3. Welcomes the Commissions undertaking to introduce flexible measures for farmers, especially as
regards sowing;
4. Calls on the Commission to grant, in agreement with the French Government and the local auth-
orities, exceptional financial aid to supplement the appropriations earmarked by the French authorities tomeet the urgent needs of the communities hardest hit, to restore the destroyed infrastructure and help torelaunch economic activity;
5. Calls on the Commission, therefore, to speed up the payment of the appropriations already pro-
grammed under the Structural Funds and to submit to the Council a proposal for a decision to releaseCommunity aid for the reconstruction of disaster areas;
6. Calls for the reinstatement of the budget line devoted to emergency aid in the event of natural
disasters in the EU;
7. Calls on the Commission to propose exceptional modifications to the zoning of the flooded regions
in the context of the Structural Funds;
8. Calls on the Member States to reverse the current trend of destroying ecosystems and to preserve
them, in particular watercourses, irrigation systems, dikes and dams; also stresses the need to avoid in thefuture the installing of infrastructure and the building of houses in regions at risk from the hydrogeologicalpoint of view;
9. Welcomes the creation of Community instruments aimed at coordinating, at European level, the
various systems of civil protection, so that they are made more easily available and useable in the eventof natural disasters;
10. Notes that the planet is currently experiencing the effects of climate change and that urgent
measures must be taken at international, national and local level to combat the effects of this phenom-enon; calls on the Member States, in collaboration with the Commission, to make every effort to try, in thelight of the Conference of the Parties to be held in Bonn in July 2001, to comply with the Kyoto commit-ments, in strict application of the principle of reciprocity between all the parties;
11. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the French govern-
ment and parliament, regional and general councillors and the municipalities concerned.
18. Mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters
A5-0145/2001
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication to the Council and the Euro-
pean Parliament on the mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters (COM(2000) 495
 C5-0631/2000  2000/2295(COS))
The European Parliament,
 having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000) 495  C5-0631/2000),
 having regard to Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union,
 having regard to the conclusions of the Cardiff European Council of 15 and 16 June 1998 requesting
the Council to identify the scope for applying the principle of mutual recognition of decisions,
 having regard to point 45(f) of the Council and Commission Action Plan of 3 December 1998, which
asks for the initiation of a process with a view to implementing this principle within two years of theentry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam,7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/385 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001
 having regard to the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15/16 October 1999, which
stated that the principle of mutual recognition should become the cornerstone of judicial cooperationin both civil and criminal matters within the Union,
 having regard to the programme of measures to implement the principle of mutual recognition of
decisions in criminal matters (
1), approved by the Council and already included in the Commissions
scoreboard,
 having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
 having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home
Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0145/2001),
A. whereas the proposals contained in the Commission communication and the Councils programme of
measures would be a satisfactory basis for common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters,as covered by Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union,
B. whereas the communication is aimed at introducing a mechanism to simplify procedures which will
overcome the long delays in carrying out the request for recognition and will ultimately make requestsfor extradition largely superfluous and prevent conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States, as setout in Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union,
C. whereas the communication puts forward various possible solutions for introducing the principle of
mutual recognition; whereas Parliament should select options for mutual recognition procedures thatare less complex than those currently applying to requests,
D. whereas, in establishing a mutual recognition mechanism, one alternative would be to aim at a har-
monisation of the Member States legislative, procedural and judicial systems, while another would beto seek mutual trust between Member States, to ensure not only the adequacy of the laws of individual
states, but also the proper implementation of those laws in specific procedures,
E. whereas the first solution would be difficult to achieve, because each countrys judicial system is
closely bound up with the history and form of its institutions and cultural factors; whereas a compro-mise between various types of judicial systems or acceptance of certain systems by the others wouldnever be possible,
F. whereas the second solution would seem more feasible because, although different models are
involved, the individual systems of the Member States are based on a set of procedural rules affordingadequate guarantees and on satisfactory implementation of these rules such as to produce reliablecriminal law decisions, which could therefore be implemented in the other Member States withoutthe need for laborious and uncertain recognition procedures,
G. whereas, in practical terms, mutual recognition entails the power to implement in one Member State a
final decision delivered by the competent authority in another Member State,
H. whereas mutual recognition of a final decision implies recognition of all preceding decisions, including
pre-trial orders,
I. whereas rules covering pre-trial orders differ considerably from one Member State to another,
J. whereas mutual recognition aims to guarantee legal certainty (which is inherent in the effective appli-
cation of the law throughout the EU), bring about the offenders social rehabilitation (avoiding uproot-ing him from the state in which he has chosen to live and where his family and work are) and todefend and respect the victims rights,
K. whereas mutual recognition and the measures needed to implement it, especially procedural measures,
should be applied to all crimes, not only serious ones, in view of the difficulties of identification in theabsence of a common concept of what constitutes a serious crime,
(1) OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10.C 34 E/386 EN 7.2.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001
L. accepting the communications suggestion that a decision should be seen as final if it rules on the
substance of a case and no further ordinary appeal against it is possible or, where such appeal is stillpossible, it has no suspensive effect,
M. whereas, in addition, criminal matters should relate to a formal definition of criminal provisions,
i.e. to positive criminal law; whereas, therefore, it should be linked to any provision which, underthe laws of a Member State, is considered criminal and which links certain penalties, also defined ascriminal, to prohibited acts,
N. whereas the definition of criminal matters should not be affected by the type of authorities applying
the provisions of criminal law (which could in fact be the administrative authorities), nor the way inwhich the criminal proceedings are resolved (e.g. agreements between prosecution services and thesuspect) nor the legal nature of the person to whom the rule of criminal law is directed, who maybe a legal person,
O. whereas clear rules will have to be laid down in cases in which a penalty must be enforced in a state
other than the one which delivered the decision, with a view to preventing the offender having thediscretion to choose the state in which the penalty is enforced,
P. whereas the decision to be recognised should be translated and communicated rapidly; whereas, there-
fore, it would be appropriate to agree on the use of a limited number of better-known languages,following the practice of various international bodies,
Q. whereas, in order to avoid double jeopardy, to apply provisions on recidivism and multiple sentences,
as well as to avoid conflicts, it is necessary to be aware of both final decisions and pending pro-cedures; whereas, therefore, it would be useful to form a network of national judicial registers and tocomputerise registers of pending procedures,
R. whereas the principle of ne bis in idem should be fully respected; whereas, to this end, the idem
should be interpreted as the same fact in the broad and substantive sense, irrespective of the factslegal status, while wherever there are two different decisions, the one that is more favourable to the
offender should be applied,
S. whereas, in order to apply mutual recognition correctly, it will be necessary to adopt some common
rules to govern cases of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem), persistent crime, multiple penalties, the
resolution of conflicts of jurisdiction, as well as rules on the maintenance of registers of offenders andpending procedures, the translation of decisions, recidivism and anything else necessary to ensure thatfinal decisions can have substantially similar effects throughout the territory of the European Union,
T. whereas since registers of offenders and of pending procedures in particular will enable mutual access
to extremely sensitive information, it is necessary that they be covered by clear rules on data protec-tion,
U. whereas, as a result, it will be necessary to entrust the resolution of disputes over such cases to a
central independent authority such as the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
V. whereas it will initially be difficult to reach agreement on a direct recognition procedure, since some
common essential guarantees must be observed, such as respect for defence rights and victims rights,the exclusion of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) and the compatibility of the penalty to be enforcedwith the legal order of the state receiving the request (e.g. substitution of a life sentence by themaximum penalty provided for) and so preliminary consideration must first be given to see whetherthese guarantees are present before an implementation order is issued,
W. whereas, however, if a common area of freedom, security and justice is to become a reality, a system
which enables the principle of direct mutual recognition of final decisions to be fully implemented willneed to be established,
X. whereas a final sentence should constitute a precedent to be taken into account in all the Member
States; whereas, in some cases which should be agreed on, if there are several convictions, particularlyfor offences which have some sort of connecting link, strict accumulation of sentences should not beapplied,7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/387 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001
Y. whereas, furthermore, since some offences are committed in several states, general jurisdictional rules
should be introduced to regulate negative and positive conflicts, to avoid the duplication of proceed-ings and to regulate cases where it is advisable to have a single trial for the accused,
Z. whereas decisions which, under the law of the state in which they are delivered, concern minors or
individuals suffering from mental abnormality should be excluded from the principle of mutualrecognition,
AA. whereas the principle of dual criminality is accepted in almost all international agreements; whereas,
as these make clear, it should be understood in a broad sense: not only as double criminalisation
(an act which in abstract terms is described as a breach of criminal law by the legislation of the
requesting state and the state receiving the request) but also as an act which is punishable in concreteterms (an act whose author is not in a situation which rules out punishment),
AB. whereas accepting the principle of dual criminality in its wider sense would undoubtedly eliminate all
possible cases of incompatibility between differing legal systems, but would make the recognitionprocedure considerably more cumbersome because the legal authority of the state receiving therequest would be placed in the position of having to repeat the trial by reconsidering the decision
on the substance of the case and its procedural aspects,
AC. whereas the Member States have laws which, although differing, ensure both that the offences which
are of the greatest social concern are considered as crimes, and also a fair trial and respect for therule of law; whereas, however, the principle of dual criminality would preclude the recognition ofdecisions on minor offences, in respect of which the same degree of homogeneity has not beenachieved as for more serious offences,
AD. whereas, therefore, dual criminality should not be included in the essential guarantees which must
regulate the application of mutual recognition, since maintaining this requirement would leave theproblems substantially unchanged and would not be consistent with the line taken by the heads ofState and Government, who consider mutual recognition to be a cornerstone in the creation of acommon judicial area,
AE. whereas, however, at least in the initial stages, as a counter-balance to the removal of the principle of
dual criminality, Member States should be granted a margin of independent decision-making bymeans of some safeguard provisions such as, in particular, the exclusion of a small number of typesof crime (such as euthanasia) where it could be difficult to reach an agreement,
AF. whereas, furthermore, among the safeguard provisions should be rules concerning respect for the
accuseds right to defence and the victims rights; whereas these provisions should be strictly demar-cated and defined so as not to entail a reconsideration of the decision on the substance of the case,
AG. whereas a certain enforcement of national law, in particular certain aspects of procedural law, may
help build mutual trust and therefore limit Member States need for safeguards and preliminary con-sideration before an order is enforced,
AH. whereas the enforcement of penalties should be governed by the law of the state in which enforce-
ment takes place; whereas, therefore, the safeguard provisions should include the possibility for the
state itself to adjust the length of the sentence (e.g. not applying life sentences) and enforcement
methods (e.g. the absence of solitary confinement) to its own specific system,
AI. whereas, as a result, the state receiving the request should have all the decision-making power on
privileges or penalties connected with the conduct or personal circumstances of the offender, such asconditional release, permits to work or make visits outside and suspension of the enforcement of thesentence for health reasons,
AJ. whereas, on the other hand, all decisions regarding the extinguishing of a penalty or of an offence,
pardons and amnesties should remain within the sphere of responsibility of the requesting state,C 34 E/388 EN 7.2.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001
AK. whereas the costs of enforcing penalties should be borne by the state receiving the request in order
to avoid red tape, controversies and disputes, and in the belief that, in a European Union open to thefree movement of individuals, in the long term these costs will be set off against each other overall,
AL. whereas it is essential that, in the event of a change to the penalty, or its termination, the rights of
victims and their families are taken into account, including the right to be informed promptly,
adequate physical protection and respect for their dignity, which may be achieved by imposing onthe offender a specific prohibition on entering certain parts of EU territory,
AM. whereas recognition of disqualifications should only apply when these can also fulfil their function of
social protection and rehabilitation in the state receiving the request,
1. Considers that the principle of mutual recognition should apply to all crimes, including those for
which only pecuniary penalties are prescribed, apart from any necessary exceptions;
2. Considers that, as a result, the measures in the Councils programme should apply to all crimes;
3. Requests that a decision should be seen as final if it rules on the substance of a case (even if this is
following a settlement by agreement between the suspect and prosecution services) and no further ordinaryappeal against the decision is possible or, where such appeal is still possible, it has no suspensive effect;
4. Calls on the Commission, before presenting legal instruments, to identify the problems which arise in
practice owing to shortcomings in the implementation of final decisions in criminal matters;
5. Considers that the release of a suspect during investigations should not be considered as a final
decision if it is still possible to reopen proceedings subsequently;
6. Calls on the Commission to determine those substantive legal and procedural areas in which mini-
mum standards are necessary;
7. Considers that the definition of the term criminal matters should relate to positive criminal law and
therefore to any provision which, under the laws of the relevant Member State, is considered as such;considers also that neither the type of authorities (e.g. administrative authorities) enforcing the penalty,the way in which the criminal proceedings are resolved nor the legal nature of the person against whomthe penalty is enforced should have any influence thereon;
8. Requests that clear rules be laid down to define the cases in which the penalty may be enforced in a
state other than the one in which the decision was delivered, with a view to preventing the offenderhaving the discretion to choose;
9. Calls on the Commission to submit a plan for establishing a registry of pending and concluded
procedures specifying, in particular, the form of data collection, access to data and data protection;
10. Requests that, with a view to prompt awareness of the existence of the decision to be recognised,
the use of two or three more widely-used languages is agreed to for translation purposes, following thepractice in certain international bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights and the UN;
11. Requests that, for exchanges of information on final sentences, the option of forming a network of
national registers is chosen and calls on the Member States to take appropriate measures to makeinformation on pending procedures accessible as well;
12. Requests that a future network of national registers and mutual access to information on pending
cases should be subject to clear rules on data protection;
13. Requests that in a system of mutual recognition full respect is shown for the principle of ne bis in
idem and that, in order to apply this principle correctly, the idem which is the object of the seconddecision should be interpreted as the same fact in the broad and substantive sense, irrespective of itslegal status;7.2.2002 EN C 34 E/389 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001
14. Considers, as a result, that wherever there is a second (or further) trial and a final sentence is
handed down for the same fact, the decision that is more favourable to the offender should be applied;
15. Considers that a final sentence in one Member State should constitute a precedent to be taken into
account in the event of a further conviction in another Member State, and should therefore give rise to theapplication of provisions on recidivism;
16. Requests that common rules be established with a view to ensuring that, where there are several
convictions in two or more Member States (particularly for offences which have some sort of connectinglink), strict accumulation of sentences is not always applied;
17. Considers that general jurisdictional rules should be introduced in order to regulate negative and
positive conflicts in this area, to avoid the duplication of proceedings and to regulate cases where it wouldbe advisable to have a single trial;
18. Requests that the resolution of all possible disputes between the Member States judicial authorities
concerning mutual recognition be entrusted to a central independent authority such as the Court of Justiceof the European Communities;
19. Considers that final decisions in which the mental abnormality or legal minority of the offender are
recognised should be excluded from the scope of recognition;
20. Considers that the precondition of dual criminality should be abolished and that, at the same time,
as a safeguard provision, agreement should be reached on a restricted number of crimes to which mutual
recognition would not apply;
21. Considers, furthermore, that additional safeguard provisions should be included concerning respect
for the right to defence and the victims rights, strictly defined so as not to entail a reconsideration of thedecision on the substance of the case;
22. Considers that in order to prevent too many safeguard provisions from being included and at the
same time to guarantee a common level of protection of fundamental rights protection throughout the EU,Member States should agree on common minimum standards for certain aspects of procedural law;
23. Calls on the Commission to involve the candidate countries in drawing up a system of mutual
recognition of final decisions in criminal matters;
24. Requests that the enforcement of custodial penalties be governed by the law of the state in which
enforcement takes place, with the possibility of adjusting the length of the sentence and enforcementmethods, and that no requests be made for the enforcement of a penalty which does not exist in thatstate (e.g. community service or other similar service);
25. Requests, furthermore, that the state in which enforcement takes place should take all decisions
connected with the conduct or personal circumstances of the offender, such as conditional release, permitsto work or make visits outside and suspension of the enforcement of the sentence for health reasons;
26. Requests that, on the other hand, decisions regarding the extinguishing of a penalty or an offence,
pardons and amnesties should remain within the sphere of responsibility of the requesting state;
27. Requests that, in the event of a change to the penalty, or its termination, the rights of victims are
taken into account, including the right to prompt information and adequate physical protection;
28. Considers that the costs of enforcing custodial and pecuniary penalties should be borne by the state
in which enforcement takes place since in the long term these costs will be balanced over all the MemberStates;
29. Considers that the principle of mutual recognition of disqualifications should apply when it can also
fulfil a function of social protection and rehabilitation in the state in which enforcement takes place;
30. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and Commission.C 34 E/390 EN 7.2.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 17 May 2001