Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings
Date: 2005-03-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: criminal procedure, exchange of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, national law, penalty

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 17.03.2005 
COM(2005)91 final 

2005/0018(CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the 
course of new criminal proceedings 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. Introduction 

This proposal follows up the White Paper on exchanges of information on convictions and the 
effect  of  such  convictions  in  the  European  Union.  That  White  Paper  takes  stock  of  the 
conditions for circulation and use of information on convictions in Union territory and defines 
the  two  focuses  of  future  European  Union  action:  improving  the  circulation  of  information 
and ensuring that it can have an impact outside the convicting State, in particular as a means 
of preventing further offences and at the time when new convictions are handed down.  

The former aspect will  be covered  by a proposal  for a  decision establishing  a  computerised 
system  for  exchanging  information  on  criminal  convictions,  which  the  Commission  is 
planning  to  present  in  the  first  half  of  2005.  This  proposal  covers  the  second  aspect. 
Improving  the  circulation  of  information  will  be  of  limited  usefulness  if  the  Member  States 
are  unable  to  make  use  of  the  information  that  is  transmitted.  The  possibility  of  using  the 
information  that  is  transmitted,  on  the  other  hand,  should  be  a  considerable  incentive  to 
improving the exchanges.  

Presented  in  the  conclusions  of  the  Tampere  European  Council  as  the  “cornerstone”  of 
judicial cooperation in both civil and criminal matters, the mutual recognition principle is the 
basis of a programme of measures adopted by the Council in December 20001.  

Measure  2  of  the  programme  provides  for  the  “adoption  of  one  or  more  instruments 
establishing  the  principle  that  a  court  in  one  Member  State  must  be  able  to  take  account  of 
final criminal judgments  rendered by the courts  in other Member States for  the  purposes of 
assessing the offender's criminal record and establishing whether he has re-offended, and in 
order to determine the type of sentence applicable and the arrangements for enforcing it”. 

The  purpose  of  this  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  is  to  attain  the  objectives  set  by 
measure 2 of the programme, by defining the conditions in which a conviction handed down 
in another Member State can be taken into account in new criminal proceedings concerning 
different facts. It lays down a series of rules relating to entries in the national judicial record 
of convictions handed down in another Member State.  

a) 

Taking into account in criminal proceedings 

Table  5  annexed  to  the  White  Paper  on  exchanges  of  information  on  convictions  and  the 
effect  of  such  convictions  in  the  European  Union  highlights  the  conditions  in  which  the 
Member  States  take  into  consideration  convictions  handed  down  in  another  Member  State, 
stressing  that  little  if  any  account  is  actually  taken  of  them.  The  fact  that  equivalent  effects 
cannot  be  attached  to  a  decision  taken  in  another  Member  State  is  contrary  to  the  mutual 
recognition  principle  and  puts  the  citizens  of  Europe  on  an  unequal  footing  in  the  event  of 
subsequent prosecutions depending on the place where the first and second cases are brought. 
Hence the need for Union legislative action.  

1 

OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p.10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
But  this  proposal  concerns  only  the  taking  into  account  of  earlier  convictions  in  criminal 
proceedings for different facts. It does not address the “non bis in idem” rule, on which there 
will be separate instruments. 

The question is also different from the general question of the execution of a conviction in a 
Member State other  than  the  convicting State. The Member State is not required to execute 
the conviction handed down in another Member State but simply to draw the consequences of 
the earlier conviction on the occasion of new proceedings. Nor is the point to harmonise the 
effects  attaching  to  previous  convictions  in  each  of  the  Member  States,  which  remain 
governed by national law. In the present case the impact of the mutual recognition principle is 
rather to confer the same validity and the same effects on convictions handed down in another 
Member State as on a previous national conviction. In other words, to establish a “principle of 
assimilation” of judgments given in the other Member State and national convictions, leaving 
it to national legislation to draw the consequences of this principle. 

At  the  national  level,  the  existence  of  previous  convictions  can  have  effects  at  the  pre-trial 
stage of new criminal proceedings, during the trial itself and subsequently, in particular at the 
execution stage. This proposal covers these different procedural stages. 

The effects, depending on the national legislation, can be matters of pure fact (in this case it is 
for  the  competent  authorities,  and  in  particular  the  judicial  authorities,  to  draw  conclusions 
from  the  existence  of  previous  convictions  at  their  discretion),  or  be  governed  by  the  law 
(which  can,  for  example,  provide  for  aggravation  of  the  penalty  or  of  the  procedural 
arrangements  applicable  to  repeat  offenders).  It  will  be  for  the  Member  States  to  adopt 
national  legislation  to  assimilate  convictions  handed  down  in  the  other  Member  States  to 
national convictions and give the same effect to them whatever they may be. 

The draft Framework Decision provides for mandatory and optional grounds for disregarding 
a conviction handed down in another Member State. 

b) 

Entry in the criminal record of a conviction handed down in another Member State 

In  some  Member  States  convictions  handed  down  in  other  Member  States  against  their 
nationals and possibly also their residents are entered in their criminal record, and they wish 
to  maintain  the  practice.  The  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  contains  a  number  of 
provisions  to  lay  down  common  rules  on  entry  in  the  record  in  order  to  avoid  excessive 
differences  of  practice  which  could  in  some  circumstances  be  detrimental  to  convicted 
persons. But it does not require Member States that make no entries in their records to amend 
their legislation.  

2. Legal basis 

The legal basis for this proposal is Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as amended 
by  the  Nice  Treaty,  which  deals  with  joint  action  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  in 
criminal matters, and Article 34(2)(b). 

3. Financial statement 

The  implementation  of  the  proposed  Framework  Decision  would  entail  no  additional 
operational expenditure to be charged to the budgets of the Member States or to the budget of 
the European Union. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
4. Comments on the articles 

Article 1 – Subject-matter 

This article specifies the subject-matter of the Framework Decision, namely determination of 
the  conditions  in  which  it  must  be  possible  for  a  conviction  handed  down  in  another 
Member State to be taken into account in the course of criminal proceedings against the same 
person for different facts.  

Paragraph 2 stresses that this may not have the effect the effect of amending the obligation to 
respect the fundamental  rights  and  fundamental legal  principles as  enshrined in Article 6 of 
the  Treaty.  This  paragraph  is  based  on  the  Framework  Decision  on  the  European  arrest 
warrant and surrender procedures between the Member States.  

Article 2 – Definitions 

This article contains two definitions.  

The  definitions  of  “criminal  record”  and  “conviction”  are  identical  to  those  in  the 
Commission proposal for a decision concerning the exchange of information extracted from 
the criminal record, adopted on 13 October 20042. These definitions were removed from the 
version of the text on which the Council came to a first general approach in December 2004. 
The  definition  of  “convictions”  takes  account  of  the  concept  of  offence  as  used  for  the 
purposes of Articles 51 and 52 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement of 
1990  and  the  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  in  Criminal  Matters  between  the  Member 
States of the European Union of 29 May 20003. It is consistent with the usual scope of mutual 
judicial  assistance  and  makes  it  possible  to  bring  the  hybrid  administrative  and  criminal 
decisions  that  exist  in  certain  Member  States  within  the  scope  of  this  framework  decision. 
One of the main aims of including them is to ensure that the Framework Decision extends to 
road  traffic  offences  (when  they  are  hybrid  “administrative/criminal”),  where  knowledge  of 
the past record is particularly useful. The definition selected is deliberately restrictive in order 
to  cover  only  convictions  in  the  strict  sense,  i.e.  final  judgments  of  the  criminal  courts  (or 
decisions  which  could  have  been  court  judgments  in  the  case  of  “administrative/criminal” 
offences)  which,  in  all  the  Member  States,  can  be  regarded  as  convictions.  It  is  certainly 
possible  for  national  legislation  to  attach  effects  to  other  types  of  decision  (for  example, 
decisions  by  prosecutors  to  settle  cases  out  of  court).  Nothing  precludes  the  Member  States 
that  so  desire  from  attaching  the  same  effects  to  this  type  of  decision  when  it  is  taken  in 
another  Member  State  and  they  are  informed  of  it.  But  that  aspect  is  not  covered  by  the 
Framework Decision.  

The  “criminal  record”  is  the  national  register  recording  these  convictions.  Certain 
Member States may have several registers. 

Article  3  –  Taking  into  account,  in  the  course  of  new  criminal  proceedings,  of  a 
conviction handed down in another Member State 

This  article  establishes  the  central  principle  of  the  Framework  Decision,  which  is  that  a 
conviction handed down in another Member State must have equivalent effects to a national 

2 
3 

COM(2004)664. 
OJ C 197, 12.7.2000, p. 1. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
conviction.  As  has  already  been  seen,  on  the  other  hand,  it  does  not  aim  to  harmonise  the 
consequences attached in each Member State to previous convictions, which remain governed 
exclusively by national law.  

In order to exclude non bis in idem cases, which will be the subject of separate Commission 
proposals, the text specifies that it governs the effects of previous convictions on the occasion 
of criminal proceedings for different facts.  

The existence of previous convictions can have effects at the various stages of new criminal 
proceedings: 

–  at the pre-trial stage, the existence of previous convictions can for example influence the 
applicable  rules  of  procedure,  the  definition  of  the  offence  and  decisions  relating  to 
provisional detention; 

–  at  the  actual  trial  stage,  the  existence  of  previous  convictions  can  have  effects  on,  for 
example,  the  type  of  court  having  jurisdiction  and,  more  frequently,  the  nature  and 
quantum of the penalty (for example exclusion or restrictive use of suspended sentences, 
increase  in  the  quantum  of  the  penalty  incurred,  cumulation  or  confusion  with  previous 
penalties); 

–  if  a  new  conviction  is  handed  down,  the  existence  of  previous  convictions  can  have 
consequences  at  the  time  of  determining  the  rules  to  govern  execution  (for  example 
cumulation  or  confusion  with  previous  penalties,  possibility  of  obtaining  adjustments  of 
penalties or early releases). 

The  Framework  Decision  aims  to  take  previous  convictions  into  account  at  each  stage  of 
criminal proceedings, in accordance with national law. 

In  practice,  the  studies  undertaken  by  the  Commission  (cf.  annex  to  the  White  Paper  on 
exchanges of information on convictions and the effect of such convictions in the European 
Union)  show  that  the  effects  of  the  previous  convictions  vary  widely,  depending  on  the 
national systems. In certain Member States, the existence of a previous conviction is a matter 
of  pure  fact,  left  to  the  appraisal  of  the  competent  authorities,  which  will  take  account  of  it 
when coming to their decision. In others, there are rules applying to repeat offending in the 
broad  sense,  in  which  the  existence  of  a  previous  conviction  has  a  number  of  automatic 
consequences which the competent authorities have no discretion to assess. 

In the first hypothesis, taking into account a conviction handed down in another Member State 
should not be too problematical, since it will be one fact among others. It follows, moreover, 
from  Table  5  annexed  to  the  White  Paper  that  Member  States  which  do  not  have  rules 
governing  repeat  offending  generally  already  attach  effects  to  convictions  handed  down  in 
other Member States, which they regard as a matter of pure fact. 

In  the  second  hypothesis,  the  Member  States  will  have  to  specify  the  conditions  in  which 
equivalent  effects  are  attached  to  the  existence  of  a  conviction  handed  down  in  another 
Member  State.  National  legal  rules  applying  to  repeat  offending  are  often  very  directly 
connected with the national structure of offences  and penalties, for example in all the cases 
where  there  are  special  systems  applicable  to  repeat  offending  (repeated  commission  of  a 
specific type of offence, as in the case of drug trafficking or theft). In these cases it will be up 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
to the Member States to take all necessary measures to ensure that convictions handed down 
in other Member States are taken into account. 

Article 4 – Mandatory grounds for not taking account of a conviction handed down in 
another Member State 

This  article  sets  out  four  situations  in  which  a  conviction  handed  down  in  another 
Member State  cannot  be  taken  into  account.  The  first  three  hypotheses,  which  are  found  in 
other  Union  instruments,  concern  the  non  bis  in  idem  principle,  statutory  limitation  of 
criminal  proceedings  or  of  sentences,  and  amnesty,  where  offences  might  have  been  within 
the jurisdiction of the Member State concerned in accordance with its own criminal law. The 
fourth  hypothesis  concerns  situations  where,  under  national  rules  governing  entries  in  the 
national criminal record, references to the conviction would have been deleted.  

Article  5  –  Optional  grounds  for  not  taking  account  of  a  conviction  handed  down  in 
another Member State 

Apart  from  the  cases  listed  in  Article  4,  which are  the mandatory cases,  the Member States 
may also decide to disregard convictions handed down in another Member State in two types 
of circumstances: 

The  first  is  now  customary  in  mutual  recognition  instruments  and  concerns  double 
incrimination.  A  Member  State  may  disregard  convictions  handed  down  in  another 
Member State where the underlying facts do not constitute an offence against its own criminal 
law. But this possibility is limited where the first conviction was for a category of offences on 
a  list  taken  over  from  the  Framework  Decision  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  financial 
penalties. Where the first conviction was for an offence in the listed categories, it cannot be 
disregarded  in  the  second  case  on  the  basis  of  the  double  incrimination  principle.  Here  the 
Commission  has  opted  to  refer  to  a  long  list  of  offences,  more  relevant  than  the  list  in  the 
Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures since it extends 
also to road traffic offences, a category where it is particularly worth tackling the problem of 
repeat offending.  

It is also possible to disregard a conviction handed down in another Member State where the 
consequence  of  having  being  convicted  in  another  Member  State  on  the  occasion  of  new 
criminal  proceedings  for  different  facts  is  that  the  person  concerned  is  treated  more 
unfavourably than if the conviction had been handed down by a national court. This is a safety 
net  to  ensure  that  a  person  who  has  been  convicted  in  another  Member  State  is  not  treated 
more  unfavourably  than  a  person  convicted  of  the  same  offence  in  the  national  courts. 
Consider the example of a person sentenced in Member State A to a penalty higher than the 
maximum available for the same offence in Member State B. If such a sentence has negative 
legal  effects  in  Member  State  B  (such  as  stricter  procedural  rules)  that  would  not  have 
occurred if that Member State’s own legal system (and therefore the maximum sentence) had 
applied, the first decision can be disregarded, as the fact that it was taken in a different legal 
system  providing  for  a  higher  maximum  sentence  puts  the  person  concerned  in  a  more 
unfavourable situation.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Article 6 - Entry in the national criminal record of a conviction handed down in another 
Member  State  and  national  transmission  of  a  conviction  handed  down  in  another 
Member State 

This  article  concerns  only  the  specific  situation  of  Member  States  which  enter  in  their 
criminal record convictions handed down in another Member State against their residents or 
nationals. It imposes no obligations on Member States which, under their national law, do not 
enter convictions handed down in other States.  

Paragraph  1  provides  that  the  penalty  must  correspond  to  the  sentence  passed  in  the 
convicting Member State, even if it is higher than the maximum for the same offence in the 
registering  Member  State.  The  Commission  considers  that  the  registration  must  respect  the 
reality  of  the  sentence  passed  in  the  convicting  Member  State  even  if  the  quantum  of  the 
penalty  does  not  comply  with  the  rules  of  the  registering  State.  The  point  is  to  ensure 
transparency as to the reality of the sentence handed down, which will be in the interests of 
the person concerned, in particular when he is eligible for a scheme allowing sentences to be 
served  concurrently.  On  the  other  hand,  the  situation  will  be  different  if  the  sentence  is 
converted  into  a  lesser  quantum,  as  might  be  the  case  at  the  time  of  execution  in  the 
Member State of registration. But this Framework Decision does not address the question of 
the conditions in which conversion might take place. 

Paragraph 2 establishes a general rule that entry in the national criminal record of a conviction 
handed down in another Member State must not have the effect that the person is treated more 
unfavourably than if the conviction had been handed down at national level. 

Paragraph  3  specifies  that  the  Member  State  of  nationality  or  residence  which  enters  a 
conviction handed down in another Member State must reflect in its national criminal record 
subsequent events which affect it in the convicting Member State and which were brought to 
its attention, unless national legislation is more favourable to the convicted person. Entry of 
the  same  conviction  in  several  national  criminal  records  often  has  the  effect  that  different 
legal systems apply to it. The purpose of this article is to unify the legal status of a conviction 
as  far  as  possible  while  preserving  the  person's  rights  by  retaining  the  rule  of  the  most 
favourable State.  

Article 7 - Relation to other legal instruments 

This  Article specifies that this Framework Decision replaces the provisions of Article 56 of 
the  Convention  of  28  May  1970  on  the  International  Validity  of  Criminal  Judgments  as 
between  the  Member  States.  That  Article  concerns  the  taking  into  account  of  a  previous 
conviction handed down in another State.  

Article 8 - Implementation 

This  Article  requires  the  Member  States  to  take  the  measures  necessary  to  comply  with  the 
Framework Decision by 31 December 2006 and to communicate to the General Secretariat of 
the Council and to the Commission the texts of the provisions transposing into their national 
law the obligations imposed on them by this Framework Decision. Special attention will be 
paid to Article 3 which, depending on the national legislation of the Member States on taking 
into account previous convictions, can be transposed by measures of very different scope.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
It requires the Commission to present a report on the application of the Framework Decision 
to the European Parliament and the Council no later than 31 December 2007. 

Article 9 - Entry into force 

This Article specifies that the Decision takes effect on the day of its publication in the Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
2005/0018(CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the 
course of new criminal proceedings 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  European  Union,  and  in  particular  Articles  31  and  34(2)(b) 
thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission4, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament5, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area 
of  freedom,  security  and  justice.  This  objective  requires  that  it  be  possible  for 
information  on  convictions  handed  down  in  the  Member  States  to  be  taken  into 
account  outside  the  convicting  Member  State,  both  in  order  to  prevent  new  offences 
and at the time of new convictions.  

On  29  November  2000  the  Council,  in  accordance  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
Tampere  European  Council,  adopted  a  programme  of  measures  to  implement  the 
principle  of  mutual  recognition  in  criminal  matters6.  Measure  2  of  the  programme 
provides for the “adoption of one or more instruments establishing the principle that a 
court  in one Member  State  must be able to  take  account  of final  criminal judgments 
rendered  by  the  courts  in  other  Member  States  for  the  purposes  of  assessing  the 
offender's criminal record and establishing whether he has re-offended, and in order to 
determine the type of sentence applicable and the arrangements for enforcing it”. The 
purpose  of  this  Framework  Decision  is  to  determine  the  conditions  in  which  a 
conviction handed down in another Member State must be capable of being taken into 
account  in  the  course  of  criminal  proceedings  against  the  same  person  for  different 
facts in another Member State. 

(3) 

Some  Member  States  attach  effects 
in  other 
Member States, whereas others take account only of convictions handed down in their 
own courts. Equal treatment of all citizens of Europe must be secured to remedy this 
situation. 

to  convictions  handed  down 

4 
5 
6 

OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C […], […], p. […]. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The principle that the Member States must attach to a conviction handed down in other 
Member  States  effects  equivalent  to  those  attached  to  a  conviction  handed  down  in 
their own courts must be affirmed, whether those effects be regarded by national law 
as matters of fact or of law. But this Framework Decision does not seek to harmonise 
the  consequences  attached  by  the  different  national  legislations  to  the  existence  of 
previous convictions. 

The effects of a conviction handed down in another Member State must be the same as 
the effects of a national decision at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, at the 
trial  stage  or  at  the  time  of  execution  of  the  sentence.  Where  national  legislation 
attaches  legal  effects  to  the  existence  of  a  previous  conviction,  national  transposal 
legislation  must  determine  the  extent  to  which  equivalent  effects  are  attached  to  a 
decision given in another Member State.  

The entry in the criminal record of a Member State of convictions against nationals or 
residents handed down in another Member State must be governed by the same rules 
as if it had been handed down by a national court and may not cause persons convicted 
in  other  Member  States  to  be  treated  more  unfavourably  than  those  who  have  been 
convicted by national courts.  

This decision is to replace the provisions concerning the taking into consideration of 
criminal judgments in the Convention of 28 May 1970 on the International Validity of 
Criminal Judgments. 

This  Framework  Decision  respects  the  principle  of  subsidiarity  provided  for  by 
Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the 
European Community insofar as it aims to approximate the laws and regulations of the 
Member  States,  which  cannot  be  done  adequately  by  the  Member  States  acting 
unilaterally and requires concerted action in the European Union. In accordance with 
the principle of proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this Decision does not 
go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that objective. 

(9) 

This Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 
by  Article  6  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  and  restated  by  the  Charter  of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION: 

Article 1 
Subject-matter 

1. 

2. 

The  purpose  of  this  Framework  Decision  is  to  determine  the  conditions  in  which  a 
Member State takes into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings against 
the  same  person,  convictions  handed  down  in  another  Member  State  for  different 
facts or enters such convictions in the criminal record. 

This  Framework  Decision  may  not  have  the  effect  the  effect  of  amending  the 
obligation  to  respect  the  fundamental  rights  and  fundamental  legal  principles  as 
enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
For the purposes of this Framework Decision: 

Article 2 
Definitions 

a) 

b) 

“conviction”  means  any  final  decision  of  a  criminal  court  or  of  an  administrative 
authority whose decision can be appealed against in the criminal courts establishing 
guilt of a criminal offence or an act punishable in accordance with national law as an 
offence against the law;  

“criminal  record”:  the  national  register  or  registers  recording  convictions  in 
accordance with national law. 

Article 3 
Taking into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings, of a conviction handed down 
in another Member State 

1. 

2. 

Each  Member  State  shall,  in  the  course  of  new  criminal  proceedings  for  different 
facts, attach to convictions handed down in the other Member States in accordance 
with rules determined by them legal effects that are equivalent to those they attach to 
national convictions. 

Paragraph 1 shall apply at the pre-trial stage, at the trial stage itself and at the time of 
execution  of  the  conviction,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  applicable  rules  of 
procedure,  including  those  relating  to  provisional  detention,  the  definition  of  the 
offence, the type and level of the sentence, and the rules governing the execution of 
the decision. 

Article 4 
Mandatory grounds for not taking account of a conviction handed down in another 
Member State 

Convictions  handed  down  in  another  Member  State  shall  not  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
following circumstances: 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

when the conviction violates the non bis in idem principle; 

where  the  criminal  proceedings  were  time-barred  in  accordance  with  national 
legislation  at  the  time  of  the  conviction  and  the  alleged  offence  could  have  been 
within the jurisdiction of this Member State in accordance with its own criminal law; 

when  the  offence  which  gave  rise  to  the  conviction  is  covered  by  amnesty  and  the 
Member  State  had  jurisdiction  to  prosecute  the  offence  in  accordance  with  its  own 
criminal law; 

when  under  the  national  rules  which  govern  entries  in  the  national  criminal  record 
the entry relating to the conviction would have been removed from the record. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Article 5 
Optional grounds for not taking account of a conviction handed down in another 
Member State 

1. 

Convictions  handed  down  in  another  Member  State  may  be  disregarded  where  the 
underlying  facts  do  not  constitute  an  offence  against  the  criminal  law  of  the 
Member State. 

The first subparagraph shall not apply to the following categories of offences: 

–  participation in a criminal organisation; 

–  terrorism; 

–  trafficking in human beings; 

–  sexual exploitation of children and child pornography; 

–  trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; 

–  trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives; 

–  corruption; 

–  fraud, 

including  fraud  affecting 

the  European 
Communities  within  the  meaning  of  the  Convention  of  26  July  1995  on  the 
protection of the European Communities' financial interests; 

the  financial 

interests  of 

–  laundering the proceeds of crime; 

–  counterfeiting currency, including the euro; 

–  computer-related crime; 

–  environmental  crime,  including  trafficking  in  endangered  animal  species  and  in 

endangered plant species and varieties; 

–  facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence; 

–  murder, grievous bodily harm; 

–  illicit trade in human organs and tissue; 

–  kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking; 

–  racism and xenophobia; 

–  organised or armed robbery; 

–  illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art; 

–  swindling; 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
–  racketeering and extortion; 

–  counterfeiting and piracy of products; 

–  forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein; 

–  forgery of means of payment; 

–  trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters; 

–  trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials; 

–  trafficking in stolen vehicles; 

–  rape; 

–  arson; 

–  crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court; 

–  unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships; 

–  sabotage; 

–  conduct which infringes road traffic regulations, including breaches of regulations 
pertaining to driving hours and rest periods and regulations on hazardous goods; 

–  smuggling of goods; 

–  infringements of intellectual property rights; 

–  threats and acts of violence against persons, including during sports events; 

–  criminal damage; 

–  theft; 

–  offences  established  by  the  convicting  State  and  serving  the  purpose  of 
implementing  obligations  arising  from  instruments  adopted  under  the  Treaty 
establishing  the  European  Community  or  under  Title  VI  of  the  Treaty  on 
European Union. 

2. 

Without prejudice to paragraph 1, convictions handed down in another Member State 
may also be disregarded where the consequence of having being convicted in another 
Member State on the occasion of new criminal proceedings for different facts is that 
the  person  concerned  is  treated  more  unfavourably  than  if  the  conviction  had  been 
handed down by a national court. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Article 6 
Entry in the national criminal record of a conviction handed down in another Member State 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Where a Member State enters convictions handed down in another Member State in 
its criminal record, the amount of the penalty entered shall correspond to that of the 
sentence  actually  passed,  unless  the  amount  of  the  penalty  has  been  actually 
reviewed when the penalty was executed in the registering Member State.  

If,  under  national  legislation,  convictions  handed  down  in  the  other  Member  States 
against  nationals  or  residents  are  entered  in  the  national  criminal  record,  the  rules 
governing  entry  in  the  record,  modifications  or  deletion  of  the  information  entered 
may under no circumstances have the effect of causing the person to be treated more 
unfavourably than if he/she had been convicted by a national court.  

Any modification or deletion of an entry in the convicting Member State shall entail 
an  equivalent  deletion  or  modification  in  the  Member  State  of  nationality  or 
residence  if  it  made  an  entry  in  the  record  and  is  informed  of  the  modification  or 
deletion,  unless  the  legislation  of  the  latter  State  provides  for  more  favourable 
treatment for the convicted person. 

Article 7 
Relation to other legal instruments 

Without prejudice to its application in relations between the Member States and third 
countries, this Framework Decision replaces Article 56 of the Hague Convention of 
28 May 1970  on  the  International  Validity  of  Criminal  Judgments  as  between  the 
Member States. 

Article 8 
Implementation 

Member States shall adopt the measures necessary to comply with the provisions of 
this Framework Decision no later than 31 December 2006. 

Member  States  shall  communicate  to  the  General  Secretariat  of  the  Council  and  to 
the  Commission  the  texts  of  the  provisions  transposing  into  their  national  law  the 
obligations imposed on them by this Framework Decision.  

that 

the  basis  of 

On 
than 
31 December 2007  present  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on 
the application of this Framework Decision, accompanied if necessary by legislative 
proposals. 

the  Commission  shall,  no 

information 

later 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Article 9 
Entry into force 

This  Framework  Decision  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  of  its  publication  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

15 

   EN