TEXT PROPOSED BY SEVEN MEMBER STATES AMENDMENTS

Amendment 1

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Title

Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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 on strengthening citizens’ rights, promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA 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 , and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences

Amendment 2

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 1a (new)

(1a) It is necessary to strengthen mutual trust in the European area of freedom, security and justice in criminal matters by means of measures at European Union level designed to ensure greater harmonisation and mutual recognition of judgments in criminal matters and by adopting at that level some provisions and practices in criminal matters.

Amendment 3

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 1b (new)

(1b) Adequate procedural safeguards are a necessary precondition for the mutual recognition of judicial decisions in criminal matters. It is therefore important to adopt the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings as soon as possible.

Amendment 4

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 4

(4) It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal and the discretion left to the executing authority. (4) It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal of the execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person and the discretion left to the executing authority. The purpose of this Framework Decision is to define such common grounds in order to allow the executing authority to execute a decision despite the absence of the person concerned at the trial. It is not designed to regulate the applicable forms and methods, or the procedural requirements, that are used to achieve the results specified in this Framework Decision, which are a matter for the national law of the Member States. By completing the relevant section of the European arrest warrant or of the relevant certificate under the other Framework Decisions, the issuing authority gives an assurance that the requirements have been or will be met, which should be sufficient for the purposes of the execution of a decision on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition.

Amendment 5

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 6

(6) Common solutions on grounds for refusal in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to informing the accused person of his right to a retrial . (6) Common solutions on grounds for non-recognition in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to the right of the person concerned to a retrial or to an appeal. Such a retrial, which aims to safeguard the rights of the defence, is characterised by the following elements: the person concerned has the right to participate in the retrial; the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, will be (re)examined, and the proceedings may lead to the original decision being quashed.

Amendment 6

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 6a (new)

(6a) The recognition and execution of a decision rendered following a trial at which the defendant did not appear in person should not be refused if, on the basis of the information provided by the issuing State, it is satisfactorily established that the defendant was summoned in person, or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial. In this context it is understood that the person should have received such information in good time, i.e. sufficiently in advance to allow him or her to participate in the trial and to effectively exercise his or her right of defence. All information should be provided in a language which the defendant understands.

Amendment 7

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 6b (new)

(6b) The recognition and execution of a decision following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person should not be refused where the person concerned, being aware of the scheduled trial, was defended at the trial by a legal counsellor to whom he or she had given an explicit mandate to do so, thus ensuring that the legal assistance was practical and effective. In this context, it should be immaterial whether the legal counsellor was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned, or was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, it being understood that the person concerned would have chosen to be represented by a legal counsellor instead of appearing him- or herself at the trial.

Amendment 8

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Recital 7a (new)

(7a) At a retrial following a conviction resulting from a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, that person should be in the same position as someone standing trial for the first time. Therefore the person concerned should have the right to be present at the retrial, the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, should be (re)examined, the retrial could lead to the original decision being quashed and the defendant may appeal against the new decision.

Amendment 9

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 1 — paragraph 2

2. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty, and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected. 2. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union , and any obligations incumbent upon judicial authorities in this respect shall remain unaffected.

Amendment 10

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 1 — paragraph 3

3. The scope of this Framework Decision is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following proceedings where the person was not present, according to the provisions in Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in Article 7(2)(g) of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, in Article 8(2)(e) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA and Article 9(1)(f) of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA. 3. The scope of this Framework Decision is to establish common rules for the recognition and/or execution of judicial decisions in one Member State (the executing Member State) issued by another Member State (the issuing Member State) following a trial where the person was not present, according to the provisions in Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, in Article 7(2)(g) of Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA, in Article 8(2)(e) of Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA , Article [9(1)(f)] of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA and in Article [9(1)(h)] of Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA .

Amendment 11

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 1 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 1 — paragraph 4

1) the following paragraph shall be added to Article 1: 4. For the purpose of this Framework Decision, ‘decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision. deleted

Amendment 12

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — title and paragraph 1

Article 4a Decisions rendered in absentia The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered in absentia , unless the European arrest warrant states that the person: Article 4a Decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person 1. The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person , unless the European arrest warrant states that the person , in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State :

Amendment 13

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point a

(a) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time , of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial; (a) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood ,

(i) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, and (ii) was personally informed that the decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial; or

Amendment 14

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point aa (new)

(aa) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial;

Amendment 15

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point b

(b) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial : (b) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed , in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal (1), in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed :

(i) expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia ; (i) expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;

or or

(ii) did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days ; (ii) did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe , which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.

Amendment 16

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point c

(c) was not personally served with the decision rendered in absentia but: (c) was not personally served with the decision but:

(i) will be served with it at the latest on the fifth day after the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial ; (i) will be personally served with it immediately and in any event not later than three days after the surrender and will be expressly informed in a language which he or she understands about the right to a retrial or an appeal , in which he or she will have the right to participate, which will allow the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be (re)examined and which may lead to the original decision being quashed ;

and and

(ii) will have at least […] days to request a retrial. (ii) will be informed about the timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days, within which he or she must request such a retrial or appeal ;

Amendment 17

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 2 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Article 4a — paragraph 1a (new)

1a. If a European arrest warrant is issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or detention order under the conditions set out in paragraph (1)(c) and the person concerned has not previously received any official information about the existence of the criminal proceedings against him or her, that person, when he or she is informed about the content of the European arrest warrant, may request a copy of the judgment before being surrendered. Immediately after having been informed of that request, the issuing judicial authority shall provide a copy of the judgment via the executing judicial authority to the person who made the request. If the judgment is rendered in a language which the person concerned does not understand, the issuing judicial authority via the executing judicial authority shall provide an extract from the judgment in a language which the person concerned understands. The provision of the judgment or an extract from the judgment to the person concerned shall be for information purposes only; it shall not be construed as constituting formal service of the judgment nor shall it activate any time-limits applicable for requesting a retrial or appeal.

Amendment 18

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — introductory part and points 1 and 2

(d) Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia : (d) Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision :

1.  No, it was not 1.  Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision.

2.  Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: 2.  No, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision. If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:

Amendment 19

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.1

2.1. the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time , of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial 2.1. the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time, in a language which he /she understood, in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial

Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed : Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received in person the official information by other means :

… …

Language in which the information was delivered :

…

Describe how the person was informed: Describe how the person was informed:

… …

Amendment 20

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.1a (new)

2.1a. after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; Provide information on how this condition was met: …

Amendment 21

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.2

2.2. the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia , expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia 2.2. the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision

Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia : Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:

… …

Amendment 22

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.3.1 — indent 1

— the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial; and — the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , about the right to a retrial or an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and

Amendment 23

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 2 — point 4 Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA Annex — box d — point 2.3.2

 2.3.2. the person was not served with the decision rendered in absentia, and  2.3.2. the person was not served with the decision and

— the person will be served with the decision rendered in absentia within … days after the surrender; and — the person will be personally served with the decision within … days after the surrender; and

— when served with the decision rendered in absentia , the person will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial ; and — when served with the decision, the person will be expressly informed, in a language which he or she understands, about the right to a retrial or an appeal, in which he or she will have the right to participate, which will allow the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, to be (re)examined and which may lead to the original decision being quashed ; and

— after being served with the decision rendered in absentia , the person will have … days to request a retrial. — after being served with the decision, the person will have … days to request a retrial or an appeal .

If you ticked box 2.3.2, please confirm  that if the person concerned, when being informed in the executing State about the content of the European arrest warrant, requests a copy of the judgment before being surrendered, he or she will be provided with a copy of the judgment or with an extract from the judgment in a language which he or she understands … days after the request is made via the executing judicial authority.

Amendment 24

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 1 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 1 — point e

1) the following point shall be added to Article 1: (e) ‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision. deleted

Amendment 25

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — introductory part

(i) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered in absentia , unless the certificate states that the person: (i) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person , unless the certificate states that the person , in accordance with the national law of the issuing State :

Amendment 26

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint i

(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood ,

(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia (a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,

and and

informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial; (b) was personally informed that the decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;

or or

Amendment 27

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint ia (new)

(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; or

Amendment 28

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint ii

(ii) expressly stated to a competent authority that he or she does not contest the case; or deleted

Amendment 29

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint iii

(iii) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial : (iii) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed :

— expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia ; — expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;

or or

— did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days ; — did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe , which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days ;

Amendment 30

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point ia (new)

(ia) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the person did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, having been expressly informed about the proceedings and the possibility of participating in person in the trial, expressly waived the right to an oral hearing and expressly indicated that he or she did not contest the case.

Amendment 31

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — introductory part and subpoints 1 and 2

3. Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia : 3. Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision :

1.  No, it was not 1.  Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.

2.  Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: 2.  No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision. If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:

Amendment 32

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.1

2.1. the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial 2.1. the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, official information in due time and in a language which he or she understood, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that such a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial

Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed : Time and place when and where the person was summoned or by other means received the official information in person :

… …

Language in which the information was delivered :

…

Describe how the person was informed: Describe how the person was informed:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 33

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.1a (new)

2.1a. after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; Provide information on how this condition was met : … OR

Amendment 34

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.2

2.2. the person, before or after being served with the decision rendered in absentia , expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia . 2.2. the person, before or after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, of the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.

Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia : Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed of his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 35

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.3

 2.3. the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:  2.3. the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which he or she did not appear in person on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:

— the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial ; and — the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , of the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and

— after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period. — after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not request it during that period.

OR

Amendment 36

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 3 — point 3 Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.3a (new)

2.3a. the person, having been expressly informed of the proceedings and the possibility of participating in person in the trial, expressly waived the right to an oral hearing and expressly indicated that he or she did not contest the case. Describe when and how the person waived the right to an oral hearing and indicated that he or she did not contest the case: …

Amendment 37

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 1 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 2 — point i

(1) the following point shall be added to Article 2: (i) ‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a confiscation order as defined in (c) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision. deleted

Amendment 38

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — introductory part

(e) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4(2), the decision was rendered in absentia , unless the certificate states that the person: (e) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4(2), the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person , unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State :

Amendment 39

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint i

(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood ,

(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the confiscation order rendered in absentia (a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,

and and

informed about the fact that such a confiscation order may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial; (b) was personally informed that a confiscation order may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;

or or

Amendment 40

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint ia (new)

(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; or

Amendment 41

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 2 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint ii

(ii) after being served with the confiscation order rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial : (ii) after being personally served with the confiscation order and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , of the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed :

— expressly stated that he or she does not contest the confiscation order; — expressly stated that he or she did not contest the confiscation order;

or or

— did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days ; — did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe , which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.

Amendment 42

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 3 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Annex — box j — introductory part and points 1 and 2

(j) Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia : (j) Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order :

1.  No, it was not 1.  Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order.

2.  Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: 2.  No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order. If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:

Amendment 43

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 3 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.1

2.1. the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time , of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial 2.1. the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State and in a language which he or she understood , about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the confiscation order, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that such a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial

Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed : Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means :

… …

Language in which the information was delivered :

…

Describe how the person was informed: Describe how the person was informed:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 44

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 3 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.1a (new)

2.1a. after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; Provide information on how this condition was met: … OR

Amendment 45

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 3 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.2

2.2. the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia , expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia . 2.2. the person, after being personally served with the confiscation order and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed , expressly stated that he or she did not contest the order.

Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia : Describe when the person was served with the confiscation order, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the confiscation order:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 46

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 4 — point 3 Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.3

 2.3. the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:  2.3. the person was personally served with the confiscation order on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:

— the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial ; and — the person was expressly informed , in a language which he or she understood , about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and

— after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period. — after being informed of that right, the person had … days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not request it during that period.

Amendment 47

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 1 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Article 1 — point e

(1) the following point shall be added to Article 1: (e) ‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision. deleted

Amendment 48

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 2 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f

(f) according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered in absentia , unless the certificate states that the person: (f) according to the certificate provided for in Article [4], the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person , unless the certificate states that the person , in accordance with the national law of the issuing State :

Amendment 49

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 2 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint i

(i) in due time, and in a language which he or she understood ,

(i) was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia (a) either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,

and and

informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial; (b) was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;

or or

Amendment 50

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 2 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint ia (new)

(ia) after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; or

Amendment 51

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 2 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint ii

(ii) after being served with the decision rendered in absentia and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial : (ii) after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed :

— expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia ; — expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;

or or

— did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which was of at least […] days ; — did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe , which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.

Amendment 52

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 3 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Annex — box k — point 1 — introductory part and subpoints a and b

1. Indicate if the decision was rendered in absentia : 1. Indicate if the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision :

a.  No, it was not a.  Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.

b.  Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that: b.  No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision. If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:

Amendment 53

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 3 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.1

 b.1. the person was summoned in person or informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time , of the scheduled date and place of the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down in case the person does not appear for the trial  b.1. the person was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information in due time and in a language which he or she understood, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, about the scheduled date and place of the trial which led to the decision in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial and was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial

Time and place when and where the person was summoned or otherwise informed : Time and place when and where the person was summoned or received the official information in person by other means :

… …

Language in which the information was delivered :

…

Describe how the person was informed: Describe how the person was informed:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 54

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 3 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.1a (new)

 b.1a. after having been directly summoned in person or by other means having actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of the trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial, had given an explicit mandate to a legal counsellor who was chosen, appointed and paid by the person concerned or who was appointed and paid by the State in accordance with its national law applicable to the rights of the defence, and was indeed defended by that counsellor during the trial; Provide information on how this condition was met: … OR

Amendment 55

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 3 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.2

 b.2. the person, after being served with the decision rendered in absentia , expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia .  b.2. the person, after being personally served with the decision and being expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood, about the right to a retrial or to an appeal, in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed , expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision.

Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision rendered in absentia : Describe when the person was served with the decision, how he or she was informed about his/her right to a retrial or to an appeal and when and how the person expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision:

… …

OR OR

Amendment 56

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5 — point 3 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.3

 b.3. the person was served with the decision rendered in absentia on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:  b.3. the person was personally served with the decision following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial or to an appeal in the issuing State under the following conditions:

— the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial and to be present at that trial ; and — the person was expressly informed, in a language which he or she understood , about the right to a retrial or to an appeal , in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed, and

— after being informed of this right, the person had … days to request a retrial and he or she did not request it during this period. — after being informed of that right, the person had … days to request a retrial or an appeal and he or she did not make such a request during that period.

Amendment 57

Initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany — amending act Article 5a (new)