21 Amendments of Carmen ROMERO LÓPEZ related to 2013/2109(INL)
Amendment 4 #
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 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 9 a (new)
Citation 9 a (new)
- having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)),
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas the European Union has set itself the task of developing an area of freedom, security and justice, and whereas, pursuant to Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, it respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, thereby taking on positive obligations which it must meet in order to honour that commitment and whereas Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA constitutes the cornerstone of mutual recognition and has been very successful in speeding up surrender compared to traditional extradition procedures among Member States;
Amendment 31 #
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; which can have severe human impacts as persons subject to refused EAWs are not able to move freely in the European Union since they must fear arrest and surrender;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii a (new)
Recital C – point iii a (new)
(iiia) The lack of precision in the definition of serious crimes list related to the European Arrest Warrant but also to other EU instruments which make constant reference to that list, and the inclusion of crimes which seriousness is not envisaged in all EU criminal code and which may not overcome the proportionality test.
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point iii b (new)
Recital C – point iii b (new)
(iiib) The lack of definition of organised crime at EU level, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 39 #
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, often unjustified and excessive time spent in pre-trial detention andwhich results in a disproportionate interference with the fundamental rights of suspects and defendants as well as with those of their families and places burdens on the resources of Member States;
Amendment 45 #
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, which leads to greatly divergent Member State practices and frequently to the lack of protections against fundamental right violations as a result of mutual recognition measures as well as 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 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C – point viii
Recital C – point viii
(viii) the extensive periods that some individuals are spending in pre-trial detention, which should be aoften resulting from the use of an EAW before the issuing state is ready to try a case coupled with a lack of minimum standards relating to the substance and procedure of pre-trial detention decisions, the insufficient use of alternatives to detention as well as the lack of regular review of detention, therefore unjustifiably inferring with the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty and which should therefore only ever be a measure of last resort;
Amendment 54 #
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 hdetrimental effect that this has on the fundamental rights of the affected individuals as well as on the effectiveness and functioning of Union mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 73 #
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;where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of an EAW would be incompatible with the executing Member State's obligations in accordance with Article 6 TEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; (This amendment reflects the wording in the agreed text on the European Investigation Order (para 10 g)).)
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
Paragraph 3 – point b a (new)
(ba) a better definition of the crimes where the European Arrest warrant should apply in order to facilitate the proportionality test
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 – point e
Paragraph 3 – point e
(e) consistent legal remedies, which should include the automatic right to appeal in the executing state against a mutual recognition decision prior to the mutual recognition decision being put into action as well as the right to challenge failure by the issuing state to comply with assurances provided to the executing state prior to surrender, in order 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;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Underlines the need for more data on the operating of the EAW and therefore calls on the Commission to collect the following data relating to the operation of the EAW mechanism within each Member State: (a) in the case of an accusation warrant, the length of time from surrender to the conclusion of the subsequent trial as well as the outcome of trials following surrender pursuant to such a warrant; (c) the number of cases where pre-trial detention was ordered and, where ordered, for what reasons and for how long;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Calls on Member States to timely and effectively implement the whole body of Union criminal justice measures such as inter alia the already agreed directives on procedural rights and to actively push for further binding legal instruments in this area as judicial cooperation in criminal matters needs to be based on respect for standards in the area of fundamental rights and the necessary approximation of the rights of suspects and accused persons and of procedural rights in criminal proceedings and thereby make available to judicial authorities alternative and less intrusive mutual recognition instruments;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Calls for Member StatesWithout prejudice to the legal remedies referred to in this report, calls for Member States, as either an issuing or executing state, to compensate damage arising from miscarriages of justice relating to mutual recognition instruments, in accordance with the standards laid down in the ECHR and in the well-established case-law of the ECJ;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 8 – point 1 (new)
(1) Highlights the link between detention conditions and EAW measures and reminds Member States that Article 3 of the ECHR and the case law of the ECtHR impose on the Member States not only negative obligations, by banning them from subjecting prisoners to inhuman and degrading treatment, but also positive obligations, by requiring them to ensure that prison conditions are consistent with human dignity, and that thorough, effective investigations are carried out if such rights are violated; Calls Member States to take particular account of the rights of vulnerable persons and in general thoroughly examine alternatives to detention.
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Calls on the Commission to submit a legislative proposal setting out a common definition of organised crime, which should include, inter alia, the offence of participation in a transnational criminal organisation, emphasising the fact that criminal groups of this kind are business oriented, highly organised, technologically sophisticated, and often act through intimidation and blackmail.
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 b (new)
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Calls on the Commission to prepare a study on comparative EU criminal codes across the EU in order to help Member States when conducting the proportionality test
Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to explore the legal and financial means available at Union level to improve detention conditions in Member States since shortcomings, such as prison overcrowding and allegations of poor treatment of detainees, may undermine the trust which must underpin judicial cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions by Member States.
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)
Paragraph 9 – point 1 (new)
(1) Reminds the Commission of its previous call for EU wide legislative action on minimum standards in the field of pre-trial detention (European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2011 on detention conditions in the EU (2011/2897(RSP)) and notes with great disappointment that such a proposal was not among the legislative measures on procedural rights proposed by the Commission on 27 November 2013. Reiterates therefore its call 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 pre-trial detention such as to prevent excessive periods of detention, and detention conditions in Member States.