Activities of Baroness Sarah LUDFORD related to 2013/2109(INL)
Reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant PDF (188 KB) DOC (88 KB)
Amendments (28)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 1 a (new)
Citation 1 a (new)
- having regard to Articles 2, 6, and 7 of the Treaty on European Union and to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 a (new)
Citation 6 a (new)
- having regard to the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing for the period 2014 to 2020 the Justice Programme (COM(2011)0759 – C7- 0439/2011 – 2011/0369(COD)),
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 b (new)
Citation 6 b (new)
- having regard to the Commission Communication 'Building Trust in EU- wide justice, a new dimension to European Judicial Training', 13.09.2011, COM(2011)551 final,
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 c (new)
Citation 6 c (new)
- having regard to its Resolution on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6 d (new)
Citation 6 d (new)
- having regard to its report with a recommendation to the Council on the rights of prisoners in the European Union (2003/2188(INI)),
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas 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 EU area of freedom, security and justice; whereas mutual trust is enhanced through training, cooperation and dialogue between judicial authorities and legal practitioners creating a genuine European judicial culture;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas problems have however arisen in its operation, some specific to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and resulting largely from poorfrom gaps in the Framework Decision and from the incomplete and inconsistent implementation thereof, but others shared with the set of mutual recognition instruments due to the incomplete and unbalanced development of the Union area of criminal justice;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii
Recital C – point iii
(iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS II) and Interpol alerts as well as the lack of an automatic link between the withdrawal of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and the removal of such alerts, and uncertainty as to the effect of a refusal to execute an EAW on the continued validity of an EAW and the linked alerts with the result that persons subject to EAWs are unable to move freely within the area of freedom security and justice without the risk of future arrest and surrender;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iv
Recital C – point iv
(iv) disproportionate use of the EAW for minor offences or in circumstances where less intrusive alternatives might be used, leading to unwarranted arrests, unjustified and often excessive time spent in pre-trial detention leading to interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point vii
Recital C – point vii
(vii) the absence of Unionminimum standards providing for effective judicial oversight with regard to mutual recognition instruments and inconsistent provisions on compensation for miscarriages of justice, which leads to greatly divergent Member State practices and frequently to the lack of effective judicial protection and the risk of violations of fundamental rights resulting from mutual recognition measures and the lack of compensation for victims of miscarriages such as mistaken identity,; this situation is contrary to standards laid down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and in the well-established case- law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ);
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point ix
Recital C – point ix
(ix) the poor conditions in a number of detention facilities across the Union and the impact that this has not only on the fundamental rights of the individuals concerned but on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point x a (new)
Recital C – point x a (new)
(xa) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of deadlines for the transmission of the translated EAWs, leading to variable practices and uncertainty;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that as the problems highlighted in recital C arise out of both the specifics of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and the incomplete and unbalanced nature of the Union area of criminal justice, the legislative solutions need to address both;
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 (new)
Considers that the weaknesses identified not only undermine mutual trust but are also costly in social and economic terms to the individuals concerned, their families and society in general.
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point c
Paragraph 3 – point c
(c) a standardised consultation procedure whereby the relevant authorities in the issuing and executing state can exchange information regarding the execution of judicial decisions, for example such as on the issue of proportionality and specifically in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial- readiness;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Calls on the Commission to require from Member States the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism and to include such data in its next implementation report with a view to proposing appropriate action in any problems: (a) the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial; (b) the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to an EAW; (c) the extent to which pre-trial detention as ordered in each case and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long; (d) the operation of the procedure under Art 16 of the Framework Decision for resolving cases of multiple EAW requests relating to the same person.
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. 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; also calls for the withdrawal of EAWs and the corresponding SIS II and Interpol alerts where the EAW has been refused on mandatory grounds; the ground of ne bis in idem or the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights; calls for provision to be made to annex to an SIS II alert the grounds for refusing the execution of the EAW corresponding to the alert;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Calls on Member States to implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments including the European Investigation Order once adopted and the European Supervision Order; calls on the Commission to carefully monitor their correct implementation as well as their impact on the functioning of the EAW and the EU area of criminal justice;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 6 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Council of the European Union to include in its revised version of the European Handbook on how to issue a European Arrest Warrant (17195/1/10 REV 1) a six day time limit for the transmission of translated EAWs in order to provide greater clarity and certainty;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Calls on Member States and the Commission to cooperate in strengthening contact networks of judges, prosecutors and criminal defence lawyers to facilitate effective and well-informed EAW proceedings, and to offer relevant training including language training programmes at national and European level to judicial and legal practitioners including defence lawyers acting in such proceedings.; calls on the Commission to draft a practical EU handbook designed for defence lawyers acting in EAW proceedings and easily accessible throughout the Union taking into account the existing work of the European Criminal Bar Association on this matter and complemented by national handbooks;
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – introductory part
Paragraph 8 – introductory part
8. Calls on the Commission to provide adequate funding to bodies such as the European Judicial Training Network, to the potentialset up a specific European Arrest Warrant Judicial Network and to a network of defence lawyers working on European criminal justice and extradition matters and to provide adequate funding to them as well as to the European Judicial Training Network; believes that the Commission can ensure the appropriate funding via the existing programmes in the EU criminal justice area.
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Calls on the Commission to establish and make easily accessible an EU database collecting all national case law relating to EAW and other mutual recognition proceedings to facilitate the work of practitioners and the monitoring and assessment of implementation and any problems arising;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. CIn order to ensure the effectiveness of the mutual recognition framework, calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions in Member States.standards of detention including legislative proposals on the conditions of pre-trial detention;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Paragraph 10 – subparagraph 1 (new)
Considers that any financial implications of the requested proposals for the budget of the Union should be covered by the existing budgetary allocations; stresses that for both Member States and citizens, the adoption and implementation of those proposals would lead to substantial cost and time savings, and will thus be beneficial both in economic and social terms, as clearly pointed out in the EU Added Value Assessment of EU measures concerning the review of the EAW. (Add link to the EAVU study in footnote)
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 1 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 1 - indent 1
- There are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligations under Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
- When issuing a decision to be executed in another Member State, the competent authority shall carefully assess the need for the requested measure on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and apply the least intrusive available measure to achieve the intended objectives.
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
- AWithout prejudice to the possibility of the competent executing authority availing itself of the grounds for refusal prior to consultation, a standardised procedure shall be set up whereby the competent authorities of the issuing and executing States shall exchange information and consult each other with a view to facilitating the smooth and efficient application of the relevant mutual recognition instruments or the protection of the fundamental rights of the person concerned, as the case may be, including for instance with regard to the EAW in order to ascertain trial-readiness; as well as its necessity and proportionality.
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1
- Member States shall ensure that everyone whose rights and freedoms are violated by a decision, action or omission including errors in the application of an instrument of mutual recognition in criminal matters has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. If such a remedy is exercised in the executing state and has suspensive effect, the final decision on such a remedy shall be taken within the time limits set by the applicable mutual recognition instrument or, in the absence of explicit time limits, with sufficient promptness to ensure that the purpose of the mutual recognition process is not jeopardised.