Activities of Judith SARGENTINI related to 2013/2109(INL)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT with recommendations to the Commission on the review of the European Arrest Warrant PDF (188 KB) DOC (88 KB)
Amendments (26)
Amendment 2 #
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 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition and has been very successful inwas the first and most well- known measure implementing the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters (now laid down in Article 82 TFEU); whereas Commission statistics (COM (2011) 0175) confirm that the implementation of surrender procedures in accordance with Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA has led to a drastic speeding up of surrender as compared to traditional extradition procedures among Member States, both in cases in which wanted persons consent to surrender and in cases in which they do not;
Amendment 18 #
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 its poor implementation and drafting, 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 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point i
Recital C – point i
(i) the absence in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments of an explicit ground for refusal based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights, which has led to inconsistentdiffering transposition and practices in Member States;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point ii
Recital C – point ii
(ii) the absence of a provision in Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA and other mutual recognition instruments on the right to an effective remedy as laid down in article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is left to be governed by national law, leading to uncertainty and inconsistent practices between Member States;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii
Recital C – point iii
(iii) the lack of regular review of the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Interpol, and Europol 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 refused EAWs are unable to move freely within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice for fear of future arrest and surrender;
Amendment 36 #
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, disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants (and of their families), and unjustified and often excessive time spent in pre-trial detention and burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point vii
Recital C – point vii
(vii) the absence of Union provisionminimum standards to ensure effective judicial oversight of the execution of mutual recognition measures and inconsistent rules on compensation for miscarriages of justice resulting from such measures, which leads to greatly divergent Member State practices and frequently to the lack of protections against fundamental rights violations resulting from mutual recognition measures and the lack of compensation for victims of miscarriages such as mistaken identity, 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 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point viii
Recital C – point viii
(viii) the extensive periods that some individuals are spendinguse of the European Arrest Warrant before the issuing state is ready to try a case which, coupled with a lack of minimum standards relating to the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the use of alternatives to detention and the regular review of detention, has resulted in people surrendered under the European Arrest Warrant suffering unjustified interference with the presumption of innocence and their right to liberty as a result of excessive periods in pre-trial detention, which should be aonly be a measure of last resort;
Amendment 50 #
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 on the fundamental rights and dignity of the individuals concerned as well as the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point x a (new)
Recital C – point x a (new)
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point x b (new)
Recital C – point x b (new)
(xb) The lack of a proper definition of criminal offences to which the test of dual criminality no longer applies;
Amendment 62 #
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 bothrough continued work to establish minimum standards on inter alia the procedural rights of suspects and defendants and a transversal measure which establishes principles applicable to all mutual recognition instruments, or if such transversal measure is not feasible, amendments to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
Paragraph 3 – introductory part
3. Therefore requests the Commission to submit, within a year following the adoption of this resolution, on the basis of Article 82 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, legislative proposals following the detailed recommendations set out in the Annex hereto and providing for:
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point a
Paragraph 3 – point a
(a) a mandatory refusal ground based on the infringement or risk of infringement of human rights applicable to mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point b
Paragraph 3 – point b
(b) a proportionality check when issuing mutual recognition decisions, based on the seriousness of the offence and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measureto be conducted in relation to all mutual recognition decisions by both the issuing and executing state, based on any relevant factors including, inter alia the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the rights of the requested person and his/her family, the cost implications for both the issuing and executing state and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive alternative measure, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that it is proportionate for the decision to be executed;
Amendment 81 #
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 in regard to the EAW to ascertain trial-readiness against clear and objective criteria, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that the case is trial-ready in the issuing state;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point e
Paragraph 3 – point e
(e) consistent legal remedies to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; ies, including the automatic right to appeal in the executing state against a mutual recognition decision (prior to the mutual recognition decision being executed) and the right to challenge failure by the issuing state to comply with assurances provided to the executing state in relation to the mutual recognition decision to secure the right to an effective legal remedy in compliance with Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; points to the absence of such an effective legal remedy in the Framework Decision on Transfer of Sentenced Persons and calls upon Member States to foresee appeals in their domestic transposition measures to avoid a possible violation of primary EU law.
Amendment 92 #
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 and Inter, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn; also calls for the withdrawal of EAWs and the corresponding SIS and Interpol alerts where the EAW has been refused on mandatory grounds, including in relation to human rights, proportionality and trial-readiness;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Calls on the Commission to collect the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism within each Member State: a) for accusation warrants, the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial; b) the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to an accusation warrant; and c) the extent to which pre-trial detention was ordered in each case and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long.
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for Member States to compensate damage arising from miscarriages of justice relating to mutual recognition instrumentsits failure, as either and issuing or executing state, to implement and comply with the obligations under mutual recognition instruments and any transversal measures relating thereto, in accordance with the standards laid down in the ECHR and in the well-established case-law of the ECJ;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to submit legislative proposals establishing minimum standards regarding the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the use of alternatives to detention, the regular review of detention; Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions within Member States.
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 2 - indent 1
- When issuing a decision to beor executed ing 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 app mutual recognition decision, the competent authorities in both the issuing and the executing state shall carefully assess the need for the requested measure on the basis of any relevant factors including, inter alia, the seriousness of the offence, the impact on the rights of the requested person and his/her family, the least intrusive available measurcost implications for both the issuing and executing state and the availability of an appropriate less intrusive available measure, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that the mutual recognition decision is proportionate.
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
Annex – recommendation 3 - indent 1
- A standardised procedure 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, including for instance with regard to the EAW in order to ascertain trial-readiness; against clear and objective criteria, with a corresponding mandatory ground for refusal where the executing state is not duly satisfied that the case is trial-ready in the issuing state.
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1a (new)
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1a (new)
1a. Review of non-executed EAWs The Commission shall carry out a regular review of non-executed EAWs and consider whether they, together with the corresponding SIS, Interpol and Europol alerts, should be withdrawn. All EAWs, and the corresponding alerts, which have been refused on mandatory grounds, including the new mandatory grounds relating to human rights, proportionality and trial readiness, should be withdrawn automatically.
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1b (new)
Annex – recommendation 5 - indent 1b (new)
1b. Pre-trial detention All decisions relating to pre-trial detention made by Member States shall comply with minimum standards legislated under a separate proposal submitted by the Commission, including in relation to: a) the substance and procedure of pre- trial detention decision-making, b) the use of alternatives to detention; c) the regular review of pre-trial detention and the need for special diligence to be applied during investigations; and d) conditions in pre-trial detention facilities.