Framework decision 2005/214 - Application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties

Please note

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

1.

Current status

This framework decision has been published on March 22, 2005, entered into force on the same day and should have been implemented in national regulation on March 21, 2007 at the latest.

2.

Key information

official title

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties
 
Legal instrument Framework decision
Number legal act Framework decision 2005/214
Original proposal JAI(2001)11
CELEX number i 32005F0214

3.

Key dates

Document 24-02-2005
Publication in Official Journal 22-03-2005; Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 19 Volume 007,OJ L 159M , 13.6.2006,Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 19 Volume 011,Special edition in Romanian: Chapter 19 Volume 007,OJ L 76, 22.3.2005
Effect 22-03-2005; Entry into force Date pub. See Art 21
End of validity 31-12-9999
Transposition 21-03-2007; At the latest See Art 20.1

4.

Legislative text

22.3.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 76/16

 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2005/214/JHA

of 24 February 2005

on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 31(a) and 34(2)(b) thereof,

Having regard to the initiative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas:

 

(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)

The principle of mutual recognition should apply to financial penalties imposed by judicial or administrative authorities for the purpose of facilitating the enforcement of such penalties in a Member State other than the State in which the penalties are imposed.

 

(3)

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 (3), giving priority to the adoption of an instrument applying the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (measure 18).

 

(4)

This Framework Decision should also cover financial penalties imposed in respect of road traffic offences.

 

(5)

This Framework Decision respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by Article 6 of the Treaty and reflected by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (4), in particular Chapter VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may be interpreted as prohibiting refusal to execute a decision when there are reasons to believe, on the basis of objective elements, that the financial penalty has 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 for any of these reasons.

 

(6)

This Framework Decision does not prevent a 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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:

Article 1

Definitions

For the purposes of this Framework Decision:

 

(a)

‘decision’ shall mean a final decision requiring a financial penalty to be paid by a natural or legal person where the decision was made by:

 

(i)

a court of the issuing State in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing State;

 

(ii)

an authority of the issuing State other than a court in respect of a criminal offence under the law of the issuing State, provided that the person concerned has had an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters;

 

(iii)

an authority of the issuing State other than a court in respect of acts which are punishable under the national law of the issuing State by virtue of being infringements of the rules of law, provided that the person concerned has had an opportunity to have the case tried by a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters;

 

(iv)

a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters, where the decision was made regarding a decision as referred to in point (iii);

 

(b)

‘financial penalty’ shall mean the obligation to pay:

 

(i)

a sum of money on conviction of an offence imposed in...


More

This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.

5.

Original proposal

 

6.

Sources and disclaimer

For further information you may want to consult the following sources that have been used to compile this dossier:

This dossier is compiled each night drawing from aforementioned sources through automated processes. We have invested a great deal in optimising the programming underlying these processes. However, we cannot guarantee the sources we draw our information from nor the resulting dossier are without fault.

 

7.

Full version

This page is also available in a full version containing the summary of legislation, the legal context, de Europese rechtsgrond, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand and finally the related cases of the European Court of Justice.

The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.

8.

EU Monitor

The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.