Activities of Lieve WIERINCK related to 2016/0412(COD)
Plenary speeches (1)
Mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders (debate) NL
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders
Amendments (20)
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 11
Recital 11
(11) In order to ensure effective mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders, the rules on recognition and execution of those orders should be established by a legally binding and directly applicable legal act of the Union, in the form of a regulation.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
Recital 33
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33 a (new)
Recital 33 a (new)
(33a) Should a progressive system of appropriation of gains be adopted, the same principle should apply to costs.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 2
Article 10 – paragraph 2
2. The executing authority shall take the decision on the recognition and execution of the confiscation order without delay and, without prejudice to paragraph 5, no later than 3015 days after the executing authority has received the confiscation order.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 4
Article 10 – paragraph 4
4. Unless grounds for postponement pursuant to Article 11 exist, the executing authority shall carry out the confiscation without delay and without prejudice to paragraph 5 of this Article, not later than 3015 days following the taking of the decision referred to in paragraph 2 of this Article.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 5
Article 10 – paragraph 5
5. Where it is not possible in a specific case to meet the time limits set out in paragraphs 2 or 4, the executing authority shall, without delay, inform the issuing authority by any means, giving the reasons for the delay and shall consult with the issuing authority on the appropriate timing to carry out the confiscation. In such a case, the time limit laid down in paragraphs 2 or 4, may be extended by a maximum of 3015 days.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Article 12 – paragraph 1
Where it is impossible to execute the confiscation order because the property to be confiscated has already been confiscated, has disappeared, has been destroyed, or cannot be found in the location indicated in the certificate or because the location of the property has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner, even after consultation with the issuing authority, the issuing authority shall be notified without delayin 24 hours. Where possible, the order may be executed on other property in accordance with Article 8(2) or (3).
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 2
Article 19 – paragraph 2
2. Where the issuing authority has indicated in the freezing order that there are legitimate grounds to believe that the property in question will imminently be moved or destroyed and that immediate freezing is necessary, or if the issuing authority has indicated in the freezing order that the freezing measure has to be carried out on a specific date, the executing authority shall take full account of, as far as possible within its powers, comply with this requirement.
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 19 – paragraph 7
Article 19 – paragraph 7
7. Where it is not possible in a specific case to meet the time limits set out in paragraphs 3 or 6, the executing authority shall immediately inform the issuing authority within 24 hours by any means, giving the reasons for the delay and shall consult with the issuing authority on the appropriate timing to carry out the freezing.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. The freezing order shall not exceed the maximum time limit that exists for freezing orders in the national legislation of the executing State or the issuing State, whichever is the lowest. If there are no such time limits in the national legislation of both States, a maximum time limit of 10 years will apply, unless an alternative agreement between issuing and executing authorities can be found.
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Article 24 – paragraph 1
Where it is impossible to execute the freezing order because the property to be frozen has already been confiscated, has disappeared, has been destroyed or cannot be found in the location indicated in the certificate or because the location of the property has not been indicated in a sufficiently precise manner, even after consultation with the issuing authority, the issuing authority shall be notified without delayin 24 hours.
Amendment 68 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 1
Article 31 – paragraph 1
1. The executing State shall manage the frozen or confiscated property with a view to preventing its depreciation in value, and in accordance with Article 10 of Directive 2014/42/EU. A proper assessment of all confiscated goods shall be carried out by the executing Member States, taking into account their liquid or not liquid nature.
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b a (new)
(ba) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 100 000, 60% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b b (new)
(bb) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 500 000, 70% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b c (new)
(bc) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 1000 000, 80% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b d (new)
(bd) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 10 000 000, 90% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 76 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b e (new)
(be) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 50 000 000, 95% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 77 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b f (new)
Article 31 – paragraph 2 – point b f (new)
(bf) if the amount obtained from the execution of the confiscation order is more than EUR 100 000 000, 98% of the amount shall be transferred by the executing State to the issuing State.
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Article 32 – paragraph 1
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 32 – paragraph 2
Article 32 – paragraph 2
2. Where the executing State has had costs which it considers large or exceptional, the executing authority may propose to the issuing authority that the costs be shared. The issuing authority shall takeexceed EUR 10 000, the costs that exceed this amount shall be transferred to the issuing Member State, into account suchrdance with the a pproposal on the basis of detailed specifications given by the executing authorityriation provided for in Article 31(2).