18 Amendments of Fabienne KELLER related to 2019/2207(INI)
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 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 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas double criminality is a concept of international extradition and is scarcely compatible with mutual recognition; whereas the list of offences without a double criminality check should be reassessed; whereas in its initial proposal, the Commission sought an exhaustive list for which surrender could be refused (‘negative list’)the list of offences without a double criminality check should be reassessed in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 2(3) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002;
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 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 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 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Calls on the Commission to assess, with a view to further integration, the establishment the feasibility of an exhaustive list for which surrender could be refused (‘negative list’) instead of the list of 32 offences;
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 29
Paragraph 29
29. Calls on the Commission to issuestudy the feasibility of supplementing instruments on procedural rights, such as on admissibility and prison conditions in pre-trial detention, matching or surpassingin particular on the basis of CoE standards, including time limits on pre-trial detention; states thatcalls on the Commission should aim for the highest standardsto strengthen the information tools for national executing authorities on the conditions of pre-trial detention and imprisonment in each Member State;
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 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 36
Paragraph 36
36. States that coherency issues must be addressed as a matter of priority by practical measures (training of practitioners), and by soft law (handbooks and recommendations), very targetedand as a second step, if deemed necessary, taking into account the 9th round of mutual evaluation, through a very targeted revision of the legislation (the definition of judicial authority, ne bis in idem, fundamental rights, etc.) and supplementing legislation (pre-trial detention);