COU CIL OF THE EUROPEA U IO. Brussels, 19 June 2008 (24.06) (OR. fr) 10942/08 EJ 46 EUROJUST 62 COPE 126

Transcription

1 COU CIL OF THE EUROPEA U IO Brussels, 19 June 2008 (24.06) (OR. fr) 10942/08 EJ 46 EUROJUST 62 COP 126 OTE from : to : Subject : incoming French Presidency Delegations Seminar on "Judicial cooperation: from the expectations of practitioners to the legislative policy of the Union" (10th anniversary of the European Judicial Network in Criminal Matters) Questionnaire on the evaluation of the instruments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE EVALUATION OF THE INSTR STRUMENTS OF JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS The strengthening of judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the EU began with the improvement of the traditional mechanisms of cooperation, and in particular the adoption of the Convention on Mutual Assistance of 29 May 2000, together with its Protocol of 16 October 2001 (on the fight against money laundering and financial crime). These initial developments were in response to a demand for greater efficiency in exchanges, as expressed, in particular, in the Geneva Appeal of These instruments allow direct transmission of both requests and execution documents between national authorities. Requests are fulfilled in accordance with the procedure of the requested State but can now also be fulfilled, upon request, in accordance with the procedure of the requesting State /08 ard/am/jw 1

2 The Convention also provides for new forms of assistance such as: controlled deliveries, covert investigations, setting up of joint investigation teams between several Member States. Since the Tampere European Council, this strengthening has been focused on the development of the mutual recognition principle. The heads of State and Government sought to make this principle "the cornerstone of judicial cooperation" within the European Union, and it is on this basis that a genuine European judicial area has gradually been created. The principle of mutual recognition is based on the foreign decision being given equivalent status to a national decision and its being enforced without any verification by the executing State as to its appropriateness or its compliance with the principle of proportionality. New instruments to supplement or replace the traditional mechanisms have thus been created: The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, which replaces conventions on extradition. The Framework Decision of 23 July 2003 on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence, the purpose of which is to promote the direct enforcement of pre-trial judicial decisions ordering precautionary measures to prevent the concealment of assets or destruction of evidence. The Framework Decision of 24 February 2005 on the mutual recognition of financial penalties aimed at facilitating the execution of penal decisions imposing a fine. The Framework Decision of 6 October 2006 relating to the application of the principle of mutual recognition of confiscation orders. In parallel with the continued development of the principle of mutual recognition, the Commission has taken several initiatives aimed at improving exchanges of information on criminal records. There is already a "pilot" experiment for the interconnection of criminal records between some Member States, which enables national authorities to have an overview of the sentences handed down in all the countries taking part in the project /08 ard/am/jw 2

3 This being the 10 th anniversary of the European Judicial Network in Criminal Matters, the French Presidency will organise a seminar in Paris on 5 and 6 November 2008 aimed at initiating discussion on the implementation of these instruments and whether they match the expectations of practitioners. The mutual evaluation exercises have revealed difficulties in both understanding and implementing the instruments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters; these difficulties are mainly due to excessive compartmentalisation and a lack of overall consistency. This questionnaire is intended to assess both the use of these various instruments of judicial cooperation and the quality of the information received by national authorities for the purpose of implementing them. We should be grateful if you would complete this questionnaire and return it by 10 September 2008 to the General Secretariat of the Council (for the attention of Ms Tiina KANGAS-ALKU at: tiina.kangas@consilium.europa.eu). QA: ACCESS TO INFORMATION 1) Do you consider that the information at your disposal is sufficient as regards the possibilities offered by the various instruments of judicial cooperation in criminal matters? If so, by what means do you have access to this information? If not, what difficulties do you encounter as regards access to this information? 2) If you have encountered difficulties, what do you expect from the European Union and the Member States by way of improvement in this information and what solutions would you recommend? QB: USE AND EVALUATION OF THE INSTRUMENTS S OF JUDICIAL COOPERATION 1) Indicate which instruments you have already used, in order of frequency (for example: Convention on Mutual Assistance, European Arrest Warrant, etc.) /08 ard/am/jw 3

4 10942/08 ard/am/jw 4

5 2) Did you find it easy to implement them, or did you encounter difficulties linked, for example, to the understanding of the texts or the forms and certificates required for implementing them? Please give details. 3) When implementing these instruments, have you had problems of translation? If so, what were they? 4) Has it been easy to get in touch with the competent authorities of other Member States? If so, what means did you use? If not, why not? Please give details. 5) Have you applied to an EJN contact point or to Eurojust in order to contact the foreign authorities? Please state the reasons and, if appropriate, what gain was made by doing so. 6) What methods of transmission have you used when implementing these instruments of cooperation? Do they appear to be suitable, and if not, why not? What solutions would you recommend to ensure greater efficiency of transmission (fax, , post, etc.)? 7) Do you consider that you have a clear understanding of the requests for cooperation that you receive? If not, please give details of any difficulties encountered. 8) Do you consider that on the whole the requests you send abroad are properly understood and executed? If appropriate, please give details of any problems encountered. 9) What proposals would you make to improve the efficiency of judicial cooperation in criminal matters? 10942/08 ard/am/jw 5