Considerations on COM(2006)468 - European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2006)468 - European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2006)468  |
| date | October 23, 2009 |
| (2) | According to the Conclusions of the European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999, and in particular point 36 thereof, the principle of mutual recognition should apply to pre-trial orders. The programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition in criminal matters addresses mutual recognition of supervision measures in its measure 10. |
| (3) | The measures provided for in this Framework Decision should aim at enhancing the protection of the general public through enabling a person resident in one Member State, but subject to criminal proceedings in a second Member State, to be supervised by the authorities in the State in which he or she is resident whilst awaiting trial. As a consequence, the present Framework Decision has as its objective the monitoring of a defendants’ movements in the light of the overriding objective of protecting the general public and the risk posed to the public by the existing regime, which provides only two alternatives: provisional detention or unsupervised movement. The measures will therefore give further effect to the right of law-abiding citizens to live in safety and security. |
| (4) | The measures provided for in this Framework Decision should also aim at enhancing the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence in the European Union and at ensuring cooperation between Member States when a person is subject to obligations or supervision pending a court decision. As a consequence, the present Framework Decision has as its objective the promotion, where appropriate, of the use of non-custodial measures as an alternative to provisional detention, even where, according to the law of the Member State concerned, a provisional detention could not be imposed ab initio. |
| (5) | As regards the detention of persons subject to criminal proceedings, there is a risk of different treatment between those who are resident in the trial state and those who are not: a non-resident risks being remanded in custody pending trial even where, in similar circumstances, a resident would not. In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to take action to ensure that a person subject to criminal proceedings who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any differently from a person subject to criminal proceedings who is so resident. |
| (6) | The certificate, which should be forwarded together with the decision on supervision measures to the competent authority of the executing State, should specify the address where the person concerned will stay in the executing State, as well as any other relevant information which might facilitate the monitoring of the supervision measures in the executing State. |
| (7) | The competent authority in the executing State should inform the competent authority in the issuing State of the maximum length of time, if any, during which the supervision measures could be monitored in the executing State. In Member States in which the supervision measures have to be periodically renewed, this maximum length of time has to be understood as the total length of time after which it is legally not possible anymore to renew the supervision measures. |
| (8) | Any request by the competent authority in the executing State for confirmation of the necessity to prolong the monitoring of supervision measures should be without prejudice to the law of the issuing State, which applies to the decision on renewal, review and withdrawal of the decision on supervision measures. Such a request for confirmation should not oblige the competent authority in the issuing State to take a new decision to prolong the monitoring of supervision measures. |
| (9) | The competent authority in the issuing State should have jurisdiction to take all subsequent decisions relating to a decision on supervision measures, including ordering a provisional detention. Such provisional detention might, in particular, be ordered following a breach of the supervision measures or a failure to comply with a summons to attend any hearing or trial in the course of criminal proceedings. |
| (10) | In order to avoid unnecessary costs and difficulties in relation to the transfer of a person subject to criminal proceedings for the purposes of a hearing or a trial, Member States should be allowed to use telephone- and videoconferences. |
| (11) | Where appropriate, electronic monitoring could be used for monitoring supervision measures in accordance with national law and procedures. |
| (12) | This Framework Decision should make it possible that supervision measures imposed on the person concerned are monitored in the executing State, while ensuring the due course of justice and, in particular, that the person concerned will be available to stand trial. In case the person concerned does not return to the issuing State voluntarily, he or she may be surrendered to the issuing State in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European Arrest Warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant’). |
| (13) | While this Framework Decision covers all crimes and is not restricted to particular types or levels of crime, supervision measures should generally be applied in case of less serious offences. Therefore all the provisions of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant, except Article 2(1) thereof, should apply in the situation when the competent authority in the executing State has to decide on the surrender of the person concerned. As a consequence, also Article 5(2) and (3) of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant should apply in that situation. |
| (14) | Costs relating to the travel of the person concerned between the executing and issuing States in connection with the monitoring of supervision measures or for the purpose of attending any hearing are not regulated by this Framework Decision. The possibility, in particular for the issuing State, to bear all or part of such costs is a matter governed by national law. |
| (15) | Since the objective of this Framework Decision, namely the mutual recognition of decisions on supervision measures in the course of criminal proceedings, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Framework Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. |
| (16) | This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised, in particular, by Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Nothing in this Framework Decision should be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to recognise a decision on supervision measures if there are objective indications that it was imposed to punish a person because of his or her sex, race, religion, ethnic origin, nationality, language, political convictions or sexual orientation or that this person might be disadvantaged for one of these reasons. |
| (17) | This Framework Decision should not prevent any Member State from applying its constitutional rules relating to entitlement to due process, freedom of association, freedom of the press, freedom of expression in other media and freedom of religion. |
| (18) | The provisions of this Framework Decision should be applied in conformity with the right of the Union’s citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, pursuant to Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. |
| (19) | Personal data processed when implementing this Framework Decision should be protected in accordance with Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the protection of personal data processed in the framework of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (3) and in accordance with the principles laid down in the Council of Europe Convention of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, which all Member States have ratified, |