Activities of Baroness Sarah LUDFORD related to 2009/2012(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries concerning sectoral matters and covering applicable law in contractual and non-contractual obligations - Bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries on judgments and decisions in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility and maintenance obligations - Development of an EU criminal justice area (debate)
Amendments (20)
Amendment 7 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas the protection of rights such as the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, the rights of the defence, the rights of victims of crime and, the ne bis in idem principle isand minimum procedural safeguards in pre-trial detention are primarily essential in criminal proceedings,
Amendment 8 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital G a (new)
Recital G a (new)
Ga. whereas within the boundaries of the aims and principles of European law, the mutual recognition principle implies that when a decision has been handed down by a competent judicial authority in one Member State, the decision becomes fully and directly effective throughout the territory of the Union, and the judicial authorities in the Member States in the territory of which the decision may be enforced assist in the enforcement of the decision as if it were a decision handed down by a competent authority in that Member State, unless the instrument within which it is implemented places limits on its execution,
Amendment 10 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas the implementation of the mutual recognition principle, which has beenmutual recognition has yet to become the cornerstone of all judicial cooperation since the Tampere European Council, criminal matters and the possibility of its far from having been satisfactorily achievurther extension should be critically assessed,
Amendment 11 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas where it is fully implemented, as is the case with the European Arrest Warrant, the mutual recognition principle has proved to have a great added value for judicial cooperation in the European Union,
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the European Arrest Warrant should not be used for questioning, and neither the European Arrest Warrant nor the European Evidence Warrant should be used for minor offences,
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas, to be fully effective, the mutual recognition principle largely depends on the creation of a European judicial common culture based on mutual trust, common principles and a certain level of harmonisation -for instance, in the definition of certain crimes and in the sanctions- and by genuine protection of fundamental rights, notably with regard to procedural rights, minimum standards for detention conditions and prisoners' rightreview of detention, prisoners' rights and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals,
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas judicial training, including of judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers and others involved in the administration of justice, plays a key role in building mutual trust and developing a common European judicial culture,
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital S a (new)
Recital S a (new)
Sa. whereas those proposals by Member State, that will continue to exist after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty should be accompanied by a public consultation and an impact assessment, preferably produced by the Commission to ensure coherence and fundamental rights mainstreaming,
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital T a (new)
Recital T a (new)
Ta. whereas an adequate overall data protection regime is still lacking in the area of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and in its absence the rights of data subjects need to be carefully regulated in each individual legislative instrument,
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital U
Recital U
U. whereas, in order to be effective, an EU criminal justice area must take advantage of new technologies whilst respecting fundamental rights, and use internet tools in the implementation of EU policies as well as in the dissemination and discussion of information and proposals,
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Recital W a (new)
Recital W a (new)
Wa. whereas coordination for defence lawyers is lacking and should be considered in the form of a support organisation backed at EU level,
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 1
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 1
- an ambitious legal instrument on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings, based on the principle of presumption of innocence, such as the right to a "Letter of Rights", the right to legal advice both before and during the trial, the right to evidence, the right to be informed of the nature and reasons for the charges and of the grounds for suspicion, the right of access to all relevant legal documents in a language which the suspect/defendant understands, the right to an interpreter, communication and consular assistance to detainees, protection of suspects/defendants who cannot understand or follow the proceedings, minimum standards for detention, conditions and protection of juvenile suspects/defendants, effective and accessible mechanisms of redress for individuals;
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 2
Paragraph 1 - point a - indent 2
- a comprehensive legal framework offering victims of crime the widest protection, inlcluding adequate compensation and witness protection, notably in organised crime cases;
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point f
Paragraph 1 - point f
(f) set together with the Commission and with Parliament, in cooperation with the relevant Council of Europe Committees, such as CEPEJ, and with the existing European network operating on criminal matters, an objective, impartial, transparent, comprehensive, horizontal and continuous monitoring and evaluation system of the quality, efficiency of justice, integrity and fairness of justice and practical implementation of European Court of Human Rights case-law by the Member States, modelled on the peer evaluation system and capable of producing reliable reports at least once a year. In particular the evaluation system should:
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point f - indent 2
Paragraph 1 - point f - indent 2
- identify, on the basis of a review of existing evaluation systems: priorities, scope, criteria and methods, bearing in mind that the evaluations should not be theoretical but rather should assess the impact of EU policies on the ground and on the daily management of justice as well as the quality and, efficiency of justice, integrity and fairness of justice, and practical implementation of European Court of Human Rights case-law by the Member States,
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 1
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 1
- take the form of an EU Agency, modelled on the Agency for Fundamental Rights of the European Union, within which a pre- eminent role should be given to national judicial schools and judicial networks and defence rights organisations and with the association of the Commission,
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 4
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 4
- offer, on a voluntary basis, both initial and continuous training to European judges and, prosecutors and defence lawyers,
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 5
Paragraph 1 - point g - indent 5
- strengthening linguist skills of judicial authorities, lawyers and other involved actors,
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point k
Paragraph 1 - point k
(k) call on the Member States to agree in the shortest term on the initiative of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and of the Kingdom of Sweden for a Council Framework decision on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings, in order to protect the rights of the suspect or defendant at all stages of the choice of the criminal jurisdiction process, including to provide for the suspect/defendant to be informed of and involved in the process, to challenge both the process itself and the outcome of the process, and for judicial oversight of the process,
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a recommendation
Paragraph 1 - point l
Paragraph 1 - point l
(l) pay due attention to advantages offered by new technologies and to fully exploit the potential offered by the internet to disseminate information, to strengthen the role of the newly created "Justice Forum", to encourage the development of new learning methods (e-learning), and to gather and share data, reinforcing existing databases such as the customs' databases, which are essentials in fighting smuggling and human trafficking, but ensuring at all times respect for fundamental rights,