# Official Journal C 422/2019

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 422 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6216 December 2019 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 422

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6216 December 2019

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | JOINT DECLARATIONS |
| | Council |
| 2019/C 422/01 | Statement by the Commission | 1 |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 422/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9632 — E.ON/Berliner Stadtwerke/Tegel Energie) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2019/C 422/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9580 — Permira/Smith&Williamson) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2019/C 422/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9605 — DAK Americas/Lotte Chemical UK) (
  1
  ) | 4 |

Contents

page

II   Information

JOINT DECLARATIONS

Council

2019/C 422/01

Statement by the Commission

1

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2019/C 422/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9632 — E.ON/Berliner Stadtwerke/Tegel Energie) (
  1
  )

1

2

2019/C 422/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9580 — Permira/Smith&Williamson) (
  1
  )

1

3

2019/C 422/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.9605 — DAK Americas/Lotte Chemical UK) (
  1
  )

1

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2019/C 422/05 | Council conclusions on victims’ rights | 5 |
| 2019/C 422/06 | Council conclusions on alternative measures to detention: the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the field of criminal justice | 9 |
| | European Commission |
| 2019/C 422/07 | Euro exchange rates — 13 December 2019 | 14 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2019/C 422/05

Council conclusions on victims’ rights

5

2019/C 422/06

Council conclusions on alternative measures to detention: the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the field of criminal justice

9

European Commission

2019/C 422/07

Euro exchange rates — 13 December 2019

14

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

II Information

JOINT DECLARATIONS

Council

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/1

---

Statement by the Commission

(2019/C 422/01)

The Commission is of the opinion that, in view of road safety, consumer protection, reduction of waste and the circular economy, it is important that tyres are not only tested in new, but also in worn condition. To this effect, the Commission will support the development of appropriate testing protocols in the context of the United Nations world forum for the harmonisation of vehicle regulations. If this process is however not finalised by July 2023, the Commission intends to propose EU legislation that specifically covers testing of tyres in worn condition.

---

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9632 — E.ON/Berliner Stadtwerke/Tegel Energie)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 422/02)

On 9 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9632. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9632. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9580 — Permira/Smith&Williamson)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 422/03)

On 3 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9580. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9580. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9605 — DAK Americas/Lotte Chemical UK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 422/04)

On 3 December 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9605. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9605. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

IV Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/5

---

Council conclusions on victims’ rights

(2019/C 422/05)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

RECALLING THE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ACHIEVED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EU FRAMEWORK IN THE AREA OF VICTIMS’ RIGHTS,

UNDERLINING THE IMPORTANCE OF FURTHER DEVELOPING THIS FRAMEWORK AND TO IMPROVE ITS SMOOTH AND EFFICIENT IMPLEMENTATION, WITH THE INVOLVEMENT OF ALL THE RELEVANT STAKEHOLDERS,

(1)

REITERATES the European Union’s new strategic agenda, according to which protecting citizens and freedoms is a key priority of Union action for the years 2019-2024. The European Council has reaffirmed that Europe must be a place where people feel free and safe.

(2)

NOTES with satisfaction the Commission’s work both in further improving victims’ rights and in identifying the appropriate improvements in the area of victims’ access to compensation. Furthermore, the Council considers that the report ‘Strengthening victims’ rights: from compensation to reparation — For a new EU victims’ rights strategy 2020-2025’ (1) provides a good basis for future work.

(3)

RECOGNISES the significant work carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), especially in relation to research and surveys regarding the identification and elimination of shortcomings related to victims’ rights, e.g. the set of four reports on justice for victims of violent crime published in April 2019. Based on the views presented in the aforementioned reports, the Council considers it evident that measures to improve victims’ access to justice and to compensation are required.

(4)

REITERATES the previous Council Conclusions on victims of terrorism (2) and on preventing and combating all forms of violence against women and girls, including female genital mutilation, released in 2014 (3).

(5)

RECOGNISES the tangible results achieved through the work carried out under the horizontal mandate of the EU Anti-Trafficking Coordinator, as per Article 20 of the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, including with respect to the access to and realisation of the rights of victims of trafficking in human beings, and in relation to the 2017 Communication ‘Reporting on the follow-up to the EU Strategy towards the eradication of trafficking in human beings and identifying further concrete actions’.

(6)

CONSIDERS it especially important to continue and step up work to strengthen victims’ rights in the European Union. To this effect, the assessment of the implementation of the most recent legal instruments — such as Directive (EU) 2017/541 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2017 on combating terrorism (4), as well as Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (5) - which is still ongoing should shortly be completed. The Council is of the opinion that it is justified to continue to develop the European Union’s victims policy in line with the latest relevant EU statutes and in relation to the needs and rights of victims.

(7)

CONSIDERS the restitution of frozen property to the victim under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on the mutual recognition of freezing orders and confiscation orders (6) an important means of acknowledging the victim.

(8)

UNDERLINES the importance of strengthening the transition of statutes related to victims’ rights into best practice in Member States. It is important that victims feel that their rights apply in practice and regardless of in which Member State the crime has occurred. Victims’ access to rights needs to be ensured by increasing the effectiveness of communication towards victims by all the appropriate measures. Moreover, the training and expertise of people encountering victims need comprehensive and permanent endorsement.

(9)

EMPHASISES the importance of EU funding for the promotion of the rights of crime victims in the Member States. The Council considers it essential that the possibility to fund actions and initiatives aiming at improving victims’ rights be included in the Justice Programme, the Rights and Values programme and the Internal Security Fund of the Union’s multiannual financial framework for 2021-2027.

(10)

ACKNOWLEDGES that matters related to victims’ rights are inter-institutional, cross-governmental, multidimensional and require coordination. In developing EU-level coordination, experiences regarding tasks related to coordination need to be evaluated before considering establishing new coordination structures or modifying existing tasks. In particular, any overlaps with existing mandates and EU-level coordination frameworks established under EU law should be avoided. It is important for the EU to be active in fostering cross-border cooperation between Member States. National coordination structures should however remain under the sole responsibility of Member States.

(11)

NOTES that, despite substantial efforts to ensure that rules are applied and rights upheld in cyberspace, all forms of cybercrimes and harmful online behaviours continue to increase, bringing about the need to provide protection to victims suffering a violation of their fundamental rights, economic losses, identity theft and damages against their reputation across borders.

(12)

CONSIDERS that cooperation at both EU and national level must be strengthened. Cooperation between Member States, and its effectiveness, needs to be increased by using existing EU networks. Cooperation between the European Network on Victims’ Rights (hereinafter ‘ENVR’) (7) and other relevant EU networks such as the European Judicial Network (8) and the European Crime Prevention Network (hereinafter ‘EUCPN’) (9) could be considered. Furthermore, the Council considers that meetings of central contact points defined in the Compensation Directive could be organised on a more regular basis, for instance in connection with the meetings/activities of the ENVR. In order to firmly recognise the point of view of victims and to strengthen the support granted to them, partnerships with organisations and/or other actors providing support services to victims need to be actively promoted.

(13)

CONSIDERS that compensation of damages caused to victims by crime belongs to the core rights of victims. Whilst the primary obligation to effectively compensate victims lies with the offender, special efforts should be made in the near future to improve victims’ effective access to state compensation as provided for under the provisions on national compensation schemes of the Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (hereinafter ‘the Compensation Directive’) (10). This will improve the situation of victims of violent intentional crime in particular.

(14)

CONSIDERS that in order to improve victims’ access to compensation, appropriate measures should be considered. These measures could include strengthening cooperation at national and EU level. The possible revision of the Compensation Directive could also be considered depending on the outcome of the ongoing evaluation. Part of the possible revision work should be to further define the tasks of national contact points. Furthermore, in order to consider future action in the area of victims’ access to compensation, more information should be provided in relation to difficulties encountered in implementing the Compensation Directive. In addition, more information on national criteria for compensation and definitions of intentional violent crimes in Member States is needed.

(15)

UNDERLINES that in order to simplify state compensation schemes, as well as to adequately take into consideration the differences between Member States, compensation needs to remain pecuniary. Member States should aim at ensuring that victims are not exposed to secondary victimisation when claiming compensation by providing appropriate support and protection. The Council does not consider the harmonisation of compensation and of state compensation schemes possible; however, it could be explored whether the definition of victims entitled to state compensation could to some extent be harmonised.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IS INVITED TO:

1.

DRAW UP an EU strategy for 2020-2024 on victims’ rights. The strategy should be comprehensive and cover all victims of crime, with a special emphasis on victims of violent crimes. It should include a systematic approach to ensure victims’ effective access to justice and compensation.

2.

INCLUDE in the strategy the following measures: promotion of best practices among the Member States on how to improve victims’ access to information, support and protection, new practical initiatives for training and, coordination and strengthening the activities of existing EU networks such as the European Network on Victims’ Rights and the network of the national contact points established under Article 16 of the Compensation Directive. In this context, the Commission is invited to evaluate the activities and value of the ENVR and the network of national contact points and to assess the appropriateness of merging these two networks.

3.

EVALUATE the existing legislative framework on victims’ rights as part of the abovementioned strategy. Special attention should be paid to the review of the EU rules relevant to compensation such as the Compensation Directive. The effects of Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties (11) on victims’ access to compensation should also be examined.

4.

INVITE Eurojust, FRA, the European Institute for Gender Equality and the ENVR to look into the question of how to improve the cooperation and exchange of information between the competent authorities concerning victims of violent crime in cross-border cases. Furthermore, the European Judicial Training Network and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Training could also contribute in particular with respect to the training of competent authorities.

5.

MAKE FULL USE of the EU funding instruments in the promotion of the rights of crime victims and actively disseminate information on EU-funding opportunities that aim at improving victims’ rights in the Member States.

MEMBER STATES ARE CALLED ON TO:

1.

ENSURE the complete and correct transposition and effective practical implementation of the existing EU legislation on victims’ rights.

2.

FULFIL the commitment to implement the measures agreed in the recent Council Conclusions in the area of victims’ rights.

3.

ENSURE that the national compensation authorities participate, when needed, in national and bilateral action and in meetings of national contact points to strengthen cooperation.

4.

ENSURE a comprehensive and holistic approach to victims’ rights, that will involve all actors likely to come into contact with victims and will include victims’ access to information about their rights, support and protection in accordance with victims’ individual needs.

5.

ENSURE the existence of national compensation policies on victims’ access to compensation and if necessary develop measures to improve their functioning. Part of this development may concentrate on improving the possibilities for using new technology in order to better inform victims about compensation. Information should be interactive, user-friendly and accessible to all users. Member States should consider making this information available at least in English in addition to national languages. Member States are also encouraged to develop electronic services and user-friendly forms for applying for compensation.

6.

STRENGTHEN the awareness of officials likely to come into contact with victims about the state compensation schemes, for example by providing training. Furthermore, Member States are invited to consider whether the training under Article 25 of the Victims’ Rights Directive should also be provided to compensation authorities.

7.

MAKE FULL USE of the EU funding instruments in the promotion of the rights of crime victims, including for instance by developing and setting up interactive and user-friendly national websites, telephone helplines and mobile applications for compensation authorities in the Member States.

---

(1)  The report is set out in 8629/19.

1

(2)  9719/18.

2

(3)  9543/14.

3

(4)  OJ L 88, 31.3.2017, p. 6.

4

(5)  OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57.

5

(6)  OJ L 303, 28.11.2018, p. 1.

6

(7)  ENVR was established to implement the Council Conclusions establishing an Informal European Network on Victims’ Rights, adopted in June 2016 (9997/16).

7

(8)  Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network (OJ L 348, 24.12.2008, p. 130).

8

(9)  Council Decision 2009/902/JHA of 30 November 2009 setting up a European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and repealing Decision 2001/427/JHA (OJ L 321, 8.12.2009, p. 44).

9

(10)  OJ L 261, 6.8.2004, p. 15.

10

(11)  OJ L 76, 22.3.2005, p. 16.

11

---

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/9

---

Council conclusions on alternative measures to detention: the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the field of criminal justice

(2019/C 422/06)

Introduction

| 1. | According to the new Strategic Agenda 2019-2024, adopted by the European Council on 20 June 2019, protection of citizens and freedoms is a key priority for the next institutional cycle. The European Union is committed to building on and strengthening the fight against terrorism and cross-border crime and improving cooperation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Effective systems of criminal sanctions play an important role in protecting the citizens and ensuring security. Criminal sanctions and measures used and the way in which they are enforced contribute to the prevention of reoffending and thereby affect the security in society. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Enforcement of the criminal sanctions and measures should be based on knowledge deriving from relevant research that indicates that the sanctions and measures used reduce reoffending and promote security. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Serious offences require appropriate responses, and detention is a necessary instrument in criminal sanctions systems. There is, however, a broad consensus that detention should be used only as a last resort (ultima ratio) (1). Applying non-custodial sanctions and measures —instead of detention — where appropriate and taking into consideration the individual circumstances of the case, can have several advantages, as supported by a long-standing tradition of research. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | An important role of alternative measures to detention is to promote social rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender, which is one of the key aims for using such measures (2). These alternative measures have also several other benefits, in particular by reducing reoffending and, therefore, promoting public security. They may be applied in the interests of the offender but also in the interests of the victims, potential future victims and, more generally, of the society. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | Alternative measures to detention exist in all Member States, for example in form of suspended prison sentences, community service, financial penalties and electronic monitoring. Furthermore, new developments in technology and digitalisation may contribute to a more effective system of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the future. |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | It is also particularly important to take victims of crime into account. With regard to offences that are suitable for mediation, restorative justice can offer opportunities with regard to the way in which offences are dealt with, by acknowledging the role of the victim and wider society and by focusing on repairing the harm caused by the offender. |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | Detention is not only used as a criminal sanction, but it is also widely used in the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. Alternative measures to detention should therefore be considered throughout the whole criminal justice chain. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | As regards individual cases, the relevant authorities determine the appropriate sanction or measure. On a general level, Member States can examine the benefits of enabling the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures throughout the criminal proceedings and promote their use, when deemed appropriate and effective. |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | The criminal sanctions system falls within the competence of the Member States and systems vary between Member States. Therefore, the focus at EU level should be on non-legislative measures. |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | In addition to the above mentioned benefits it is expected that the enhanced use of non-custodial sanctions and measures could produce positive effects also on issues relating to prison overcrowding, insufficient prison conditions, prison radicalisation and obstacles encountered in mutual recognition in criminal matters, all of these being issues that have been raised in different EU forums during the last years. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Alternative measures to detention — policy background

| 12. | Alternatives to detention have been, explicitly or implicitly, on the EU’s agenda for several years and in many contexts. The 2004 Hague Programme and the 2009 Stockholm Programme recognised that detention and alternatives to detention were an important area of EU justice policy. |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | In 2011, the Commission presented a Green Paper on ‘The application of EU criminal justice legislation in the field of detention’ (3). In the Green Paper it was considered, among other things, that unless more efforts were made to improve detention conditions and promote alternatives to custody, it could be difficult to develop closer judicial cooperation between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

13.

| 14. | In its resolution of 5 October 2017 on prison systems and conditions (4), the European Parliament noted that prison overcrowding is very common in Europe, but that increasing prison capacity is not the sole solution to overcrowding. Parliament further insisted that efficient long-term management of penitentiary systems should be implemented, reducing the number of prisoners by more frequent use of non-custodial punishments. |
| --- | --- |

14.

| 15. | In addition, in the Council conclusions on enhancing the criminal justice response to radicalisation leading to terrorism and violent extremism of 20 November 2015 (5), alternatives to detention at all stages of the of criminal proceedings were mentioned as possible action when considering criminal justice responses to radicalisation. |
| --- | --- |

15.

| 16. | In accordance with Article 82(1) TFEU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the Union is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions. The principle of mutual recognition is founded on mutual trust between the Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgement of 5 April 2016 Aranyosi and Căldăraru (6) indicated that poor prison conditions in Member States may hamper mutual trust and undermine mutual recognition and underlined that inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is prohibited by the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Following the ruling, the Council — during the Austrian Presidency of the Council — adopted conclusions on ‘Promoting mutual recognition by enhancing mutual trust’ (7) in December 2018. According to these conclusions, Member States are encouraged to have legislation in place that, where appropriate, allows use to be made of alternative measures to detention in order to reduce the population in their detention facilities, thereby furthering the aim of social rehabilitation and also addressing the fact that mutual trust is often hampered by poor detention conditions and the problem of overcrowded prisons. The Court of Justice further clarified the requirements from the Aranyosi and Căldăraru judgement in the recent Dorobantu judgement (8). |
| --- | --- |

16.

| 17. | The Council of Europe already has a long tradition in addressing issues relating to detention and the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures, and has also gathered a deep knowledge on the topic. The EU could therefore benefit from closer cooperation with Council of Europe in this regard. |
| --- | --- |

17.

The way forward

| 18. | At the meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers in July 2019, the Ministers acknowledged that there is a need to tackle complex issues relating to prison conditions, prison overcrowding, prison radicalisation and also cooperation in criminal matters. The Ministers also emphasised the importance of enhancing the use of alternative measures to detention in Member States in the coming years underlining the benefits that their use can have. |
| --- | --- |

18.

| 19. | The progress already made in the Member States on the use of alternative measures to detention, both at the pre-trial and the post-trial stage, is welcomed. Further increase in the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures as alternatives to detention throughout the criminal proceedings, when deemed appropriate, should be a common aim across the EU during the next years. |
| --- | --- |

19.

| 20. | The ninth round of mutual evaluations will, among other issues, analyse the Framework Decisions on probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) and on the European supervision order (2009/829/JHA) and gather valuable information on the reasons why the use of these instruments has been limited thus far. There is, however, a need to gather wider information on the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in the Member States, and to discuss the different benefits they may have. |
| --- | --- |

20.

| 21. | The sharing of best practices is a useful way in which the Member States can learn from each other and improve their own legislation, procedures and practices. EU can also benefit from closer cooperation with the Council of Europe and other relevant organisations. |
| --- | --- |

21.

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION THEREFORE CONCLUDES THAT

I.   Actions to be taken at national level

| 1. | The Member States are encouraged to explore the opportunities to enhance, where appropriate, the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures, such as a suspended prison sentence, community service, financial penalties and electronic monitoring and similar measures based on emerging technologies. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | The Member States are encouraged to consider enabling the use of different forms of early or conditional release. The aim is to better prepare offenders for reintegration into society and to help prevent reoffending. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The Member States are encouraged to consider the scope for and benefits of using restorative justice. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | The Member States are encouraged to provide in their legislation a possibility to apply non-custodial measures also in the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | The Member States are encouraged to ensure that information concerning the legislation on non-custodial sanctions and measures is easily available for practitioners throughout criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | The Member States are encouraged to raise awareness among legal practitioners of the benefits of alternative measures to detention as well as of the availability and technical features of existing tools, such as electronic monitoring. |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | The Member States are encouraged to provide training for legal practitioners on the use of alternative measures to detention, including restorative justice, and on existing recommendations as developed by the Council of Europe on this topic. |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | The Member States are encouraged to develop or improve training for prison and probation staff, judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers on the content and the use of Framework Decisions on probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) and on European supervision order (2009/829/JHA) and to raise the awareness of the scope for using non-custodial sanctions and measures throughout criminal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | As regards the use of alternative measures to detention, the Member States are encouraged to pay particular attention to the needs of vulnerable persons such as children, persons with disabilities and women during pregnancy and after giving birth. |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | The Member States are encouraged to improve the collection of data on the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures, and on the application of the Framework Decisions on probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) and on the European supervision order (2009/829/JHA). |
| --- | --- |

10.

| 11. | The Member States are encouraged to improve capacity for probation services, including the supervision of non-custodial sanctions. |
| --- | --- |

11.

| 12. | The Member States are encouraged to share with each other and with the Commission best practices as regards all aspects of non-custodial sanctions and measures, with the aim to learn from each other. |
| --- | --- |

12.

| 13. | The Member States are also encouraged to continue their efforts to improve prison conditions, to counter prison overcrowding and to promote reintegration of offenders into society taking into account the impact on reducing recidivism and the risk of radicalisation in prison. |
| --- | --- |

13.

II.   Actions to be taken at EU level

| 1. | The Commission is invited to explore the options for promoting the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in its agenda and to increase awareness of the benefits of non-custodial sanctions and measures among policymakers and practitioners. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | The Commission is invited to assess the need to carry out a comparative study to analyse the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures in all Member States so as to support the dissemination of national best practices. |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The Commission is invited to continue to enhance the implementation of both the EU Framework Decisions on probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) and on the European supervision order (2009/829/JHA), taking into account the information gathered during the ninth round of mutual evaluations. |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | The Commission is invited to develop training for judges and prosecutors through the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN), as well as for prison and probation staff at EU level through the European Penitentiary Training Academies (EPTA) which is currently funded by the Justice programme. |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | The Commission is invited to launch regular experts’ meetings on detention and non-custodial sanctions and measures, in order to encourage the exchange of best practices between experts and practitioners across all Member States as regards national policies and practices in this field. |
| --- | --- |

5.

| 6. | The Commission is invited to consider ways in which Member States can be given funding to further develop probation services, including the supervision on non-custodial sanctions and measures, and improve prison facilities. |
| --- | --- |

6.

| 7. | The Commission is invited to continue to support the European Organisation of Prison and Correctional services (EuroPris), the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) and the European Forum for Restorative Justice (EFRJ), currently funded under the Justice programme. It is invited to examine options for closer cooperation with these organisations, in particular by supporting the work of CEP in gathering data on alternatives to detention in the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

7.

| 8. | The European Judicial Network (EJN) is encouraged to continue discussions in its meetings on the use of Framework Decisions on probation and alternative sanctions (2008/947/JHA) and on the European supervision order (2009/829/JHA). The aim is to identify obstacles for practical application of the instruments and to seek for ways in which to increase the use of such instruments. |
| --- | --- |

8.

| 9. | EJN is encouraged to continue to update the European judicial Atlas on a regular basis. |
| --- | --- |

9.

| 10. | EJN is invited to consider gathering information on its website on the different non-custodial sanctions and measures in each Member State. For this aim, cooperation with any relevant organisation, including Confederation of European Probation (CEP), may be considered. |
| --- | --- |

10.

III.   Actions to be taken to enhance cooperation with the Council of Europe and other relevant organisations

| 1. | The EU should work closely with the Council of Europe and other relevant organisations so as to find synergies regarding work relating to detention and the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures. |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | The Commission and the Member States are encouraged to enhance cooperation with the Council of Europe and other relevant organisations, in order to raise the awareness of the benefits of using non-custodial sanctions and measures. The Commission is invited to continue cooperation with the Council of Europe by financially supporting the gathering of statistics in the area of prison and probation (SPACE Statistics) and the operation of the EU Network of National Preventive Mechanisms (EU NPMs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | The Commission and the Member States are invited to consider ways in which to promote the dissemination of the Council of Europe standard-setting texts, the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the CPT recommendations regarding detention and the use of non-custodial sanctions and measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

---

(1)  See, e.g., point 4 in the recitals to Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Prison Rules: ‘No one shall be deprived of liberty save as a measure of last resort and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law’. The European Court of Human Rights has in its case-law referred to these recommendations for over 1 000 times.

(2)  See, e.g., Council Conclusions of 8 March 2018: Promoting the use of alternatives to coercive sanctions for drug using offenders, doc. 6931/18, as well as the European Union Drugs Strategy 2013-2020 (OJ C 402, 29.12.2012, p. 1) and the European Union Action Plan on Drugs 2017-2020 (OJ C 215, 5.7.2017, p. 21).

(3)  COM (2011) 327 final.

(4)  A8-0251/2017.

(5)  14419/15, of 20 November 2015.

(6)  Judgment of 5 April 2016 in Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15, Aranyosi and Căldăraru.

(7)  OJ C 449, 13.12.2018, p. 6.

(8)  Judgement of 15 October 2019 in C-128/18, Dorobantu, in which the Court clarified the requirements for the executing judicial authority in cases regarding European arrest warrants and the surrender procedures between Member States.

---

European Commission

| 16.12.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 422/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 422/14

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

13 December 2019

(2019/C 422/07)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1174 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 122,43 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4731 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83508 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,4490 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0982 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 137,00 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 10,0630 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,508 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 328,85 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2726 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,7795 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 6,4822 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6159 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4712 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7062 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6873 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5106 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 308,97 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,1393 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,7900 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4398 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 626,84 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6199 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,441 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 69,9930 |
| THB | Thai baht | 33,729 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,5664 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2518 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 79,0610 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1174

JPY

Japanese yen

122,43

DKK

Danish krone

7,4731

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83508

SEK

Swedish krona

10,4490

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0982

ISK

Iceland króna

137,00

NOK

Norwegian krone

10,0630

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,508

HUF

Hungarian forint

328,85

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2726

RON

Romanian leu

4,7795

TRY

Turkish lira

6,4822

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6159

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4712

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7062

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6873

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5106

KRW

South Korean won

1 308,97

ZAR

South African rand

16,1393

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,7900

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4398

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 626,84

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6199

PHP

Philippine peso

56,441

RUB

Russian rouble

69,9930

THB

Thai baht

33,729

BRL

Brazilian real

4,5664

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2518

INR

Indian rupee

79,0610

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---