Activities of Franco ROBERTI related to 2019/2207(INI)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas the EAW is the foundation for establishing an area of freedom, security and justice; whereas its incorrect application could have devastatamaging effects on the functioning of the Schengen areapolice and judicial cooperation across the Union;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas a Union of equality that protects must ensure protection for all victims of crime12 while at the same protecting the rights of suspected and accused persons; _________________ 12EU Strategy on victims’ rights (2020- 25).
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas most issues raised by the application of the EAW have been clarifiaddressed by the CJEU, such as ne bis in idem13 , judicial authority14 , primacy and EU harmonisation15 , independence of the judiciary16 , fundamental rights17 , double criminality18 and the extradition of EU citizens to third countries19 ; whereas, at the same time, judicial rulings cannot become a substitute for well-drafted legislation at Union level; _________________ 13 C-261/09, Mantello. 14C-453/16 PPU, Özçelik; C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak; C-477/16 PPU, Kovalkovas; Joined Cases C-508/18 and C-82/19 PPU, OG and PI. 15C-399/11, Melloni or C-42/17, M.A.S. and M.B. 16C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality. 17Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru; C-128/18, Dorobantu. 18 C-289/15, Grundza. 19C-182/15, Petruhhin, judgment of 6 September 2016; C-191/16, Pisciotti, judgment of 10 April 2018; C-247/17 Raugevicius, judgment of 13 November 2018 and C-897/19 PPU, Ruska Federacija, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 2 April 2020, etc.
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas other instruments have clarifiedhelped to address some EAW issues, such as Directive 2014/41/EU on the European Investigation Order21 and Regulation (EU) 1805/2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders22 ; _________________ 21 OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1. 22 OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1.
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Points out that the EAW is a major achievement and an effective and indispensable instrument for combating serious cross-border crimes; states that the EAW has substantially improved cooperation on surrenders;
Amendment 83 #
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 ; points out that such problems not only undermine mutual trust between Member States but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families and societies in general; _________________ 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 88 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that some issues were solvedhave been addressed, in part, 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);
Amendment 100 #
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 before an EAW is issued; points out that issuing authorities should carry out proportionality checks; calls on Member States and their judicial authorities to process EAW cases without undue delay once an EAW has been issued in order to keep pre-trial detention to a minimum;
Amendment 110 #
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; emphasises, however, that there are ongoing concerns about the lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which double criminality no longer applies; 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 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10 a. 10 a. Underlines that the principle of mutual recognition must be premised upon mutual trust which can be achieved only if respect for fundamental and procedural rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings are guaranteed throughout the Union;
Amendment 121 #
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 expandingwith a view to better defining when the EAW should be used and to facilitate proportionality assessments; further calls on the Commission to review 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), certain forms of tax evasion, hate crimes, sexual abuse, gender- based violence, offences committed through digital means such as identity theft, offenccrimes against public order and the constitutional integrity of the Member States, crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes;
Amendment 138 #
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; affirms that a broad margin of discretion for the executing authority is scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; considers thatbelieves that any review of the EAW Framework Decision must establish a procedure whereby an EAW can, if necessary, be validated in the issuing Member State by a judge, court, investigating magistrate or public prosecutor, in order to overcome the differing interpretations of the term "judicial authority"; considers that, if legal certainty can be provided regarding offences which clearly fall within the definition of double criminality, and those which do not then discretion should be limited in cases of double criminality;
Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Calls on the Member States to provide flexibility forRegrets the lack of deadlines in the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA for the transmission of translated EAWs; calls on the Member States to apply common practices with regard to EAW language regimes;
Amendment 157 #
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 budgetary plans for Eurojust would have led to a stagnation in financing despite an increased workload; Reiterates its call for a specific EAW judicial network;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24 a (new)
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Calls for a regular review of non- executed EAWs and consideration of whether they, together with the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, should be withdrawn; calls also for EAWs, and corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts, to be withdrawn where the EAW has been refused on mandatory grounds such as on the ground of ne bis in idem;
Amendment 179 #
27. Notes that although Article 7(1) TEU can affect mutual recognHighlights the link between detention condition,s 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 amnd EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article3 of the ECHR and the relevant case-law impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried ount to automatic non-recognitionif such rights are violated;
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28
Paragraph 28
28. Reiterates the importanceits call for a legislative proposal ofn an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights, in the form ofunderpinned by 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 and budgetary conditionality once in place;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Calls onRequests the Commission to provide an assessment of ne bis in idem and possible legislative action; submit a legislative proposal to revise the EAW and provide for, inter alia: - a proportionality check when issuing an EAW, based on all the relevant factors and circumstances such as the seriousness of the offence, whether the case is trial-ready, the impacts on the rights of the requested person, the cost implications and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure; - a standardised consultation procedure whereby the competent authorities in the issuing and executing Member State can exchange information regarding the execution of EAW, in particular with regard to proportionality and trial- readiness; - a mandatory refusal ground where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the EAW would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligation in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 233 #
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; without lowering or undermining EU standards in respect of the procedural and fundamental rights of suspects and accused persons.