JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the EU - Main contents

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier	JAI(2008)2 - Initiative of Slovenia, France, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and Germany with a view to adopting a ...
document	JAI(2008)2
date	November 27, 2008

table>(1)The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition, which should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters within the Union.

(2)

On 29 November 2000 the Council, in accordance with the Tampere conclusions, adopted a programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal matters (1), in which it called for an assessment of the need for modern mechanisms for the mutual recognition of final sentences involving deprivation of liberty (Measure 14) and for extended application of the principle of the transfer of sentenced persons to cover persons resident in a Member State (Measure 16).

(3)	The Hague Programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union (2) requires Member States to complete the programme of measures, in particular in the field of enforcing final custodial sentences.

(4)

All the Member States have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons of 21 March 1983. Under that Convention, sentenced persons may be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentence only to their State of nationality and only with their consent and that of the States involved. The Additional Protocol to that Convention of 18 December 1997, which allows transfer without the person’s consent, subject to certain conditions, has not been ratified by all the Member States. Neither instrument imposes any basic duty to take charge of sentenced persons for enforcement of a sentence or order.

(5)

Procedural rights in criminal proceedings are a crucial element for ensuring mutual confidence among the Member States in judicial cooperation. Relations between the Member States, which are characterised by special mutual confidence in other Member States’ legal systems, enable recognition by the executing State of decisions taken by the issuing State’s authorities. Therefore, a further development of the cooperation provided for in the Council of Europe instruments concerning the enforcement of criminal judgments should be envisaged, in particular where citizens of the Union were the subject of a criminal judgment and were sentenced to a custodial sentence or a measure involving deprivation of liberty in another Member State. Notwithstanding the need to provide the sentenced person with adequate safeguards, his or her involvement in the proceedings should no longer be dominant by requiring in all cases his or her consent to the forwarding of a judgment to another Member State for the purpose of its recognition and enforcement of the sentence imposed.

(6)	This Framework Decision should be implemented and applied in a manner which allows general principles of equality, fairness and reasonableness to be respected.

(7)

Article 4(1)(c) contains a discretionary provision which enables the judgment and the certificate to be forwarded, for example, to the Member State of nationality of the sentenced person, in cases other than those provided for in paragraphs 1(a) and (b) or to the Member State in which the sentenced person lives and has been legally residing continuously for at least five years and will retain a permanent right of residence there.

(8)

In cases referred to in Article 4(1)(c) the forwarding of the judgment and the certificate to the executing State is subject to consultations between the competent authorities of the issuing and the executing States, and the consent of the competent authority of the executing State. The competent authorities should take into account such elements as, for example, duration of the residence or other links to the executing State. In cases where the sentenced person could be transferred to a Member State and to a third country under national law or international instruments, the competent authorities of the issuing and executing States should, in consultations, consider whether enforcement in the executing State would enhance the aim of social rehabilitation better than enforcement in the third country.

(9)

Enforcement of the sentence in the executing State should enhance the possibility of social rehabilitation of the sentenced person. In the context of satisfying itself that the enforcement of the sentence by the executing State will serve the purpose of facilitating the social rehabilitation of the sentenced person, the competent authority of the issuing State should take into account such elements as, for example, the person’s attachment to the executing State, whether he or she considers it the place of family, linguistic, cultural, social or economic and other links to the executing State.

(10)

The opinion of the sentenced person referred to in Article 6(3) may be useful mainly in applying Article 4(4). The words ‘in particular’ are intended to cover also cases where the opinion of the sentenced person would include information which might be of relevance in relation to the grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement. Provisions of Articles 4(4) and 6(3) do not constitute a ground for refusal on social rehabilitation.

(11)

Poland needs more time than the other Member States to face the practical and material consequences of transfer of Polish citizens convicted in other Member States, especially in the light of an increased mobility of Polish citizens within the Union. For that reason, a temporary derogation of limited scope for a maximum period of five years should be foreseen.

(12)

This Framework Decision should also, mutatis mutandis, apply to the enforcement of sentences in the cases under Articles 4(6) and 5(3) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (3). This means, inter alia, that, without prejudice to that Framework Decision, the executing State could verify the existence of grounds for non-recognition and non-enforcement as provided in Article 9 of this Framework Decision, including the checking of double criminality to the extent that the executing State makes a declaration under Article 7(4) of this Framework Decision, as a condition for recognising and enforcing the judgment with a view to considering whether to surrender the person or to enforce the sentence in cases pursuant to Article 4(6) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA.

(13)

This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute a decision when there are objective reasons to believe that the sentence was imposed for the purpose of punishing a person on the grounds of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political opinions or sexual orientation, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced on any one of those grounds.

(14)	This Framework Decision should not prevent any Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press and freedom of expression in other media.

(15)	This Framework Decision should be applied in accordance with the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States conferred by Article 18 of the Treaty establishing European Community.

(16)	This Framework Decision should be applied in accordance with applicable Community legislation, including in particular Council Directive 2003/86/EC (4), Council Directive 2003/109/EC (5) and Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6).

(17)	Where in this Framework Decision reference is made to the State in which the sentenced person ‘lives’, this indicates the place to which that person is attached based on habitual residence and on elements such as family, social or professional ties.

(18)

When applying Article 5(1), it should be possible to transmit a judgment or a certified copy thereof and a certificate to the competent authority in the executing State by any means which leaves a written record, for example e-mail and fax, under conditions allowing the executing State to establish authenticity.

(19)	In cases referred to in Article 9(1)(k), the executing State should consider the possibility of adapting the sentence in accordance with this Framework Decision before it refuses to recognise and enforce the sentence involving a measure other than a custodial sentence.

(20)

The ground for refusal provided for in Article 9(1)(k) may be applied also in cases where the person has not been found guilty of a criminal offence although the competent authority applied the measure involving the deprivation of liberty other than a custodial sentence as a consequence of a criminal offence.

(21)

The ground for refusal relating to territoriality should be applied only in exceptional cases and with a view to cooperating to the greatest extent possible under the provisions of this Framework Decision, while taking into account its purpose. Any decision to apply this ground for refusal, should be based on a case-by-case analysis and consultations between the competent authorities of the issuing and executing States.

(22)	The time limit referred to in Article 12(2) should be implemented by the Member States in such a way that as a general rule, the final decision, including an appeal procedure is completed within a period of 90 days.

(23)

Article 18(1) states that, subject to the exceptions listed in paragraph 2, the specialty rule applies only where the person has been transferred to the executing State. It should therefore not be applicable where the person has not been transferred to the executing State, for example where the person has fled to the executing State,