Activities of Ramona STRUGARIU related to 2019/2207(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (debate)
Amendments (32)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
- having regard to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and in particular its judgment of 9 July 2019 in the case Romeo Castaño v. Belgium;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas judicial cooperation in the Union is a relevant factor in achieving strategic autonomy and the environmental, social, economic and digital challenges posed;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the EAW is in general a success and has replaced extraditions with transfers; whereas transfers have been shortened to 40 days on average where the individual does not consent;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas of the 150 000 EAWs issued between 2005 and 2016, only 43 000 were executed, and whereas refusal to execute an EAW is not unusual;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas mutual recognition is not new but was developed in the area of free movement of goods, persons, services and capital (Cassis de Dijon logic); whereas any move away from applying the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters may have negative consequences and affect its application in other fields, such as the internal market;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas mutual recognition means the direct recognition of judicial decisions from other Member States with non- recognition as an exception; whereas it also entails cooperation between the competent judicial authoritiesapplication of mutual recognition is not compatible with the revision, on grounds not provided for in the Framework Decision, of decisions taken by other Member States; whereas cooperation and mutual trust between the competent judicial authorities has to prevail in application of this instrument;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas mutual recognition is a consequence of mutual trust based on a common understanding of the rule of law and fundamental rights; whereas the European Union needs this trust most particularly at this historic and crucial moment in order to tackle successfully common challenges; whereas reinforcing trust is key for the EAW to operate smoothly;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas the establishment of the EU mechanism on democracy, rule of law and fundamental rights will constitute a basis for recovery of this mutual trust; whereas the time has come to set out concrete ways of supporting mutual recognition in the implementation of the Framework Decision, binding its implementation to results stemming from the mechanism; whereas the inadequate and incoherent implementation of the Framework Decision by some Member States is not helping to reinforce this mutual trust;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas mutual recognition needs harmonisation ois facilitated if criminal material law and procedure are sufficiently harmonised; whereas progress has been made in the last few years, such as the six directives on procedural rights, Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights20, and the harmonisation of criminal offences; _________________ 20 OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the EAW is a major achievement and an effective and indispensable instrument; states that the EAW has substantially improved cooperation on surrenders; points out, however, that in these 20 years the world has been going through a digital transformation that has changed crime's ecosystem, and advises an update of legal rights to be protected;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the existence of particular problems; finds that these do not call the system into questionplace the system at risk, but they do need to be addressed to avoid certain blind spots that weaken the system; states that in addition to creating opportunities for citizens, the Schengen area and digital transformation have opened up new channels for the perpetration of criminal acts and facilitated the presence of transnational elements in many serious crimes;
Amendment 81 #
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; detects, in other cases, inconsistency in the application of grounds for refusing to execute EAWs; highlights too the absence of a comprehensive data system enabling the establishment of reliable qualitative and quantitative statistics on the issue, execution or refusal of EAWs; _________________ 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 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that some issues were solved by a combination of soft law (EAW handbook), mutual assessments, the assistance of Eurojust, CJEU case law and supplementing legislation (Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA and Directive 2013/48/EU), although others continue to exist;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that the EAW should be enhanced as all Member States take part in it; recalls that any weakening of mutual recognition in criminal matters can only lead to its weakening in other areas, which would be prejudicial to tackling common policies, such as the internal market, effectively;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the EAW should not be misused for minor offences; urges the use of less intrusive legal instruments where possible; points out that issuing authorities should carry out proportionality checks, taking into account (i) the seriousness of the offence, (ii) the likely penalty imposed if the person is found guilty ofthe alleged offence, (iii) the likelihood of detention of the person in the issuing Member State after surrender, (iv) the impact on the rights of the requested person and his or her family, and (v) the interests of the victims of the offence;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Recalls that a refusal on the basis of violation of fundamental rights in the Issuing State has to be based on a real and identified risk; points out that the ill- founded application of this ground for refusal produces legal uncertainty and weakens the system for monitoring and verifying that Member States are complying with fundamental rights; is concerned by the existence of instances of ill-founded refusals to execute EAWs which have given rise to impunity, as the competent legal authority has subsequently confirmed26 a; _________________ 26 aSee, for example, the ECHR judgment of 9 July 2019 in Case 8351/17, Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, on the refusal to surrender Natividad Jauregui.
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to provide for understandable data as the existing data is confusing and can offer a false impression of the (non)efficiency of EAWs; calls on Member States to collect and transfer data to the Commission; the Commission to set out the method for establishing that Member States have an obligation to collect and transfer data to the Commission; calls on the Commission to assess the possibility of creating a common database on EAWs, which would become a smart and efficient instrument for assessing judicial cooperation, identifying weak points and being better prepared for any adjustments; recalls that judicial cooperation is a key element in guaranteeing European strategic autonomy and social, economic, environmental and digital stability;
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Calls on the Commission to carry out a formal and substantive consistency assessment of the list of 32 categories not requiring a double criminality check; notes that greater legal certainty must be provided to all involved in implementation, thereby avoiding unnecessary disputes;
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10b. Calls on the Commission to evaluate the benefits of drawing up a homogeneous list that does not lump together specific offences, categories of offence and interests protected by law, as is currently the case; recommends also the inclusion of an annex containing definitions for each list entry to facilitate interpretation; suggests, finally, that each Member State list the types of criminal offence existing within their legal systems that can be subsumed in the list of 32 categories;
Amendment 118 #
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, including criteria such as the gravity of the offence, its cross-border dimension or its harmful effect in undermining the fundamental values of the Union; 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; stresses that closer judicial cooperation regarding offences of this nature would help the Union to achieve its own priority objectives, while at the same time strengthening the notion of respect for democracy and rule of law in the Union;
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Calls on the Commission to clarify accessory or related offences by means of the EU instruments in the field of harmonisation of criminal law;
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to implement the EAW and alternativeFramework Decision and the relevant judgments of the Court of Justice on the EAW as well as additional legal instruments on criminal matters in a timely and proper fashioncomprehensive manner;
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to ensure adequate funding for Eurojust and EJN for facilitating and coordinating the EAW; notes that the Commission’s current budgetary plaappropriations for Eurojust would have led to a stagnation in financing despite an increased workare insufficient in light of the challenges faced by the Agency with regard to the continuously growing caseload;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide appropriate funding for the training of EAW practitioners, including police, prosecutors, the judiciary and defence lawyers; notunderlines the value of EJTN programmes, such as EAW simulations and language training;
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26 a. 26a. Stresses that Member States shall ensure that every person, such us the requested person or victim, whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission including errors in the application of an EAW has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing state and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by the applicable mutual recognition instrument or, in the absence of explicit time limits, with sufficient promptness to ensure that the purpose of the mutual recognition process is not jeopardised.
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that although implementation of the procedures provided for under Article 7(1) TEU can affects mutual recognition, according to the CJEU, the executing authority must assess in each specific case whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, following the surrender, the person will run the risk of having their fundamental rights contravened; underlinespoints out that the triggering of Article 7(1) and (2) TEU does not amount to automatic non-recognition; recommends, therefore, the introduction of a system of precautionary measures, including suspension of the instrument, to underpin the guarantees provided, while enhancing confidence and mutual recognition between Member States;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates the importance of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in the form of an interinstitutional agreement consisting of an annual independent and evidence-based review to assess the compliance of all EU Member States with Article 2 TEU, plus country-specific recommendations, so as to enhance mutual recognition between the Member States; stresses the importance of linking refused enforcement arising from a possible breach of fundamental rights with the annual results obtained through the mechanism;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 32
32. Points out that shortcomings with the EAW can lead to a denial of access to justice and a lack of protection for victims; emphasises that impunity, as a result of deficiencies in judicial cooperation, has a very negative impact on the rule of law, judicial systems and society, public confidence in the institutions and the victims themselves;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34
Paragraph 34
34. Calls on the Commission to provide for a coherent policy on mutual recognition to avoid different answers to the same issues and to formulate new mechanisms to ensure the uniform implementation of grounds for refused enforcement arising from a possible breach of fundamental rights;
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 34 a (new)
Paragraph 34 a (new)
34a. Calls in particular for the establishment of mandatory grounds for refused enforcement arising from a possible breach of fundamental rights that are based on the results obtained through the EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights and that, in the interests of improved legal certainty, replace examination of each individual case by the Member State of enforcement; calls in addition for a system of precautionary measures to be incorporated into the Framework Decision in order to underpin the guarantees provided, thereby enhancing trust and mutual recognition between Member States where Article 7(1) or (2) of the TEU has been activated and confidence in the Member State concerned is being drastically eroded;
Amendment 216 #
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 EAWs; urges in particular that the practical implementation of the instrument in different countries be observed, with a view to identifying good practices that result in a high degree of compliance with warrants issued by certain countries and the specific difficulties encountered in countries where the level of non- compliance with European European arrest warrants is particularly high;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35 a. Calls on the Commission to carry out a regular assessment of non-executed EAWs and consider whether they, together with the corresponding SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn. There should be an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts.