Member State, Union agency or body that enables the auditable, secure and reliable cross-border exchange of information;

Amendment 157 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new)

(6 a) “Hearing through videoconferencing” means a hearing held through videconferencing tools or other audiovisual transmission technology enabling the remote participation of persons in the pre-trial or trial phase of a proceeding. In the context of criminal proceedings, “Hearing through videoconferencing” means a hearing held in cross-border proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, at the request of a Member State that is different from the one where at least one of the persons to be heard or questioned are located, and for which the persons to be heard or questioned gave their consent to be heard or questioned through videconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology.

Amendment 158 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 2 a (new)

Article 2 a Non-discrimination and respect for fundamental rights The fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons affected by electronic communication in judicial procedures in civil, commercial and criminal matters, in particular the right to effective access to justice, the right to a fair trial, the principle of non-discrimination, the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, shall be fully respected in accordance with Union law.

Amendment 159 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Article 2 b Separation of powers and independence of the judiciary When carrying out their responsibilities under this Regulation, all entities shall respect the principle of the separation of powers and ensure that their decisions and actions respect the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

Amendment 160 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Written c~~Communication between competent authorities of different Member States in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out ~~through a secure and reliable~~, as a rule, through a decentralised IT system.

Amendment 161 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Written communication between competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out through an auditable, secure and reliable decentralised IT system.

Amendment 162 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. Written communication between competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out through a secure, efficient and reliable decentralised IT system.

Amendment 163 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 1

1. ~~Written c~~Communication between competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, including the exchange of forms established by these acts, shall be carried out through a secure and reliable decentralised IT system.

Amendment 164 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the transmitted material o, the sensitive nature of criminal proceedings or other exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate and reliable alternative means, ~~taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information~~ensuring a secure exchange of information, based on the assessment of competent national authorities.

Amendment 165 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the transmitted material or exceptional circumstances or where such electronic communication is otherwise inappropriate on account of the specific circumstances of the case, as assessed by the national competent authorities, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information.

Amendment 166 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the transmitted material or exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information. Where the criminal proceedings concerned are of a sensitive nature, the competent authority may decide that direct physical exchange of data is necessary.

Amendment 167 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system or due to other reasons invoked by a concerned competent authority, the nature of the transmitted material or exceptional circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, ~~taking into account the need to~~while ensureing a secure and reliable exchange of information.

Amendment 168 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to exceptional circumstances, such as the disruption of the decentralised IT system, and the nature of the transmitted material ~~or exceptional circumstances~~, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information.

Amendment 169 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 2

2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to the disruption of the decentralised IT system, the nature of the transmitted material or ~~exceptional~~other circumstances, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information.

Amendment 170 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

~~3. Where the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate in view of the specific circumstances of the communication in question, any other means of communication may be used.~~deleted

Amendment 171 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. Where, in exceptional cases other than those covered by paragraph 2, the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate in view of the specific circumstances of the communication in question, ~~any other means of communication may be used~~the competent authority may take a reasoned decision to use any other means of communication that ensures the secure, efficient and reliable exchange of information.

Amendment 172 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. Where the competent authorities consider, in the context of specific proceedings, that the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate, in ~~view of th~~particular where there are specific circumstances ofassociated with the communication in question, any other means of communication may be used.

Amendment 173 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. Where the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate in view of the specific circumstances of the communication in question, any other means of communication may be used by the competent authority.

Amendment 174 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3

3. Where the use of the decentralised IT system is not appropriate in view of the specific circumstances of the communication in question, any other secure means of communication may be used.

Amendment 175 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The means of communication used to share evidence shall not affect the validity and admissibility of the evidence exchanged, as long as those means are secure and reliable.

Amendment 176 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Documents submitted by means other than the decentralised IT system shall not be considered inadmissible solely on that basis.

Amendment 177 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4

~~4. Paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to the exchange of forms provided by the instruments listed in Annex I and Annex II.~~deleted

Amendment 178 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4

4. Paragraph 3 of this Article shall not apply to the exchange of forms provided by the instruments listed in Annex I and Annex II., except as regards the possible use of the forms by parties to proceedings

Amendment 179 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Where appropriate and in accordance with Member States’ national law, parties to a case and their legal or authorised representative shall have access to relevant case materials, such as communication between competent authorities, via the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 180 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. The communication requirements set out in this Article do not affect the admissibility of evidence in individual cases.

Amendment 181 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. The requirements under applicable national law concerning the admissibility of documents or information shall remain unaffected by this Regulation.

Amendment 182 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Use of the decentralised IT system, or not, as the case may be, shall have no bearing on the admissibility of evidence exchanged.

Amendment 183 #

Marina KALJURAND

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)

Article 3 a Communication between competent authorities in criminal matters Without prejudice to Article 3, for the purposes of a European Arrest Warrant issued pursuant to Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, the issuing Member State authority shall use the decentralised IT system referred to in Article 3(1), to provide the competent authority in the executing Member State with: a) the information required to enable the suspect, accused or convicted person to appoint a lawyer in the issuing state in accordance with Article 10(5) of Directive 2013/48/EU and apply for legal aid in the issuing state in accordance with Article 5 of Directive 2016/1919/EU; b) the material evidence that supports the cross-border cooperation request in accordance with Article 7(2), of Directive 2012/13/EU, in due time before the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.

Amendment 184 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 3 a (new)

Article 3 a The obligations set out in the Article 3 (1), (2) and (3) and the possibility to use alternative means of exchanging information do not affect the admissibility of the evidence collected.

Amendment 185 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. A European electronic access point shall be established on the European e- Justice Portal, to be used for electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I. That European electronic access point shall be such as to meet the accessibility requirements set out in Annex I to Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council1a. _________________ 1a Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (OJ L 151, 7.6.2019, p. 70).

Amendment 186 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. A European electronic access point shall be established on the European e- Justice Portal, to be used for electronic communication between natural or legal persons and their duly appointed legal representatives and competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I.

Amendment 187 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. A European electronic access point shall be established on the European e- Justice Portal, to be used for electronic communication between natural or legal persons, or their legal or authorised representative, and competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I.

Amendment 188 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1

1. A European electronic access point shall be established on the European e- Justice Portal, to be used for electronic communication between natural or legal persons, their legal representatives, and competent authorities in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I.

Amendment 189 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons to nominate a legal representative to perform the actions outlined in paragraph 3 in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, and to perform the actions outlined in paragraph 4 in cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex II.

Amendment 190 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The provision of paragraph 1 is of a subordinate nature to the national court portals (national access points).

Amendment 191 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall be responsible for the technical management, development, maintenance, security and support of the European electronic access point. The Commission shall collaborate with external experts with a proven track record in secure, user-friendly and accessible IT development in the design and build stages of the European electronic access point.

Amendment 192 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall be responsible for the creation, technical management, development, maintenance, security and support of the European electronic access point. The European electronic access point shall be made as accessible as technically possible to all natural or legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives.

Amendment 193 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2

2. The Commission shall be responsible for the technical management, development, accessibility, maintenance, security and support of the European electronic access point.

Amendment 194 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Member States shall ensure that accessible and free of charge assistance services are provided to any natural or legal persons and their legal or authorised representatives who may require them in order to use the European electronic access point or the national IT portals, where available.

Amendment 195 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The European electronic access point shall contain information for natural and legal persons on their right to legal assistance, including in cross-border proceedings. The European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons or their legal representatives to file claims, launch requests, request and obtain access to digitalised case files, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities, including in the pre-trial and trial stages of cross-border proceedings in civil, commercial and criminal matters. The European electronic access point shall ensure that national procedural requirements, such as forms, language and legal representation in the concerned proceedings, are respected.

Amendment 196 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The European electronic access point shall refer to the European e-justice Portal as regards the information for natural and legal persons on their right to legal assistance and shall allow natural and legal persons to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities.The European electronic access point shall be accessible from the European e-justice Portal which is available in all EU official languages and contains all necessary forms.

Amendment 197 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons and their legal or authorised representative to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information ~~and communicate with the competent authorities~~, review relevant documents related to a proceeding and communicate with the competent authorities. The European electronic access point shall comply with the requirements of the national law of the relevant Member State with regard to form, language and representation.

Amendment 198 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3

3. The European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons and their legal representatives to file claims, launch requests, send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities.

Amendment 199 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 4 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. In cases falling under the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex II, the European electronic access point shall allow natural and legal persons or their duly nominated legal representatives to launch requests and to send and receive procedurally relevant information and communicate with the competent authorities in the context of a defence.

Amendment 200 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – title

Means of communication between natural ~~or legal~~ persons and competent authorities

Amendment 201 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written communication between natural or legal persons, members of the legal professions and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 202 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written electronic communication between natural or legal persons, or their representatives, and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 203 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written communication between natural or legal persons or their legal representatives and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 204 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written communication between natural ~~or legal persons~~persons, or their legal or authorised representative, and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 205 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written communication between natural or legal persons, their legal representatives and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 206 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Written electronic communication between natural or legal persons and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, may be carried out by the following electronic means:

Amendment 207 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ~~the European electronic access point~~national IT portals, where available; or

Amendment 208 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) ~~national IT portals, where available~~the European electronic access point.

Amendment 209 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Competent authorities shall communicate with natural and legal persons in the first instance through the national IT portal, or through the European electronic access point, where that natural or legal person gave prior express consent to the use of this means of communication when required.

Amendment 210 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Competent authorities shall communicate with natural and legal persons through the European electronic access point, where that natural or legal person gave prior express consent to the use of this means of communication, and that means of communication is accessible to any person with a disability.

Amendment 211 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Competent authorities shall communicate with natural and legal persons, or their duly nominated legal representatives, as appropriate, through the European electronic access point, where that natural or legal person gave prior express consent to the use of this means of communication.

Amendment 212 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 2

2. Competent authorities shall communicate with natural ~~and legal~~ persons through the European electronic access point or through national IT portals, where available, where that natural ~~or legal~~ person gave prior express consent to the use of this means of communication.

Amendment 213 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 – paragraph 3

3. Communication ~~under~~which fulfils the conditions set out in paragraph 1 shall be considered equivalent to written communication under the applicable procedural rules.

Amendment 214 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 5 a (new)

Article 5 a Means of communication between legal persons and competent authorities 1. Written communication between legal persons or their legal or authorised representative and competent authorities falling within the scope of the legal acts listed in Annex I, shall be carried out by the following electronic means: (a) the European electronic access point; or (b) national IT portals, where available. 2. Where electronic communication in accordance with paragraph 1 is not possible due to exceptional circumstances, such as the disruption of the decentralised IT system and the nature of the transmitted material, the transmission shall be carried out by the swiftest, most appropriate alternative means, taking into account the need to ensure a secure and reliable exchange of information. 3. Documents submitted by means other than the decentralised IT system shall not be considered inadmissible solely on that basis. 4. Communication under paragraph 1 shall be considered equivalent to written communication under the applicable procedural rules.

Amendment 215 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Competent authorities shall accept electronic communication under Article 5(1), transmitted through national IT portals or the European electronic access point ~~or national IT portals, where available~~, where available. Electronic means of communication with the court in proceedings with a cross-border component may only be used where national legislation provides an analogous route for participants in proceedings without such a component.

Amendment 216 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Competent authorities shall accept electronic communication which fulfils the conditions set out under Article 5(1), and which is transmitted through the European electronic access point or national IT portals, where available.

Amendment 217 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Competent authorities shall accept electronic communication under Article 5(1) and Article 5a(1), transmitted through the European electronic access point or national IT portals, where available.

Amendment 218 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 6 – paragraph 1

Competent authorities shall accept electronic communication under Article 5(1), transmitted through the European electronic access point ~~or national IT portals, where available~~.

Amendment 219 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title

Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in civil and commercial matters when one of the parties is present in another Member States

Amendment 220 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title

Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border civil and commercial matters

Amendment 221 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – title

Hearing through videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology in civil and commercial matters

Amendment 222 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Without prejudice to specific provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, and upon request of a party to proceedings falling under the scope of these legal acts or in other civil and commercial matters where one of the parties is present in another Member State, or upon request of their legal or authorised representative, competent authorities shall allow their participation to a hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, provided that:

Amendment 223 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Without prejudice to specific provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, and upon request of a party to proceedings falling under the scope of these legal acts or in other civil and commercial matters where one of the parties is present in another Member State, or upon request of their legal or authorised representative, competent authorities shall allow their participation as well as of all other relevant participants to the proceedings to a hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, provided that:

Amendment 224 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Without prejudice to specific provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex I, and upon request of a party to proceedings falling under the scope of these legal acts or in other civil and commercial matters where one of the parties is present in another Member State, or upon request of their legal or authorised representative, competent authorities shall allow their participation to a hearing by videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology, provided that:

Amendment 225 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

~~(a) such technology is available, an~~deleted

Amendment 226 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) such technology is available and the relevant software is made freely available to all parties and other relevant participants to the proceedings, and

Amendment 227 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) such technology is available, and meets the accessibility requirements set out in Annex I to Directive (EU) 2019/882, and

Amendment 228 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the other party or parties to the proceedings were given the possibility to submit an opinion on or refuse the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.

Amendment 229 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) all parties and other relevant participants to the proceedings have access to the necessary infrastructure to use videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, and

Amendment 230 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b a (new)

(b a) procedural safeguards requested by a party with disabilities are granted.

Amendment 231 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 – point b b (new)

(b b) the necessary adjustments are made to assure non-discrimination and respect for fundamental rights of all parties in line with Article 2a as well as respective procedural rights

Amendment 232 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Virginie JORON, Alessandra BASSO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. A request for conducting an oral hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology may be refused by the competent authority where the particular circumstances of the case are not compatible with the use of such technology.deleted

Amendment 233 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

Amendment 234 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

Amendment 235 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

Amendment 236 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 2

2. A request for conducting an oral hearing through videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology may be refused by the competent authority where the particular circumstances of the case are not compatible with the use of such technology.

Amendment 237 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Competent authorities may on their own motion allow the participation of parties to hearings by videoconference, provided that all parties to the proceedings are given the possibility to submit an opinion on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.deleted

Amendment 238 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

Amendment 239 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Competent authorities may on their own motion allow the participation of parties to hearings by videoconference, provided that all parties to the proceedings are given the possibility to submit an opinion on or refuse the use of videoconferencing or other ~~distance communication technology~~audiovisual transmission technology based on justifications pertaining to the particular circumstances of the case.

Amendment 240 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 3

3. Competent authorities may on their own motion ~~allow~~determine the participation of parties and other relevant parties to hearings by videoconference, provided that all ~~parties to the proceedings are given the possibility to submit an opinion on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology~~the conditions under Articles 1(a), 1(b), 1(ba) and 1(bb) are met.

Amendment 241 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. Subject to this Regulation, the procedure for requesting and conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State ~~conducting videoconferen~~in which the proceeding has been lodged or where the proceedings are taking place.

Amendment 242 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4

4. ~~Subject to this Regulation, t~~The procedure for requesting and conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State conducting ~~videoconference~~the hearing.

Amendment 243 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. The confidentiality of communication between the parties and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall be ensured at all times and in any circumstances. Any breach of this confidentiality shall result in the invalidity of the hearing, and of any information that arise from such breach.

Amendment 244 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Where the recording of hearings is provided for under the national law of a Member State for domestic cases, the same rules shall apply also to hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border cases. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that such records are secured and not publicly disseminated.

Amendment 245 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 4 a (new)

4 a. Member States shall ensure that the use of videoconference or other distance communication technology is accessible for any person with a disability.

Amendment 246 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 5 a (new)

5 a. During the remote hearing, the court should be able to continuously monitor the quality of the image and sound of the video connection in order to ensure that any technical problems do not affect the right of the parties to participate effectively in the proceedings

Amendment 247 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title

Hearing through videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology in cross-border criminal proceedings

Amendment 248 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title

8 Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border criminal proceedings

Amendment 249 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – title

Hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border criminal proceedings

Amendment 250 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Where the competent authority of a Member State requests the hearing of a suspect, accused or convicted person in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, ~~the competent authority shall allow~~who are located in another Member States, the corresponding competent authority of that other Member State shall authorise their participation to the hearing by videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology, provided that:

Amendment 251 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Where the competent authority of a Member State requests the hearing of a suspect, accused or convicted person in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, and where the person is located in another Member State, the competent authorityies involved shall allow their participation to the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, provided that:

Amendment 252 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Where the competent authority of a Member State requests the hearing of a suspect, accused or convicted person in proceedings under the legal acts listed in Annex II, the competent authority shall allow their participation to the hearing, as well as of all other relevant participants to the proceedings, by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, provided that:

Amendment 253 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) ~~such technology is available~~the videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology available allows for the authentication of the persons to be heard, and enables both verbal and non-verbal communications during the hearing;

Amendment 254 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a

(a) such technology is available and the relevant software is made freely available to all parties and other relevant participants to the proceedings;

Amendment 255 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology would not be contrary to the fundamental principle of the law of the authorising state;

Amendment 256 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point a b (new)

(a b) the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology would not be incompatible with the authorising State’s obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter;

Amendment 257 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the particular circumstances of the case justify the use of such technology; and competent authorities take any necessary measures to ensure non-discrimination and respect for fundamental rights of all parties in line with Article 2a as well as applicable procedural rights;

Amendment 258 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point b

(b) the particular circumstances ~~of the case~~and procedural needs of the case, including where relevant the need to guarantee the publicity of the criminal trial, justify the use of such technology;

Amendment 259 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c

Amendment 260 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the suspect, accused or convicted persons expressed consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology. ~~Before expressing consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology the suspect or the accused person shall have the possibility to seek the advice of a lawyer~~Member States shall ensure that the consent to the use of videoconferencing by a suspect, accused or convicted person is given voluntarily and unequivocally. The competent authority conducting the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall verify the suspect’s, accused or convicted person’s consent before proceeding with the hearing. Verification of the consent shall be recorded in the records of the hearing in accordance with the national law of the Member State. Before the suspect, accused or convicted person is asked to express their consent, the competent authorities shall provide them with information about the procedure for conducting a hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, including their right to interpretation in accordance with Directive 2010/64/EU and their right of access to legal assistance in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU.

Amendment 261 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the suspect, accused or convicted persons expressed consent on ~~the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology~~waiving their right to be present in person, and the suspect, accused or convicted persons agreed to the use of videoconferencing for that hearing. Before expressing consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology the suspect or the accused person shall have ~~the possibility to seek~~ access to a lawyer to seek advice in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU. Competent authorities shall provide suspects, accused or convicted persons with accesss to qualified translation or interpretation services, and with information about the procedure for conducting a hearing through videoconferencing or other a~~dvice of a lawyer in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU~~udiovisual transmission technology, including the right to interpretation in accordance with the Directive 2010/64/EU and the right of access to legal assistance in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU, before such persons are required to consent or object on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.

Amendment 262 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c

(c) the suspect, accused or convicted persons expressed consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology. Before expressing consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology the suspect or the accused person shall have the possibility to seek the advice of a lawyer in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU. Competent authorities shall provide suspects, accused or convicted persons with information about the procedure for conducting a hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, including the right to interpretation in accordance with Directive 2010/64/EU, and the right of access to legal assistance in accordance with Directive 2013/48/EU, before seeking consent on the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.

Amendment 263 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) the consent of a suspect, accused or convicted person to the use of videoconferencing, is given voluntarily and unequivocally, and that the competent authority conducting the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology has verified that consent prior to starting such hearing. The consent shall be recorded in the case file, and shall be confirmed and recorded at the begining of the video- conferencing hearing. The form and the validity of the consent shall be compatible with the criminal laws of both the Member State making the request, and of the Member State authorising the request. Such consent may be withdrawn at any time during the trial.

Amendment 264 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(c a) All parties as well as all other relevant participants to proceedings have access to the necessary infrastructure to use videoconferencing or other distance communication technology.

Amendment 265 #

Gilles LEBRETON, Virginie JORON

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c a (new)

(ca) such technology is not used in criminal matters.

Amendment 266 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 – point c b (new)

(c b) without prejudice to national law governing the procedure and time limits for submission of evidence, the technology used for the purposes of conducting the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology ensures it is possible to submit, review and examine evidence, including through the examination of witnesses.

Amendment 267 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The competent authorities in the requesting and authorising Member States shall agree the practical arrangements of the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology.When agreeing such arrangements, the competent authority authorising the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall undertake to: (a) summon the suspected, accused or convicted persons to appear for the hearing in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in the law of the executing State and inform such persons about their rights under the law of the issuing State, in such a time as to allow them to exercise their rights of defence effectively; (b) ensure the identity of the person to be heard; (c) ensure that the suspected, accused or convicted persons receive materials of the case essential to safeguard the right of the defence translated into their native language.

Amendment 268 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. Member States shall ensure that the consent to videoconferencing by a suspect, accused or convicted person is given voluntarily and unequivocally. The competent authority conducting the hearing by videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall verify the suspect’s, accused or convicted person’s consent before proceeding with the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology. Judicial verification of the consent shall be recorded in the records of the hearing in accordance with the national law of the Member State.

Amendment 269 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 1 b (new)

1 b. The issuing Member State authority shall use the decentralised IT system referred to in Article 3(1) in criminal matters to provide information to the executing Member State to enable the suspect, accused or convicted person to appoint a lawyer in the issuing state in accordance with Article 10(5) of the Directive 2013/48/EU and apply for legal aid in the issuing state in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive 2016/1919/EU.

Amendment 270 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 2

2. Paragraphs 1 isand 1a are without prejudice to the provisions regulating the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in the legal acts listed in Annex II.

Amendment 271 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. Subject to this Regulation, the procedure for conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State requesting the videoconference. The Member State which requests the video conference shall also conduct~~ing~~ the videoconference.

Amendment 272 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. Subject to this Regulation, the procedure for conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State ~~conducting the videoconferen~~where the proceedings are taking place.

Amendment 273 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3

3. ~~Subject to this Regulation, the procedure for conducting a videoconference shall be regulated by the national law of the Member State conducting the videoconference.~~Where a hearing is held by videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology, the following rules shall apply:

Amendment 274 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point a (new)

(a) the competent authority of the State authorising the hearing through videconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall be present during the hearing, where necessary assisted by an interpreter, and shall also be responsible for ensuring both the identity of the person to be heard and respect for the fundamental principles of the law of the authorising State. If the competent authority in the Member State authorising the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology is of the view that during the hearing the fundamental principles of the law of their State are being infringed, it shall immediately take the necessary measures to ensure that the hearing continues in accordance with those principles;

Amendment 275 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point b (new)

(b) measures for the protection of the person to be heard shall be agreed, where necessary, between the competent authorities of the requesting State and the authorising State;

Amendment 276 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point c (new)

(c) the hearing shall be conducted directly by, or under the direction of, the competent authority of the requesting State in accordance with its own laws;

Amendment 277 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point d (new)

(d) at the request of the requesting State or the person to be heard, the State authorising the hearing through videoconferenging or other audiovisual transmission technology shall ensure that the person to be heard is assisted by an interpreter;

Amendment 278 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 3 – point e (new)

(e) suspected, accused and convicted persons shall be informed in advance of the hearing of the procedural rights which would accrue to them, including the right not to testify, under the law of the requesting State and the authorising State.

Amendment 279 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4

4. The confidentiality of communication between suspects, accused or convicted persons and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall be ensured. Without prejudice to national law governing the procedure and time limits for submission of evidence, the technology used for the purposes of conducting the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall ensure the possibility to submit, review and examine evidence, including examination of witnesses.

Amendment 280 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4

4. The confidentiality of communication between suspects, accused or convicted persons and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall be ensured. The defendants should be able to communicate with their legal representative over a secured system. The use of a secured line, different from the video connection provided for the remote hearing,´will be ensured.

Amendment 281 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 4

4. The confidentiality of communication between suspects, accused or convicted persons and their lawyer before and during the hearing through videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology shall be ensured at all times and in any circumstances. Any breach of this confidentiality shall result in the invalidity of the hearing, and of any information that arise from such breach.

Amendment 282 #

4. The confidentiality of communication, such as through the use of videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, as well as sharing of documents between suspects, accused or convicted persons and their lawyer before ~~and~~, during and after the hearing ~~through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology shall be ensured~~shall be ensured by Member States and, where appropriate, facilitated, by the relevant competent authority.

Amendment 283 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5

5. Before hearing a child through videoconferencing or other ~~distance communicat~~audiovisual transmission technology, holders of parental responsibility as defined in Article 3, point 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council50 or another appropriate adult as referred to in Article 5(2) of that Directive ~~shall be informed promptly~~, or a legal representative, shall be informed promptly and express consent pursuant to paragraph 1(ca) of this Article. When deciding whether to hear a child through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, the competent authority shall take into account the best interests of the child. Equivalent guarantees to those provided in this paragraph for hearing children through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology shall apply when the hearing through videoconferencing or other audiovisual transmission technology concern vulnerable adults having notably communication and/or learning disabilities. _________________ 50 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1–20).

Amendment 284 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 5

5. Before hearing a ~~child~~minor through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology, holders of parental responsibility as defined in Article 3, point 2 of Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council50, or another appropriate adult as referred to in Article 5(2) of that Directive, shall be informed promptly. When deciding whether or not to hear a ~~child through~~minor by videoconferenc~~ing~~e or other distance communication technology, the competent authority shall take into account the best interests of the child as well as the full range of their rights as provided for in European and national law. _________________ 50 Directive (EU) 2016/800 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2016 on procedural safeguards for children who are suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings (OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1–-20).

Amendment 285 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 6

6. Where the recording of hearings is provided for under the national law of a Member State for domestic cases, the same rules shall apply also to hearings through videoconferencing or other distance communication technology in cross-border cases. Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that such records are secured and not publicly disseminated. Without prejudice to any measures agreed for the protection of persons, on the conclusion of the hearing, the requesting authority shall draw up minutes indicating the date and place of the hearing, the identity of the person heard, the identities and functions of all other persons in the authorising State participating in the hearing, any oaths taken and the technical conditions under which the hearing took place. The document shall be forwarded by the authority competent to authorise the hearing through videconferencing or other audivisual transmission technology, to the competent authority in the requesting State.

Amendment 286 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7

~~7. A suspect, an accused and the convicted person shall have the right to an effective legal remedy under national law in the event of a breach of this Article.~~deleted

Amendment 287 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7

7. A suspect, an accused and the convicted person shall have the right to an effective legal remedy under national law in the event of a breach of their rights deriving from the implementation of this Article.

Amendment 288 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7

7. A suspect, an accused and the convicted person shall ~~have~~be informed about the right to an effective legal remedy under national law in the event of a breach of this Article.

Amendment 289 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7 a (new)

7 a. Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that, where the person is being heard within its territory in accordance with this Article and refuses to testify when under an obligation or does not testify the truth, its national law applies in the same way as if the hearing took place in a national procedure.

Amendment 290 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7 b (new)

7 b. On the conclusion of the videoconference, the national authority shall draw up minutes indicating the date and place of the hearing, the identity of the person heard, the identities and functions of all other persons participating in the videoconference, any oaths taken and the technical conditions under which the hearing took place.

Amendment 291 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 8 – paragraph 7 c (new)

7 c. During the remote hearing, the court will be able to continuously monitor the quality of the image and sound of the video connection in order to ensure that any technical problems do not affect the right of the parties to participate effectively in the proceedings

Amendment 292 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – title

~~Electronic signatures and electronic seal~~Trust Services

Amendment 293 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 9 – paragraph 3

3. Where a document transmitted as part of the electronic communication under Article 5 of this Regulation requires or features a seal or handwritten signature, ~~advanced electronic seals, advanced electronic signatures,~~ qualified electronic seals or qualified electronic signatures as defined in Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 may be used instead.

Amendment 294 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1

Documents transmitted as part of electronic communication shall not be denied legal effect or be considered inadmissible in the context of cross-border judicial procedures under the legal acts listed in Annex I and Annex II solely on the ground that they are in electronic form, if they fulfil all the conditions set out in this Regulation.

Amendment 295 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 – paragraph 2

2. Member States shall provide for technical and accessible means allowing the payment of the fees referred to in paragraph 1 through the European electronic access point.

Amendment 296 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 11 a (new)

Article 11 a Training Member States shall make provision for training of legal professionals and the judiciary in the use of the decentralised IT system. Funding for this shall be provided to the Member States from the Union budget.

Amendment 297 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – title

Adoption of ~~implementing~~delegated acts by the Commission

Amendment 298 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. The Commission shall adopt ~~implementing~~delegated acts establishing the decentralised IT system, setting out the following:

Amendment 299 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – point a a (new)

(a a) a) the technical specifications ensuring the accessibility of the decentralised IT system for any person with a disability using the platform;

Amendment 300 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 a (new)

1 a. The specifications, objectives and related technical requirements listed in paragraph 1 shall be established in close consultation with the relevant experts and legal practitioners.

Amendment 301 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 2

~~2. The implementing acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 16.~~deleted

Amendment 302 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 3

3. The ~~implementing acts establishing the decentralised IT system~~delegated acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article shall be adopted by: (a) [1 year after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 3 and 4 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 2, 6 and 10 (b) [2 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 1, 8 and 9 and the legal act listed in Annex II, point 11. (c) [3 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] acts for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 6, 10, 11 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 3, 4, 5 and 9 shall be adopted by [5 years after the entry into force]. (d) [4 years after the entry into force of this Regulation] for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 3 2, 5, 7 and 412 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 21, 67 and 108 shall be adopted by [26 years after the entry into force].

Amendment 303 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 4

4. The implementing acts establishing the decentralised IT system for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 1, 8 and 9 and the legal act listed in Annex II, point 11 shall be adopted by [3 years after the entry into force].deleted

Amendment 304 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 5

5. The implementing acts establishing the decentralised IT system for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 6, 10, 11 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 3, 4, 5 and 9 shall be adopted by [5 years after the entry into force].deleted

Amendment 305 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 6

6. The implementing acts establishing the decentralised IT system for the legal acts listed in Annex I, points 2, 5, 7 and 12 and the legal acts listed in Annex II, points 1, 7 and 8 shall be adopted by [6 years after the entry into force].deleted

Amendment 306 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 a (new)

Article 12 a Training Member States shall provide appropriate training for the staff of competent authorities for the use of the digital means falling under this Regulation.

Amendment 307 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 – paragraph 1

1. The Commission shall be responsible for the creation, accessibility, maintenance and development of reference implementation software which Member States may choose to apply as their back- end system instead of a national IT system. The creation, maintenance and development of the reference implementation software shall be financed from the general budget of the Union. The Commission shall also ensure that Member States provide adequate training courses for competent authorities, legal representatives and any person using the decentralised IT system, and shall support the Member States in providing those training courses, in order to ensure that that IT system functions correctly and efficiently.

Amendment 308 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Article 13 a (new)

Article 13 a Training Member States shall ensure that the professionals concerned and competent authorities receive the necessary specialised training for the efficient use of the decentralised IT systems, and for the appropriate deployment of videoconferencing and other audiovisual transmission technologies in judicial proceedings, including in cross-border settings.

Amendment 309 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 2

2. Each Member State shall bear the costs of establishing and adjusting its national IT systems to make them interoperable with the access points, and shall bear the costs of administering, operating and maintaining those systems, as well as organise training courses for legal representatives, competent authorities and citizens on how to use those national IT systems.

Amendment 310 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 3

3. Member States shall ~~not be prevented from~~be encouraged and supported by the Commission to apply~~ing~~ for grants to support the activities referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2, under the relevant Union financial programmes.

Amendment 311 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 14 – paragraph 6 a (new)

6a. The Commission shall provide support for the training of professionals in the legal field concerned and of the competent authorities in the efficient use of the decentralised IT system.

Amendment 312 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 16

1. The Commission shall be assisted by a committee. That committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/201151 . 2. Where reference is made to this paragraph, Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 shall apply. _________________ 51 Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13–18).Article 16 deleted Committee procedure

Amendment 313 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

1. Every ~~fiv~~three years after the date of application of Article 25, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report supported by information supplied by the Member States and collected by the Commission. It shall also include an assessment of the effect of electronic communication on the equality of arms in the context of cross-border civil and criminal proceedings;

Amendment 314 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

Amendment 315 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

1. Every ~~five~~two years after the date of application of Article 25, the Commission shall carry out an evaluation of this Regulation and present to the European Parliament and to the Council a report supported by information supplied by the Member States and collected by the Commission.

Amendment 316 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 1

Amendment 317 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b a (new)

(b a) the number of relevant judicial professionals who have completed training in the use of digital tools for judicial cooperation;

Amendment 318 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 – point b b (new)

(b b) the number of cases where legal and technical assistance was provided to natural or legal persons in their use of the European electronic access point or the national IT portals, where available.

Amendment 319 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 17 – paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. The Commission may, where appropriate and duly justified, request information from national competent authorities other than the competent authority designated by Member States.

Amendment 320 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 1 – point d a (new)

(d a) identification of the competent authorities that should be considered as such for the proceedings under the legal acts that are listed in Annexes I and II.

Amendment 321 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 18 – paragraph 2

2. Member States ~~may~~shall notify the Commission if they are in a position to operate the decentralised IT system earlier than required by this Regulation. The Commission shall make such information available electronically, in particular through the European e-Justice Portal.

Amendment 322 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Chapter VI a (new)

VI a Training Member States shall provide the competent authorities, judges, court staff, and legal practitioners with sufficient training in IT solutions. Member States shall encourage the authorities to share best videoconferencing practices in order to reduce costs and increase efficiency.

Amendment 323 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point 1

5. The application shall be submitted in paper form, by electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]52 , or, where the use of such means is not possible in duly identified exceptional cases, by any other means of communication, including electronic, accepted by the Member State of origin and available to the court of origin .. _________________ 52 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 324 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006
Article 19 – paragraph 1 – point 3 – point a

4. The statement of opposition shall be submitted in paper form or by electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]54 , or, where the use of such means is not possible in duly identified exceptional cases, by any other means of communication, including electronic, accepted by the Member State of origin and available to the court of origin.. _________________ 54 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 325 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EC) No 861/2007
Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point 1

1. The claimant shall commence the European Small Claims Procedure by filling in standard claim Form A, as set out in Annex I to this Regulation, and lodging it with the court or tribunal with jurisdiction directly, by post, by electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]56 or, where the use of such means is not possible in duly identified exceptional cases, by any other means of communication, such as fax or e-mail, acceptable to the Member State in which the procedure is commenced. The claim form shall include a description of evidence supporting the claim and be accompanied, where appropriate, by any relevant supporting documents.. _________________ 56 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 326 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 1

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 1

4. The application and supporting documents may be submitted by any means of communication, including electronic, which are accepted under the procedural rules of the Member State in which the application is lodged or by the electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]58 . _________________ 58 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 327 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 2

5. The decision on the application shall be brought to the notice of the creditor in accordance with the procedure provided for by the law of the Member State of origin for equivalent national orders or by the electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]59 .. _________________ 59 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 328 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014
Article 21 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a

(b) by the electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]62 . _________________ 62 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 329 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Regulation 848/2015
Article 22 – paragraph 1 – point 2

Any foreign creditor may lodge claims in insolvency proceedings by any means of communication, which are accepted by the law of the State of the opening of proceedings or by the electronic means of communication provided for in Article 5 and Article 5a of Regulation (EU) …/…[this Regulation]64 . _________________ 64 * Regulation (EU) […] of the European Parliament and of the Council on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L …).

Amendment 330 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – introductory part

1. Member States shall start using the decentralised IT system referred to in Articles 3(1), and 5(1) and (2) from the first day of the month following the period o~~f two~~ne years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to in Article 12(3).

Amendment 331 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

They shall use that decentralised IT system tofor procedures instituted from the day referred to in the first subparagraph.

Amendment 332 #

2. Member States shall start using the decentralised IT system referred to in Articles 3(1), and 5(1) and (2) from the first day of the month following the period of ~~two~~one years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to in Article 12(4).

Amendment 333 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

They shall use that decentralised IT system tofor procedures instituted from the day referred to in the first subparagraph.

Amendment 334 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – introductory part

3. Member States shall start using the decentralised IT system referred to in 3(1), and 5(1) and (2) from the first day of the month following the period of ~~two~~one years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to in Article 12(5).

Amendment 335 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 3 – subparagraph 1

They shall use that decentralised IT system tofor procedures instituted from the day referred to in the first subparagraph.

Amendment 336 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4 – introductory part

4. Member States shall start using the decentralised IT system referred to in 3(1), and 5(1) and (2) from the first day of the month following the period of ~~two~~one years after the adoption of the implementing act referred to in Article 12(6).

Amendment 337 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1

They shall use that decentralised IT system tofor procedures instituted from the day referred to in the first subparagraph.

Amendment 338 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

It shall apply from [the first day of the month following the period of ~~two~~one years after the date of entry into force].

Amendment 339 #

Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 2

It shall apply from [the first day of the month following the period of ~~two~~one years after the date of entry into force].

Amendment 340 #

Proposal for a regulation
Annex II – point 1

~~(1) Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams.~~deleted

Amendment 60 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) In its 2 December 2020 Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU29 the Commission identified the need to modernise the legislative framework of the Union’s cross- border procedures in civil, commercial and criminal law, in line with the “digital by default” principle, while ensuring all necessary safeguards to avoid social exclusion and ensuring full respect of fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and to an effective legal remedy. Digitalisation of proceedings in civil and criminal matters should be encouraged with the aim of strengthening the rule of law and the fundamental rights guarantees in the Union, particularly by facilitating access to justice. _________________ 29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final

Amendment 61 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1

(1) In its 2 December 2020 Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU29 the Commission identified the need to modernise the legislative framework of the Union’s cross- border procedures in civil, commercial and criminal law, in line with the “digital by default” principle, while ensuring all necessary safeguards to avoid social exclusion and ensure mutual trust, interoperability and security, as well as full respect for fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair trial and effective legal remedy. _________________ 29 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Digitalisation of justice in the European Union. A toolbox of opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final

Amendment 62 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1a) The digitalisation of justice must ensure full respect for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the Commission and the Member States must accordingly ensure that this approach allows all European Union citizens to avail themselves of new or additional digital justice tools; to this end, it is essential to ensure equal treatment for people with disabilities and for children regarding equal access to justice.

Amendment 63 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 1 a (new)

(1 a) Mere access to judicial authorities does not automatically constitute effective access to justice. The digital switchover is a key step towards improving not only access to justice, but the efficiency, quality and transparency of justice systems.

Amendment 64 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2

(2) Facilitating access to justice for natural and legal persons, and facilitating judicial cooperation between the Member States are among the main objectives of the area of freedom, security and justice enshrined in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. At the same time, in order to achieve a fully functional area of freedom, security and justice, it is important that all Member States seek to reduce existing disparities regarding digitalisation, address the fragmentation of national justice systems and take advantage of the opportunities offered by the relevant EU funding mechanisms.

Amendment 65 #

Maria-Manuel LEITÃO-MARQUES, Ibán GARCÍA DEL BLANCO

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 2 a (new)

(2 a) Digitalisation of proceedings in civil and criminal matters should be encouraged with the aim of strengthening the rule of law and the fundamental rights guarantees in the Union, particularly by facilitating access to justice and effective judicial protection.

Amendment 66 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

(3) For the purposes of enhancing judicial cooperation and access to justice, legal acts of the Union providing for communication between competent authorities, including Union agencies and bodies, and between competent authorities and natural and legal persons, should be complemented by conditions for conducting such communication through digital means in a manner that ensures the protection of fundamental rights as provided for in the Charter, especially those enshrined in Title VI and Article 47 on the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. These should in no way undermine procedural rights that are essential for the protection of those fundamental rights, including those stemming from Directives 2010/64/EU, 2012/13/EU, 2013/48/EU and (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Amendment 67 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

Amendment 68 #

Fabienne KELLER, Malik AZMANI, Abir AL-SAHLANI, Michal ŠIMEČKA, Olivier CHASTEL

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

Amendment 69 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3

Amendment 70 #

Geoffroy DIDIER

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3 a (new)

(3a) The European Commission and Member States shall ensure that justice professionals are involved in the definition of the digital processes concerning them.

Amendment 71 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) This Regulation seeks to improve the ~~effectiveness and~~ speed of judicial procedures and facilitate access to justice by digitalising the existing communication channels, which should lead to cost and time savings, reduction of the administrative burden, and improved resilience in force majeure circumstances for all authorities involved in cross-border judicial cooperation. TNotwithstanding the fact that delays in the processing of cases are normally due to personnel issues, backlogs, and other real world issues, the use of digital channels of communication between competent authorities shcould lead to reduced delays in processing of the cases, which should benefit individuals and legal entities. This is also particularly important in the area of cross-border criminal proceedings in the context of the Union’s fight against crime. In this regard, the high level of security that digital channels of communication can provide constitutes a step forward, also with respect to safeguarding the rights of the persons concerned and protection of their privacy and personal dataIt could also be of benefit in cross-border criminal proceedings.

Amendment 72 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) This Regulation seeks to improve the effectiveness and speed of judicial procedures and facilitate access to justice by digitalising the existing communication channels, which should lead to cost and time savings, reduction of the administrative burden, and improved resilience in force majeure circumstances for all authorities involved in cross-border judicial cooperation. The use of digital channels of communication between competent authorities should lead to reduced delays in processing of the cases, which should benefit individuals and legal entities. This is also particularly important in the area of cross-border criminal proceedings in the context of the Union’s fight against crime. In this regard, the high level of security that digital channels of communication can provide constitutes a step forward, also with respect to safeguarding the rights of the persons concerned and protection of their privacy and personal data, strengthening confidence in justice systems and increasing the possibility of achieving a higher degree of compliance with the rule of law.

Amendment 73 #

Proposal for a regulation
Recital 4

(4) This Regulation seeks to improve the efficiency and effectiveness ~~and speed~~ of judicial procedures and facilitate access to justice by digitalising the existing communication channels, which should lead to cost and time savings, reduction of the administrative burden, and improved resilience in force majeure circumstances for all authorities involved in cross-border judicial cooperation. The use of digital channels of communication between competent authorities should lead to reduced delays in processing of the cases, which should benefit individuals and legal entities. This is also particularly important in the area of cross-border criminal proceedings in the context of the Union’s fight against crime. In this regard, the high level of security that digital channels of communication can provide constitutes a step forward, also with respect to safeguarding the rights of the persons concerned and protection of their privacy and personal data.

Amendment 74 #