Activities of Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD related to 2019/2207(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (debate)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States
Amendments (73)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 2
Citation 2
— having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Articles 4, 47, 48 and 52,
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 3 a (new)
Citation 3 a (new)
- having regard to Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions1a, _________________ 1a OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 102
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 4 a (new)
Citation 4 a (new)
- having regard to Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member States of the European Union, of the principle of mutual recognition to decisions on supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention1b, _________________ 1b OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 a (new)
Citation 7 a (new)
- having regard to its resolution of 5 October 2017 on prison systems and conditions1c, _________________ 1c Text adopted P8_TA(2017)0385
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 7 b (new)
Citation 7 b (new)
- having regard to its legislative resolution of 17 April 2019 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Justice programme1d, _________________ 1d Text adopted P8_TA(2019)0406
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 a (new)
Citation 11 a (new)
- having regard to 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 proceedings1e, _________________ 1e OJ L 65, 11.3.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that implementing the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW) has put legal systems in many Member States under strain; notes that the FDEAW revealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal law; believes that the cross-border dimension of an increased number of crimes, including those related to corruption, trafficking, digital crimes, environmental damage and gender-based violence, makes the respect of Rules of law and fundamental rights by Member States even more crucial, in particular when it comes to procedural rights;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 11 b (new)
Citation 11 b (new)
- having regard to 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 proceedings1f, _________________ 1f OJ L 132, 21.5.2016, p. 1.
Amendment 8 #
- having regard to Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters1h, _________________ 1h OJ L 130, 1.05.2014, p. 1.
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 15
Citation 15
— having regard to the European Added Value Assessment completed in January 2014 at the request of EPRS on the European Arrest Warrant, and to the cost of non-Europe study on Procedural Rights and Detention conditions of December 2017,
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 18 a (new)
Citation 18 a (new)
- having regard to the Council conclusions of 16 December 2019 on alternative measures to detention: the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the field of criminal justice1i, _________________ 1i OJ C 422, 16.12.2019, p. 9
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 a (new)
Citation 19 a (new)
- having regard to the Commission 2020 Rule of Law Report of 30 September 2020 (COM(2020)580),
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 b (new)
Citation 19 b (new)
- having regard to its Report of 7 October 2020 on the establishment of an EU Mechanism on Democracy, the Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights (A9- 0170/2020),
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 19 c (new)
Citation 19 c (new)
- having regard to the reports by national, European and international NGOs,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 a (new)
Citation 20 a (new)
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 20 b (new)
Citation 20 b (new)
- having regard to the conventions, recommendations and resolutions of the Council of Europe on prison matters and on criminal law cooperation,
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the EAW is a simplified and fast-trackcross-border judicial surrender procedure which, since its launch, has been the flagship and most used instrument for mutual recognition in criminal matters;
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Believes that further horizontal measures need to be adopted in order to increase mutual confidence in national criminal justice systems, thereby leading to more efficient judicial cooperation; insists that alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant should be better explored and invested in and emphasises that the European Arrest Warrant should only be used in exceptional circumstances as a last resort;
Amendment 31 #
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, however, mutual recognition in criminal justice has a different logic and legal basis than the mutual recognition of market access rules;
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers the FDEAW should be fully brought under the Lisbon Treaty as a new legislative instrumenat when all Member States’ full respect for their obligations regarding Rule of Law and Fundamental rights enshrined in the Treaties is guaranteed, the FDEAW should be fully brought under the Lisbon Treaty as a new legislative instrument; Believes that such an instrument should provide for adequate safeguards and ensure that the executing judicial authorities can refuse to execute a European arrest warrant when rule of law and fundamental rights deficiencies in the issuing Member State justify it; 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 law;
Amendment 33 #
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 authorities; whereas mutual recognition and fundamental rights must go hand in hand; whereas minimum rules for mutual recognition adopted under Article 82 TFEU shall not prevent Member States from maintaining or introducing a higher level of protection for individuals;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
F a. whereas mutual trust requires Member States to be complying with EU law and particularly with the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter and the rule of law; whereas judicial independence is a fundamental requirement and should always be guaranteed; whereas, according to the Commission 2020 Rule of Law Report, judicial independence remains an issue of concern in some Member States;
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5 a. Reiterates that moving forward with the pending Article 7 procedures is necessary for the protection of Rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights in the EU and for the building of mutual trust between Member States;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the EAW is the foundation for establishhas contributed to developing an area of freedom, security and justice; whereas its incorrect application could have devastating effects on individuals and their families, but also on the functioning of the Schengen area;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas double criminality is also a concept of international extradition and is scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; whereas the list of offences without a double criminality check should be reassessapplication of the principle of mutual recognition can result in a deviation from Member States’ responsibilities in protecting individuals’ fundamental rights; whereas double criminality check is necessary and must be applied; whereas in its initial proposal, the Commission sought an exhaustive list for which surrender could be refused (‘negative list’);
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas mutual recognition needs harmonisation of criminal material law and procedure; whereas progress has been made in the last few years, such as the adoption of six directives on procedural rights, alternative measures to the EAW such as the EIO, Directive 2012/29/EU on victims’ rights20 , and the harmonisation of criminal offences; whereas the fact that several Member States have not fully and correctly implemented the procedural rights Directives remains a matter of concern; _________________ 20 OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas facilitation and coordination by Eurojust has proven a useful tool for mutual recognition; whereas the mandate of Eurojust is independent of the EPPO;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q
Recital Q
Q. whereas a harmonised EAW implementation, together with the full and correct implementation of the procedural rights Directives, an enhanced use of alternative measures to the EAW and the establishment of EU minimum standards such as on prison and detention conditions, will prevent forum shopping;
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital Q a (new)
Recital Q a (new)
Q a. whereas alternative and less intrusive measures to the EAW are underused; whereas detention should be limited to situations in which no alternative measure can be used; whereas even where available in law, practical challenges to the use of alternatives measures to detention persist;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Notes the existence of particular problems; finds that these do not call the system into question; finds that the system depends on full compliance with the rule of law and fundamental rights in all Member States;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes that such problems mainly relate to prison an detention conditions, proportionality, implementation in EAW proceedings of the procedural safeguards enshrined in EU law, in particular dual legal representation in both executing and issuing states, and specific training, judicial independence, 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 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that issues were solvedattempts are being made to solve the issues 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 andfunding of training programmes and toolkits for practitioners under the EU Justice Programme, CJEU case law and supplementing legislation (Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA and the adoption of the Directives on procedural rights for suspects and accused persons as set out in the roadmap of 2009, in particular of Directive 2013/48/EU);
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Points out that a more proportionate use of the EAW should be enhanced as all Member States take part in it;
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the Treaties (Protocols 21 and 22) provide special status for two Member States – Ireland has an opt-in option and Denmark does not take part in EU criminal law, meaning that they make use of the EAW system but do not take part in all of the procedural safeguards Directives; highlights the importance of ensuring consistency on JHAin the area of freedom, security and justice;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Underlines that the EAW should not be misused for minor offences; recalls that the EAW should be limited to serious offences where strictly necessary and proportionate; urges the use of less intrusive legal instruments; points out that issuing and executing authorities should carry out proportionality checks that involve a right to challenge the issuing of the EAW before surrender is ordered to avoid violations of fundamental rights from occurring before any ex-post remedy becomes available;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Highlights that according to the CJEU, the refusal to execute an EAW is an exception to mutual recognition and must be interpreted strictlypossible where one of the grounds for non–recognition (Articles 3, 4 and 4a EAW FD) or one of the guarantees (Article 5 EAW FD) applies; notes that limitations may be placed in exceptional circumstances to the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust on the basis of Article 1(3) EAW FD; notes that a real risk of breach of the fundamental right to an independent tribunal and, therefore, of the essence of the fundamental right to a fair trial (Article 47(2) Charter) is capable of permitting the executing judicial authority to refrain from giving effect to an EAW26 ; _________________ 26 See, for example, Case C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality.
Amendment 107 #
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 ofcomprehensive and comparable quality data in order to properly assess the (non)efficiency of EAWs; calls on Member States to systematically collect and transfer data to the Commission;
Amendment 111 #
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 ideallynot 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)., but requires an assessment of each case by the executing authority; recalls that a double criminality check is necessary given the absence of fully harmonised substantial criminal law as well as the absence of minimum procedural standards;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. Recalls that mutual recognition measures have led to inconsistent Member State practices with regard to legal safeguards and protections against fundamental rights violations; stresses the need to ensure effective and independent judicial oversight of mutual recognition measures;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 b (new)
Paragraph 10 b (new)
10 b. Highlights that in order to be effective, the principle of mutual recognition must be premised upon mutual trust which can only be achieved if respect for the fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons and procedural rights in criminal proceedings are guaranteed throughout the Union; recalls the importance of implementing the procedural rights Directives with a view to guarantee the right to a fair trial; in this regard, urges the Commission to ensure their full and correct implementation and to consider launching infringement proceedings where necessary;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Calls onInvites the Commission to analyse common offences in the Member States and to abut stressess the possibility ofat given the increasing rule of law deficiencies in some Member States, expanding the list of offences that do not require a double criminality check; highlights the importance of assessing the inclusion of additional offenc could put individuals’ fundamentals rights at risk; highlights that the cross- border dimension of an increased number of crimes, 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 wacrimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, makes the respect of rule of law and fundamental rights by Member States even more crucial, in particular when it comes to judiciary independence and the right to fair ctrimesal;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)
Paragraph 11 a (new)
11 a. Welcomes the EAW coordination group recently set up by the Commission; believes that this group will contribute to enhancing the rapid exchange of up-to- date and reliable information, good practices and to strengthening cooperation which can lead to a more uniform application of the EAW between judicial authorities but also envisage better exchange of information between lawyers representing the persons concerned by EAWs in executing and issuing member states;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 b (new)
Paragraph 11 b (new)
11 b. Highlights that double proportionality check in both the issuing and executing Member States would ensure protection for individuals and give the executing Member State the ability to check whether the benefits of extradition justify the burden and serve the overall interests of justice and whether EAWs for prosecution are only issued when the case is trial-ready for prosecution and not for investigations particularly where other less restrictive measures such as the European Investigation Order can be used instead to gather evidence without requiring the arrest and surrender of a person from another country;
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses the importance of defining more precisely the duties and competencies of the bodiedifferent actors involved in EAW procedures and ensuring that they are specialised and have practical experience; affirms that a broad margin of discretion for the executing authority is deemed scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; but considers that discretion should be limited in cases of double criminalityit necessary to ensure that the fundamental rights of individuals are fully respected;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Calls on the Commission to continue assessing the transposition of the EAW and other judicial cooperation instruments and to initiate infringement proceedings where necessary;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Calls on the Member States to implement the EAW and alternative legal instruments on criminal matters in a timely and proper fashion; urges the Member States to use alternative measures including the European Investigation Order, the European Supervision Order and procedural rights measures, which are less intrusive mutual recognition instruments; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor their correct implementation; calls on the Member States to not have recourse to the EAW in situations where a less intrusive measure would lead to the same results, including hearings by videoconferences and related tools;
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Calls on the Member States to ensure that judicial authorities refrain from ordering detention and coercive measures in EAW proceedings, particularly where a person consents to their surrender, unless strictly necessary and justified;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Notes the Commission’s worrisome report on the implementation of Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer in EAW proceedings; calls on the Commission to continue to assess Member States’ compliance with the directive and to take appropriate measures, including the launch of infringement proceedings, to ensure conformity with its provisions;
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Member States to provide flexibility for EAW language regimes, while upholding the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Calls on the Commission to provide for a uniform application and effective monitoring of time limits while respecting the fundamental rights of individuals;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 21
Paragraph 21
21. Calls on the Commission to ensure adequate funding for Eurojust and European Judicial Network (EJN) for facilitating and coordinating the EAW; notes that the Commission’s budgetary plans for Eurojust would have led to a stagnation in financing despite an increased workload;
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide appropriate funding for thelegal aid to persons concerned by EAW proceedings, including for legal assistance in both the issuing and executing Member States before surrender is ordered, funding for suitably qualified interpreters and translators, specific training of EAW for practitioners, including police, prosecutors, the judiciary and defence lawyers; notes the value of , particularly in areas such as the fundamental rights aspects of EAW, the assessment of proportionality and alternative measures to detention, representation in cases of EAW, and regarding the procedure to request a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the EU and seeking assurances from other Member States’ authorities; notes the value of European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) programmes, such as EAW simulations and language training;
Amendment 168 #
24 a. Considers that a specific public database of EAW lawyers could contribute to guaranteeing the right to access to a lawyer; notes that by ensuring dual representation, the level of fairness and justice around the EAW would improve; stresses that lawyers should have access to the case files in both issuing and executing states, including to the underlying case materials on which the decision to issue the EAW and national arrest warrant are based, to be in a position to provide effective legal assistance to the person concerned by the EAW;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Paragraph 25 a (new)
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27
Paragraph 27
27. Notes that although Article 7(1) TEU can affect 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; underlines that the triggering of Article 7(1) TEU does not amount to automatic non-recognitionindicates there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the Union values, such as the lack of guarantees of independence of the judiciary; considers that the EAW should not be used under such circumstances as its performance would be put into question; believes that the adoption of freezing mechanisms should be considered in such cases; welcomes that the Regional Court in Amsterdam has submitted a second case to the Court of Justice of the EU regarding the execution of a European Arrest Warrant from Poland; notes that until the CJEU decision, no EAW from Poland will be executed in the Netherlands;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 a (new)
Paragraph 29 a (new)
29 a. Is concerned about prison conditions in certain Member States and recalls that deprivation of liberty does not equate to deprivation of dignity; welcomes in this regard the new Criminal Detention Database of FRA and considers it a first positive step for a better common assessment of prison conditions in the EU2a; _________________ 2a https://fra.europa.eu/en/databases/crimin al-detention/criminal-detention/home
Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 b (new)
Paragraph 29 b (new)
29 b. Believes that the absence of minimum standards on prison conditions and pre-trial detention at the EU level, and of the limitation of the use of pre-trial detention as a measure of last resort and of consideration of alternatives, coupled with the lack of proper assessment of whether the case is trial-ready, can lead to unjustified and excessive periods of suspects and accused persons in pre-trial detention; recalls that this situation has been further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29 c (new)
Paragraph 29 c (new)
29 c. Considers that an efficient long- term management of penitentiary systems should be implemented, reducing the number of prisoners by more frequent use of non-custodial punishments, such as community service, financial penalties or electronic monitoring; stresses that alternative measures to detention should be considered throughout the whole criminal justice chain; calls on the Commission to step up efforts in this direction and to set up a EU monitoring mechanism on prison and detention conditions;
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls on the Commission to provide an assessment of the compliance with ne bis in idem and possible legislative action;
Amendment 204 #
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 negativemay have a detrimental impact on the rule of law, judicial systems and society;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 a (new)
Paragraph 32 a (new)
32 a. Stresses that according to FRA, the information about defendants’ procedural rights in criminal proceedings differs in both scope and how it is conveyed; calls on the Member States to put in place safeguards to ensure that individuals are effectively informed about their procedural rights as soon as they are suspected of having committed an offense;
Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 b (new)
Paragraph 32 b (new)
32 b. Notes that according to the standards of the ECtHR and the requirements set out in Directive 2013/48/EU on the right of access to a lawyer, defendants should have access to a lawyer without undue delay; recalls that ensuring adequate time to prepare a case and having full and quick access to the materials of the case would improve the quality of representation; stresses that given the cross-border nature of EAW proceedings, which frequently involve defendants who do not speak the language of the executing Member State, ensuring access to interpretation services at the initial stage of the proceedings, and in particular, facilitating communication with lawyers, is an essential safeguard of fair proceedings and a requirement pursuant to Directive 2010/64/EU; urges the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the right of access to a lawyer and to legal aid in both the issuing and executing Member States is guaranteed both in law and in practice;
Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 32 c (new)
Paragraph 32 c (new)
32 c. Considers that the challenges identified due to the incorrect or incomplete implementation of the procedural rights Directives not only undermine mutual trust but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families, and society as a whole;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 33
Paragraph 33
33. States that the EAW is effective; believes, however, that the main issue relates to coherencempliance with EU values and fundamental rights; stresses however that there are also issues with regards to coherence and efficiency;
Amendment 212 #
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; which ensures that Member States comply with EU law and with the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter; also calls on the Commission to assess the reasons why there might be different answers to the same issues; recalls that the EAW cannot be assessed in isolation;
Amendment 218 #
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 ofidentify how to make a better use of all of them, the challenges concerning their correct implementation and the way forward towards achieving EU minimum standards, particularly in criminal procedural safeguards and in prisoners and EAWdetention conditions;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37
Paragraph 37
37. Recommends, in the medium term, the promotion of an EU judicial code in criminal matters to guarantee legal certainty and, coherence and individuals' fundamental rights;
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 a (new)
Paragraph 37 a (new)
37 a. Recalls that the aim of the minimum criminal procedural safeguards laid down in the procedural rights Directives is to ensure a fair trial; highlights that the right to a fair trial is of cardinal importance as a guarantee that the fundament rights of individuals and the rule of law will be safeguarded; highlights that procedural rights compliance must be a pre-condition for executing any EAW; recalls that increased safeguards are needed to prevent abuse of EAWs;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 37 b (new)
Paragraph 37 b (new)
37 b. Underlines that there is no mechanism in place to ensure a proper follow-up to assurances provided by issuing judicial authorities after surrender; requests the Commission to explore possible measures in this direction;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 38
Paragraph 38
38. Calls on the Commission to continue negotiations with the UK in order to find the best solution that guarantees effective cooperation in criminal matters while ensuring the protection of individuals’ fundamental rights; points out that this would become extremely difficult should the UK withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights or repeal the Human Rights Act;