17 Amendments of Jiří POSPÍŠIL related to 2019/2207(INI)
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EAW procedure is a simplified and fast-track judicial surrender procedure whichand EAW, since its launch, has been the flagship and most used instrument for mutual recognition in criminal matters; EAW is not a judicial procedure but a judicial decision sui generis.
Amendment 26 #
B. whereas the EAW is a success and has replaced extraditions with transfsurrenders; whereas transfsurrenders have been shortened to 40 days on average where the individual does not consent;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that such problems relate to prison conditions, proportionality, the execution of custodial sentences23 , time limits24 and in absentia decisions; acknowledges that certain cases raised the issue of double criminality25 ; _________________ 23 CJEU, C-579/15, Popławski. 24 CJEU, C-168/13 PPU, Jeremy F. 25With guidance from C-289/15, Grundza, referring to Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA.
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Points out that a double criminality check limits mutual recognition and, according to the CJEU, must be interpreted restrictively; notes that mutual recognition should ideally work automatically27 ; _________________ 27See, for example, the Commission communication of 26 July 2000 on the Mutual Recognition of Final Decisions in Criminal Matters (COM(2000)0495).
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls on the Commission to analyse common offences in the Member States and to assess the possibility of expanding the list of offences that do not require a double criminality check; highlights the importance of assessing the inclusion of additional offences such as particular environmental crimes (e.g. ship-source pollution offences), hate crimes, sexual abuse, offences committed through digital means such as identity theft, offences against public order and the constitutional integrity of the Member States, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;which are already harmonised on the EU level.
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the importance of defining more precisely the duties and competencies of the bodies involved in EAW procedures and ensuring that they are specialised and have practical experience; aAffirms that a broad margin of discretion for the executing authority is scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; considers that discretion should be limited in cases of double criminality;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Calls on the Commission to launch asupport and eventually further develop The European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) and existing national training platforms for experts and practitionersjudiciary on mutual recognition instruments, including the EAW; affirms that it should provide them with knowledge about the close relationship between instruments, including a common space to exchange experiences;
Amendment 166 #
24. Notes that cooperation between authorities, including compliance on fundamental rights, can be improved by using technology and digitalisation; requests that a centralised database be developed on national EAW application (as with other areas of EU law)28 ; _________________ 28See the EPRS European Implementation Assessment of June 2020 on the EAW.
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission to provide an assessment of ne bis in idem and possible legislative action;
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Calls on the Commission to conduct a cross-case study of instruments so as to prevent abnormalities, as with the rules on transfer of prisoners and EAWmutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. States that coherency issues must be addressed by practical measures (training of practitioners), soft law (handbooks and recommendations), very targeted legislation (the definition of judicial authority, ne bis in idem, fundamental rights, etc.) and supplementing legislation (pre-trial detention);
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37