4 Amendments of Assita KANKO related to 2019/2207(INI)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that Member States are responsible for ensuring a high level of mutual trust, which is premised on their obligation to respect the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU legislation, as well as on the adherence of their institutions to EU values, including the respect for the rule of law (Article 2 of the TEU); stresses that the principle of mutual recognition on which the European arrest warrant system is based, is itself founded on the mutual confidence between the Member States that their national legal systems are capable of providing equivalent and effective protection of the fundamental rights recognised at EU level, particularly in the Charter;
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the FDEAW should be fully brought under the Lisbon Treaty as a new legislative instrument; is convinced that this would provide substantial benefits in terms of democratic legitimacy, legal certainty and transparency, enhance coherence with other criminal law instruments, and allow for clarification of ‘judicial authority’ as an autonomous concept of EU lawIs convinced that providing greater transparency and independent scrutiny regarding the use of the EAW, would bring significant democratic legitimacy and confidence to the EU’s wider criminal justice area;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Stresses that the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as a source of primary law, always has precedence over any piece of secondary legislation concerning the European arrest warrant; insists that, as is stated in Article 51(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Member States and, consequently their courts, must respect the Charter where they are implementing EU law, which is the case when the issuing judicial authority and the executing judicial authority are applying the provisions of national law adopted to transpose the Framework Decision; is of the opinion therefore that automatic surrendering is out of the question, as confirmed by the European Court of Justice in the Aranyosi-judgment (C-404/15); insists that judicial control is always necessary to verify, among others, if there is a lawful decision, a competent authority and respect for the fundamental rights; notes that where the judicial authority of the executing Member State is in the possession of evidence of a real risk of a violation of fundamental rights in the issuing Member State, that judicial authority is bound to assess the existence of that risk when it is called upon to decide on the surrender to the authorities of the issuing Member State;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the withdrawal of the UK from the EU creates opportunities for further unification of the criminal justice area; rRecalls that the Political Declaration on the future relationship states that the UK and EU ‘will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’; insists that any agreement between the EU and UK in the field of criminal justice cooperation must be underpinned, inter alia, by their commitments on fundamental rights, as well as by the role of the ECJ in this matter.