Activities of Paulo RANGEL related to 2019/2207(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
European Arrest Warrant and surrender procedures between Member States (debate)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the Implementation of the European Arrest Warrant and the Surrender Procedures between Member States
Amendments (10)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A. whereas the link between European Arrest Warrant (EAW) and EU citizenship makes it a corollary of the free movement of people based on the Principle of Mutual Recognition, which has mutual trust between Member States as a sine qua non condition to its effective operation, and is underpinned by shared respect for fundamental rights as set out in the TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion
Recital -A (new)
Recital -A (new)
-A a. whereas the UK authorities have been responsible for issuing and executing a substantial number of EAW; whereas the political declaration on the future relationship states that the UK and the EU “will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”; whereas new arrangements for criminal justice cooperation between the EU and the UK are still under negotiation;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital -A b (new)
Recital -A b (new)
-A b. Whereas the withdrawal of the UK from the EU renders obsolete Articles 10 (4) and (5) of the Protocol 36 TEU;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph -1 (new)
Paragraph -1 (new)
-1. Recalls that the Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW), establishing one of the oldest instruments based on mutual recognition in criminal matters, has contributed to speeding up surrender procedures in comparison with traditional systems of extradition cooperation between different jurisdictions;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Recognises that implementing the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW) has put legal systems in many Member States under strain, notably with regard to the extradition of their own nationals; notes that the FDEAW revealed stark national differences in substantive and procedural criminal law;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Highlights that the effective end of the transitional measures in Justice and Home Affairs in line with Title VII of the Protocol 36 TEU, enhances the responsibility of Member States, in line with their obligation of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) TEU, to refrain from adopting any measure which would jeopardize the attainment of the Union’s objectives, including those laid out in Article 3 TEU;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Insists that Member States are responsible for ensuring a high level of mutual trust, which is premised on their obligation to respect the Treaties, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU legislation, as well as on the adherence of their institutions to EU values, including the respect for the rule of law (Article 2 of the TEU); therefore, with regard to the EAW, Member States have the obligation to ensure a high level of protection of procedural and fundamental rights, as well as the independence of their judiciary, in order to guarantee effective legal protection, principles that have been confirmed by recent case-law of the CJEU;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Highlights that the establishment of an EU mechanism on democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights1a will contribute to reinforcing mutual trust between Member States; __________________, thus enhancing the functioning of the Principle of Mutual Recognition; notes in this regard the “Rule of Law Review Cycle” Initiative announced by the European Commission in July 20192a, and looks forward to the first “Annual Rule of law Report” in every Member State expected for the second half of 2020. __________________ 1a OJ C 215, 19.6.2018, p. 162–177 2a COM(2019)343
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Considers that the FDEAW should be fully brought under the Lisbon Treaty as a new legislative instrument in the sense of Article 288 TFEU and in conformity with Article 10(2) of the Protocol 36 TUE; is convinced that this would provide substantial benefits in terms of democratic legitimacy, legal certainty and transparency, enhance coherence with other criminal law instruments adopted under ordinary legislative procedure, and allow for clarification of ‘judicial authority’ as an autonomous concept of EU law; such “lisbonisation” should inter alia provide for an obligation for the issuing authority to apply consistently a proportionality test, establish explicit grounds for refusal to surrender a person in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, provide for explicit reporting obligations on Member States on their issue and execution of EAWs, and enhance enforcement powers of the Commission;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Notes that the withdrawal of the UK from the EU creates opportunities for further unification of the criminal justice area; recalls that the Political Declaration on the future relationship states that the UK and EU ‘will provide for comprehensive, close, balanced and reciprocal law enforcement and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’; insists that any agreement between the EU and UK in the field of criminal justice cooperation must be underpinned, inter alia, by their commitments on fundamental rights, including adherence and giving effect to ECHR, ne bis in idem principle and procedural rights, as well as by the role of the ECJ in this matter.