Framework decision 2008/909 - 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.
Contents
official title
Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 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 European UnionLegal instrument | Framework decision |
---|---|
Number legal act | Framework decision 2008/909 |
Original proposal | JAI(2008)2 |
CELEX number i | 32008F0909 |
Document | 27-11-2008 |
---|---|
Publication in Official Journal | 05-12-2008; Special edition in Croatian: Chapter 19 Volume 011,OJ L 327, 5.12.2008 |
Effect | 05-12-2008; Entry into force Date pub. See Art 30 |
End of validity | 31-12-9999 |
Transposition | 05-12-2011; At the latest See Art 29 |
5.12.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
L 327/27 |
COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2008/909/JHA
of 27 November 2008
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 European Union
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 31(1)(a) and 34(2)(b) thereof,
Having regard to the initiative of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden,
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament,
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) |
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... |
More
This text has been adopted from EUR-Lex.
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.
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.
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.