Proposal for a Council framework Decision on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of the European Union {SEC(2006)1079} {SEC(2006)1080}
Date: 2006-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, criminal court, detention before trial, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, rights of the defence

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.8.2006 
COM(2006) 468 final 

2006/0158 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of 
the European Union 

{SEC(2006)1079} 
{SEC(2006)1080} 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

One  of  the  most  important  objectives  of  the  European  Union  is  to  develop  the  Union  as  an 
area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is assured. 

According  to  both  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and 
Fundamental  Freedoms  (ECHR)  and  general  principles  of  law,  pre-trial  detention  shall  be 
regarded  as  an  exceptional  measure  and  the  widest  possible  use  should  be  made  of  non-
custodial supervision measures. 

At present, however, EU citizens, who are not residents in the territory of the Member State 
where  they  are  suspected  of  having  committed  a  criminal  offence  are  sometimes  –  mainly 
owing  to  the  lack  of  community  ties  and  the  risk  of  flight  -  kept  in  pre-trial  detention  or 
perhaps  subject  to  a  long-term  non  custodial  supervision  measure  in  a  (for  them)  foreign 
environment. A suspect who is resident in the country where he or she is suspected of having 
committed  an  offence  would  in  a  similar  situation  often  benefit  from  a  less  coercive 
supervision measure, such as reporting to the police or travel prohibition. 

Typically a foreign suspect will be in a more vulnerable position than a person who normally 
is resident in the country. Apart from being more or less cut off from contacts with family and 
friends, there is a clear risk that a non-resident suspect in such a situation could lose his or her 
job as a coercive measure (e.g. travel prohibition) that the judicial authority of the trial State 
has imposed on the suspect would stop this person from going back to his or her country of 
normal residence. Generally speaking, there is a clear risk of unequal treatment between the 
two categories which can also be seen as an obstacle to the free movement of persons in the 
Union. 

There  are  not  only  costs  to  the  suspect  involved.  Keeping  persons  in  pre-trial  detention  has 
also an important cost implication for the public authorities involved. Moreover, the excessive 
or unnecessary use and length of pre-trial detention contribute to the phenomenon of prison 
overcrowding,  which  continues  to  blight  penitentiary  systems  across  Europe  and  seriously 
undermines improvements in conditions of detention. 

The  problem  is  that  the  different  alternatives  to  pre-trial  detention  and  other  pre-trial 
supervision  measures  (e.g.  reporting  to  the  police)  cannot  presently  be  transposed  or 
transferred  across  borders  as  States  do  not  recognise  foreign  judicial  decisions  in  these 
matters.  This  means  that  the  implementation  of  the  right  to  liberty  and  the  presumption  of 
innocence in the European Union seen as a whole still must be considered as incomplete. 

The  mandate  for  presenting  this  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  on  the  European 
supervision  order  in  pre-trial  procedures  between  Member  States  of  the  European  Union  is 
clearly  indicated  in  the  “Programme  of  measures  to  implement  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition  of  decisions  in  criminal  matters  (the  “mutual  recognition  programme”)”  of 
November  2000  (measure  10).1  The  Tampere  European  Council  (1999)  had  declared  that 

1 

OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 10. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
enhanced  mutual  recognition  of  judicial  decisions  would  facilitate  co-operation  between 
authorities and the judicial protection of individual rights. It therefore endorsed the principle 
of  mutual  recognition  as  the  cornerstone  of  judicial  cooperation  in  both  civil  and  criminal 
matters, which should also apply to pre-trial orders. A proposal on mutual recognition of non-
custodial  pre-trial  supervision  measures  is  in  the  work  programme  of  the  Commission  for 
2005 (2005/JLS/035) and set as a priority in the Commission communication2 on the Hague 
Programme  (2004)  as  well  as  the  Council  and  Commission  Action  Plan  implementing  the 
Hague  Programme  on  strengthening  freedom,  security  and  justice  in  the  European  Union 
(2005).3 

General context 

The mutual recognition programme mentioned that certain aspects of mutual recognition had 
not yet been addressed in an international context and in particular those concerning pre-trial 
orders. This is still true as regards mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision measures. 

However, several studies point out serious problems with pre-trial detention in the European 
Union.  In  its  Report  on  the  situation  of  fundamental  rights  in  the  European  Union  and  its 
Member States in 2002, the EU network of independent experts in fundamental rights referred 
to statistics of the Council of Europe that show high numbers of pre-trial detainees in several 
Member  States.  Moreover,  the  replies  to  a  questionnaire  on  statistical  data  on  the  prison 
population, including pre-trial detention that the Commission drew up in 2003 at the request 
of  the  Italian  Presidency,  show  that  there  are  considerable  differences  between  the  EU 
Member States both as regards the rate of pre-trial detention per 100 000 inhabitants and the 
proportion of own nationals in relation to foreign detainees. There was an increasing general 
tendency regarding the use of pre-trial detention. 

In this context, it should also be noted that the European Parliament in its Resolutions on the 
situation concerning basic rights in the European Union urged the Commission to take action 
regarding various issues in the area of pre-trial detention and alternatives to such detention. In 
2001, the European Parliament required Member States to step up their efforts in this area by 
restricting detention as far as possible and completely avoiding taking children into custody 
save in absolutely exceptional cases. The European Parliament called on the Council to adopt 
a framework decision on common standards for procedural law, for instance on rules covering 
pre-trial  orders,  so  as  to  guarantee  a  common  level  of  fundamental  rights  protection 
throughout the EU. This demand was reiterated the following year. In its resolution of 2002, 
the  European  Parliament  considered  it  essential  that  Member  States  examined  detention 
procedures in order to ensure that human rights are not violated, that detention periods are not 
unnecessarily long and that grounds for detention are reviewed regularly. 

In its publication “The CPT standards” (2003), the European Committee for the Prevention of 
Torture  and  Inhuman  or  Degrading  Treatment  or  Punishment  (the  CPT  Committee)  of  the 
Council of Europe underlined that prison overcrowding is often particularly acute in pre-trial 
detention  establishments.  In  such  circumstances,  the  CPT  Committee  noted  that  throwing 
increasing  amounts  of  money  at  the  prison  estate  does  not  offer  a  solution.  Instead,  current 
law and practice in relation to custody pending trial needed to be reviewed. The problem was 
sufficiently serious as to call for cooperation at European level.  

2 
3 

COM(2005) 184 final, p. 27. 
OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1 (p. 18, paragraph g). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

As already mentioned, there are presently no international instruments that specifically allow 
the transfer of pre-trial supervision measures from one Member State to another. 

However, the introduction of a mutual recognition scheme for pre-trial supervision measures 
at European Union level must evidently be considered in the light of the legal framework that 
governs pre-trial detention in general. This follows also from the requirements of Article 6 of 
the Treaty on European Union (TEU). 

All  the  EU  Member  States  have  ratified  both  the  ECHR  and  the  International  Covenant  on 
Civil  and  Political  Rights  (ICCPR).  As  such,  they  must  respect  the  right  to  liberty,  the 
presumption of innocence, the legal grounds for detention for which those instruments make 
provision, the types of authorities entitled to take decisions on detention, the right to challenge 
the legality of detention before a court and the approximate time limits applying to the various 
stages of pre-trial proceedings. 

These  international  instruments  also  provide  that  a  person  may  be  deprived  of  his  or  her 
liberty on a reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and that there must 
be  one  or  several  special  grounds  for  detention  relating  to  the  dangers  of  re-offending, 
suppression  of  evidence  and  flight.  In  addition,  release  from  pre-trial  detention  may  be 
conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. 

However, it should be noted that the international instruments do not contain any provisions 
on the threshold for pre-trial detention linked to the punishment available for the offence in 
question. This threshold follows the national law of the Member States, which means that it 
varies  from  Member  State  to  Member  State.  In  some  Member  States  the  penalty  for  the 
offence in question is not a factor that is taken into account when making remand decisions. 
Some Member States allow pre-trial detention irrespective of the penalty for the offence when 
the suspect has no fixed abode in the territory and there is a risk that this person will abscond, 
even though the general threshold for pre-trial detention might be much higher. 

In  some  Member  States,  the  threshold  for  non-custodial  pre-trial  supervision  measures  is 
lower  than  for  pre-trial  detention.  However,  the  same  general  principles  apply  to  non-
custodial measures as to pre-trial detention. The principle of proportionality implies, e.g., that 
coercive measures only should be used when this is absolutely necessary and only for as long 
as required. 

It can finally be noted that the ECHR does not contain many provisions that even indirectly 
concern extradition and other cross-border issues. An example is Article 5(1) f ECHR, which 
provides  that  a  person  may  be  arrested  with  a  view  to  deportation  or  extradition.  An 
explanation for this is that the ECHR was not drafted in order to create a common judicial area 
for  the  Member  States  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  but  rather  to  set  minimum  standards 
applicable to each of the national legal systems. 

Consistency with other policies and objectives of the Union 

The general aim of this proposal for a Council Framework Decision is to reinforce the right to 
liberty and the presumption of innocence in the European Union seen as a whole and promote 
equal treatment of all citizens in the common area of freedom, security and justice. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
This  aim  is  consistent  with  The  Hague  Programme  on  strengthening  freedom,  security  and 
justice in the European Union, approved by the European Council on 5 November 2004. The 
Hague  Programme  mentions,  i.a.,  that  freedom  and  justice  should  henceforth  be  considered 
indivisible within the Union as a whole. 

It  should  be  underlined  that  the  present  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  is  a  part  of  the 
mutual  recognition  programme  in  criminal  matters,  which  according  to  the  Hague 
Programme,  should  be  completed.  The  mutual  recognition  programme  lists  a  number  of 
specific recognition measures. The measures of this programme cannot be separated from one 
another,  but  are  designed  to  interact  with  one  another.  In  particular,  the  present  proposal 
should  be  seen  in  connection  with  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Council  Framework 
Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union 
(2004)4, which, i.a., contains provisions on the right to legal advice and interpretation. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Consultation of interested parties 

The first step in the consultation process was to draw up a questionnaire in order to identify 
possible obstacles to cooperation between Member States in the area of pre-trial detention and 
alternatives  to  such  detention.  The  questions  concerned  the  legitimate  grounds  for  pre-trial 
detention - i.a., the threshold for remanding a suspect in custody (linked to the penalty for the 
offence); whether there were any maximum time limits for pre-trial detention; the grounds for 
pre-trial  detention  (degree  of  suspicion  and  the  “special  grounds”);  whether  there  was  a 
presumption in favour of remanding suspects into custody for serious offences; the different 
“alternative” measures to pre-trial detention; whether a breach of an obligation under a pre-
trial supervision measure constituted a criminal offence; the competent legal authorities in this 
area;  and  special  categories  and  treatment  of  detainees.  All  the  then  15  EU  Member  States 
submitted  replies  to  the  questionnaire.  The  replies  were  compiled  in  a  document  that  was 
distributed to the Member States. 

On  the  basis  of  the  replies  to  the  questionnaire  the  Commission  wrote  a  Discussion  Paper. 
This Paper, which was sent to a number of experts in this area in the EU Member States (and 
the then acceding countries), proposes, i.a., the introduction of a so-called “European order to 
report  to  an  authority”  as  a  non-custodial  pre-trial  supervision  measure  at  European  Union 
level. The Discussion Paper further considers the limits and possibilities for taking action in 
the field of pre-trial detention in general. 

In  order  to  explore  the  scope  of  a  future  instrument,  a  first  experts’  meeting  was  held  in 
Brussels  on  12  May  2003.  Several  experts,  including  representatives  of  NGOs,  had  been 
invited on an individual basis, while other experts represented their Member States. Eurojust 
was also represented. At this meeting, different aspects of pre-trial detention and alternatives 
to  such  detention  were  discussed,  in  particular  the  Commission’s  thinking  on  the  European 
order  to  report.  The  outcome  of  the  meeting  and  the  discussions  which  followed  was  that 
work should focus on mutual recognition of non-custodial pre-trial supervision measures and 
leave  out  questions  related  to  procedural  safeguards  –  covered  by  a  separate  Green  Paper  – 
and detention conditions. 

4 

COM(2004) 328 final. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
On 17 August 2004, the Commission adopted the Green Paper on mutual recognition of non-
custodial  pre-trial  supervision  measures5  and  the  associated  Commission  Staff  Working 
Paper6, which take fully account of the outcome of the first (preparatory) experts’ meeting as 
well as the information provided in the replies to the first questionnaire (mentioned above). A 
summary  of  the  replies  concerning,  i.a.,  supervision  measures  (alternatives  to  pre-trial 
detention) and applicable penalties in the event of non-compliance (as required under measure 
9 of the mutual recognition programme) is in annex 2 to the Commission Staff Working Paper 
associated  with  the  Green  Paper.  Annex  3  of  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper  also 
contains a summary of the replies of the Member States and the then 10 candidate countries to 
a  questionnaire  on  statistical  data  on  the  prison  population,  including  pre-trial  detention, 
which the Commission drew  up  in  2003 at the request of the Italian Presidency (mentioned 
above). 

When  drafting  the  Green  Paper,  the  Commission  also  had  access  to  documents  of  the 
Committee of Experts on remand in custody and its implications for the management of penal 
institutions  (PC-DP)  of  the  Council  of  Europe  (where  the  Commission  participated  as  an 
observer),  in  particular  a  questionnaire  on  the  law  and  practice  of  Member  States  regarding 
remand in custody, including an analysis of the replies to this questionnaire. 

The questions posed in the Green Paper were discussed in a second experts’ meeting on 4 – 5 
November  2004.  After  having  considered  the  written  responses7  to  the  Green  Paper,  the 
Commission  organised  a  third  experts’  meeting  on  8  April  2005.  In  order  to  take  matters 
forward, the Commission services had prepared a working document, which the participants 
of  the  meeting  (representatives  of  the  Member  States,  NGOs,  international  organisations, 
judicial  practitioners)  discussed.  Most  Member  States  welcomed  the  idea  of  applying  the 
mutual  recognition  principle  to  non-custodial  pre-trial  supervision  measures.  Different 
opinions were expressed as regards the scope of the instrument (whether it should extend to 
less serious offences not covered by the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant 
etc.), the grounds for refusal, whether the issuing or the executing Member State should have 
the main influence on the supervision of the person and on the pre-trial transfer procedure of 
the  person  back  to  the  trial  State  (whether  the  European  arrest  warrant  should  be  used  or  a 
specific mechanism for the envisaged instrument should be introduced). 

However, a small number of Member States questioned the added value of a new instrument 
on this issue at European level. They were of the opinion that such an instrument only would 
apply to a very restricted number of persons. 

Impact assessment 

It was therefore decided to consult an external contractor in order to provide the Commission 
with further statistical data for its assessment of the question whether a Framework Decision 
in  this  area  would  constitute  an  added  value.  These  data  are  available  in  the  Impact 
Assessment, annexed to this proposal  
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_
en.htm). 

5 
6 
7 

COM(2004) 562 final. 
SEC(2004) 1046. 
Available at 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_public_en.htm  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
In  addition,  the  following  five  policy  options  (identified  by  the  Commission  services)  were 
assessed  by  the  external  contractor  in  line  with  the  Commission’s  guidelines  and  the 
handbook on impact assessment: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Do nothing (Status quo): Since, at present, Member States do not recognise foreign 
judicial  decisions  in  respect  of  supervision  measures,  reliance  on  the  status  quo 
would only regulate (and even then to a limited extent only) the return of an accused 
person to the trial State via a European arrest warrant. No supervision of the person 
would take place. The scope and the grounds for refusal of the Framework Decision 
on the European arrest warrant would apply. 

New legislative instrument for mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision measures: 
Member  States  would  mutually  recognise  pre-trial  supervision  measures  and  the 
suspect would be subject to such a measure in his or her habitual Member State of 
residence in stead of being in pre-trial detention or subject to a less severe coercive 
measure  in  the  trial  State.  The  scope  of  the  instrument  could  be  extended  to  cover 
also  less  serious  offences  (below  the  threshold  of  one  year  in  the  European  arrest 
warrant). The grounds for refusal could be more limited than in the European arrest 
warrant.  In  addition  this  instrument  would  contain  a  specific  return  mechanism  to 
bring  an uncooperative person to the trial  State (in case an in absentia judgment is 
not possible). Time limits for return would be very short. 

New legislative instrument for mutual recognition of pre-trial supervision measures 
and extension of the European arrest warrant to cover all offences: This option would 
contain  the  same  elements  as  option  2.  The  only  difference  would  be  that  it  would 
not contain a specific return mechanism. An uncooperative person would have to be 
transferred back to the trial State in accordance with the provisions of the European 
arrest  warrant.  In  order  to  cover  less  serious  offences  (below  the  above-mentioned 
threshold of  the  European  arrest warrant), a new category of “enforceable  offence” 
would have to be created (“fugitive from Justice”, e.g. breach of an obligation under 
a supervision measure or refusal not to come to the trial if this is required). 

Co-operation  programme:  A  limited  number  of  Member  States  would  run  a  pilot 
cooperation programme in the area of pre-trial procedures. 

Eurobail: This model is based on a division of functions between the trial court and 
the court of the suspect’s country of residence. The trial court makes a preliminary 
assessment whether the offence is “bailable”. If the answer is yes, the suspect is sent 
back to his or her country of residence, where the court makes the final decision on 
the provisional release. The State of residence is responsible for sending the person 
back to the trial State (if required). 

The  preferred  policy  option  is  nr  2):  “new  legislative  instrument  for  mutual  recognition  of 
pre-trial  supervision  measures”  (incorporating  a  specific  return  mechanism).  This  option 
would  ensure  that  EU  non-residents  are  not  discriminated  against  in  the  pre-trial  process  in 
the  trial  State.  It  would  extend  the  right  to  liberty  and  the  presumption  of  innocence  to  the 
Union seen as a whole, be compatible with the general principles in the area, in particular the 
principle of proportionality, and would reduce costs for detention. 

For further details, see the report of the external contractor and the Impact Assessment: 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/justice_home/evaluation/dg_coordination_evaluation_annexe_
en.htm. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

The  European  supervision  order  is  a  decision  issued  by  a  judicial  authority  (i.e.  a  court,  a 
judge, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor) in one Member State that must be 
recognised by a competent authority in another Member State. The aim is to let the suspect 
benefit from a pre-trial supervision measure in his or her natural environment (residence). As 
regards  the  threshold,  the  European  supervision  order  is  an  option  whenever  there  is  a 
possibility  under  the  national  law  of  the  issuing  Member  State  to  order  that  a  suspect  be 
remanded in custody, irrespective of the fact that the thresholds vary between Member States. 
However,  the  European  supervision  order  is  not  only  an  alternative  to  pre-trial  detention.  It 
may also be issued in relation to an offence for which only less severe coercive measures (e.g. 
travel prohibition) than pre-trial detention are allowed, i.e. where the threshold may be lower 
than for remand in custody. 

The  proposal  for  a  Framework  Decision  does  not  oblige  the  judicial  authority  to  issue  a 
European supervision order. It “may” do so. This wording indicates that it is for the issuing 
authority to decide whether it wants to make use of this possibility. Although the suspect may 
request that a European supervision order be issued, he or she has strictly speaking no “right” 
to it. However, the issuing authority must always, as a general principle, assess the elements 
of the case in the light of the right to liberty, the presumption of innocence and the principle 
of proportionality. Benefiting from a pre-trial supervision in one’s State of normal residence 
is probably often seen as less cumbersome than being subject to a supervision measure in the 
State where the alleged offence was committed, not to speak of being in pre-trial detention in 
that State. 

The European supervision order would impose one or more obligations on the suspect aimed 
at reducing the three “classical” dangers that allow pre-trial detention under national law, i.e. 
the  dangers  of  suppression  of  evidence  and  re-offending  and,  in  particular,  the  danger  of 
flight. The obligations correspond to a certain extent to the recommendations of the Council 
of  Europe  concerning  custody  pending  trial.  The  obligations  that  may  be  imposed  by  the 
issuing authority are all "optional", except (i) the obligation on the suspect to make himself or 
herself available for the purpose of receiving summons for his or her trial (however, where a 
judgment  in  absentia  under  the  law  of  the  issuing  State  is  possible,  the  suspect  may  not  be 
required  to  attend  the  trial)  and  (ii)  the  obligation  not  to  obstruct  the  course  of  justice  or 
engage  in  criminal  activity.  The  other  ("optional")  obligations  correspond  too  the 
recommendations of the Council of Europe and national law (e.g. travel prohibition, reporting 
to the police, curfew and house arrest). 

The Member State of normal residence of the suspect is responsible for the supervision of the 
suspect  and  is  obliged  to  report  any  breaches  to  the  issuing  judicial  authority,  which  can 
decide  on  the  arrest  and  transfer  of  the  suspect  to  the  issuing  State  if  this  is  considered 
necessary. Strict time limits apply. Before such a decision is taken, the suspect has the right to 
be heard by the issuing authority. This requirement may be satisfied through the use of video 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
links8 between the issuing and the executing States. The transfer procedure is proportionate to 
the  aim  of  the  proposal,  i.e.  to  reduce  pre-trial  detention  as  far  as  possible  and  is  therefore 
compatible with the requirements of Article 5(1) ECHR (in particular paragraph b). 

The  proposal  is  in  principle  based  on  an  obligation  for  the  State  of  normal  residence  of  the 
suspect to execute a European supervision order issued by the trial State. There are, however, 
some, although limited grounds for refusal that may be invoked by the executing State. 

The proposal is further based on direct contacts between the issuing and executing authorities. 

Legal basis 

Article 31(1)(a) and (c) and Article 34(2)(b) TEU  

Subsidiarity and proportionality principles 

Member  States  do  not,  at  present,  recognise  foreign  judicial  decisions  in  respect  of  non-
custodial pre-trial supervision measures. Therefore, in the absence of any common action and 
in  order  for  there  to  be  any  progress  made  in  terms  of  mutual  recognition,  Member  States 
would  have  to  act  unilaterally  to  make  provision  in  their  national  law  to  recognise  such 
measures.  It  is  considered  that  this  approach  would  be  unlikely  to  succeed  since  it  would 
require  uniformity  of  national  provisions  across  25  Member  States  acting  separately.  Such 
uniformity  (in  terms  of  both  substance  and  temporal  application)  would  be  more  readily 
achievable by common action in the form of a Council Framework Decision. This Framework 
Decision  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  that  objective.  It  is  also  without 
prejudice to Article 33 TEU. 

Choice of instrument 

A Framework Decision based on Article 34(2)(b) TEU. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

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. 

8 

Article 10 of the Convention on mutual assistance in criminal  matters between Member States (OJ C 
197, 12.7.2000, p. 3) already provides for the hearing of evidence by videoconferencing means. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2006/0158 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

on the European supervision order in pre-trial procedures between Member States of 
the European Union 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(1)(a) and (c) and 
Article 34(2)(b) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission9,  

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament10,  

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The European Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area 
of freedom, security and justice. 

According to the Conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 
1999,  and  in  particular  point  36  thereof,  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  should 
apply  to  pre-trial  orders.  The  programme  of  measures  to  implement  the  principle  of 
mutual  recognition  in  criminal  matters  addresses  mutual  recognition  of  supervision 
measures in its measure 10. 

The  measures  provided  for  in  this  Framework  Decision  should  aim  in  particular  at 
enhancing the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence in the European Union 
seen as a whole and at ensuring cooperation between Member States when a person is 
subject to obligations or supervision pending a court decision. 

In the area of pre-trial detention, there is a risk of different treatment between suspects 
who  are  resident  in  the  trial  state  and  those  who  are  not:  a  non-resident  risks  being 
remanded  in  custody  pending  trial  even  where,  in  similar  circumstances,  a  resident 
would not. This is due to the perception that the former, by reason of his non-residence 
in the trial-state, might flee to his home state thereby obstructing the course of justice. 
In a common European area of justice without internal borders, it is necessary to take 
action to ensure that a suspect who is not resident in the trial state is not treated any 
differently from a suspect who is so resident. 

9 
10 

OJ C XXX E, 00.00.0000, p. 000. 
Opinion delivered on x xxxxx 0000 (not yet published in the Official Journal). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

In order to avoid unnecessary costs and difficulties in relation to the transport of the 
suspect for the purposes of preliminary hearings or the trial, Member States should be 
allowed to use video links.  

This  Framework  Decision  should  apply  without  prejudice  to  Council  Framework 
Decision  2002/584/JHA  of  13 June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the 
surrender procedures between Member States11 or to requests for extradition presented 
by third counties or to the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It should further 
not  prevent  the  executing  Member  State  from  initiating  or  pursuing  criminal 
proceedings of its own. 

Since  mutual  recognition  of  pre-trial  supervision  measures  cannot  be  sufficiently 
achieved by the Member States acting unilaterally and can therefore, by reason of its 
scale and effects, be better achieved at Union level, the Council may adopt measures 
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as referred to in Article 2 of the Treaty 
on European Union and Article 5 of the Treaty establishing the European Community. 
In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in the latter Article, this 
Framework  Decision  does  not  go  beyond  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  that 
objective. 

(8) 

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION: 

CHAPTER 1 - GENERAL PRINCIPLES 

Article 1 
Subject matter and scope 

This Framework Decision establishes a European supervision order and the pre-trial transfer 
procedures between Member States. 

A  European  supervision  order  is  a  judicial  decision  issued  by  a  competent  authority  of  a 
Member State in respect of a non-resident suspect for the purpose of the return of that person 
to  his  Member  State  of  residence  under  the  condition  that  he  complies  with  supervision 
measures,  in  order  to  ensure  the  due  course  of  justice  and,  in  particular,  to  ensure  that  the 
person will be available to stand trial in the issuing Member State. 

For the purposes of this Framework Decision: 

Article 2 
Definitions 

(a) 

“issuing  State”  means  the  Member  State  in  whose  territory  the  European 
supervision order is issued; 

11 

OJ L 190 of 18.7.2002, p. 1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

“executing  State”  means  the  Member  State  in  whose  territory  the  European 
supervision order is executed; 

“issuing  authority”  means  a  court,  a  judge,  an  investigating  magistrate  or  a 
public  prosecutor,  with  competence  under  national  law  to  issue  a  European 
supervision order; 

“executing authority” means a court, a judge, an investigating magistrate or a 
public prosecutor, with competence under national law to execute a European 
supervision order. 

Article 3 
Obligation to execute the European supervision order 

Member States shall execute any European supervision order on the basis of the principle of 
mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision. 

Article 4 
Determination of competent authorities 

Each Member  State  shall  inform the Council as to which authorities are competent 
under its national law to issue and to execute a European supervision order. 

The General Secretariat of the Council shall make the information received available 
to all Member States and the Commission and publish it in the Official Journal of the 
European Union.  

CHAPTER 2 - THE EUROPEAN SUPERVISION ORDER  

Article 5 
Information of the suspect  

1. 

2. 

1. 

A  European  supervision  order  may  be  issued  by  the  issuing  authority  after  having 
informed the suspect of any obligations to be imposed pursuant to Article 6 and of 
the consequences, in particular of those set out in Articles 17 and 18. 

The issuing authority shall record the information given to the suspect in accordance 
with the procedure laid down by the national law of the issuing State. 

Article 6 
Imposition of pre-trial supervision measures and obligations of the suspect 

The  issuing  authority  shall  impose  an  obligation  on  the  suspect  to  make  himself 
available  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  summons  for  his  trial  and  to  attend  the  trial 
when summoned to do so. 

Obstructing  the  course  of  justice  or  engaging  in  criminal  activity  may  constitute  a 
breach of the European supervision order. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
The  issuing  authority  may  impose  one  or  more  of  the  following  obligations  on  the 
suspect: 

(a) 

to attend preliminary hearings relating to the offence(s) with which he has been 
charged or 

(b)  not to enter specified places in the issuing State without authorisation; or 

(c) 

to reimburse the costs for transferring him to a preliminary hearing or trial. 

2. 

Subject to agreement between the issuing authority and the executing authority, the 
issuing  authority  may  impose  one  or  more  other  obligations  on  the  suspect  which 
may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

to travel at a particular time and on a particular date to a specified address in 
the executing State; 

to  report  to  the  executing  authority  at  a  specified  place  or  places  at  specified 
times;  

to  surrender  his  passport(s)  or  other  identification  papers  to  the  executing 
authority; 

to be at his specified place of residence, which may include a bail hostel or a 
specialised  institution  for  young  offenders  in  the  executing  State,  at  specified 
times;  

(e) 

to be at his specified place of work in the executing State at specified times; 

(f) 

not to leave or enter specified places or districts in the executing State without 
authorisation; 

(g)  not  to  engage  in  specified  activities,  which  may  include  involvement  in  a 

specified profession or field of employment;  

(h) 

to undergo specified medical treatment.  

3. 

4. 

Any obligations imposed by the issuing authority in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2 
and 3 of this Article shall be recorded in the European supervision order. 

In  addition  to  the  obligations  provided  for  in  the  European  supervision  order,  the 
executing authority may, in accordance with the law of the executing State, modify 
the  obligations  contained  in  the  European  supervision  order  as  is  strictly  necessary 
for the purpose of executing the European supervision order. 

Article 7 
Form and content of the European supervision order  

1. 

The European supervision order shall be as set out in Form A in the Annex. It shall 
be  completed  and  signed  and  its  content  certified  as  accurate,  by  the  issuing 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

authority.  A  written  record  of  the  information  mentioned  in  Article  5(2)  shall  be 
annexed to the European supervision order. 

The  issuing  State  shall  translate  the  European  supervision  order  into  the  official 
language or one of the official languages of the executing State. 

Any Member State may state in a declaration deposited with the General Secretariat 
of the Council that it will accept a translation of a European supervision order in one 
or more other official languages of the Institutions of the European Communities.  

CHAPTER 3 - PROCEDURE 

Article 8 
Transmission  

The  issuing  authority  shall  transmit  the  European  supervision  order  directly  to  the 
executing  authority  by  any  means  capable  of  producing  a  written  record  under 
conditions allowing the executing State to establish authenticity. 

If the executing authority is unknown, the issuing authority shall make all necessary 
inquiries, including via the contact points of the European Judicial Network, in order 
to obtain the details of the executing authority from the executing State. 

If the authority in the executing State which receives the European supervision order 
is  not  the  competent  executing  authority  under  Article  4,  it  shall  automatically 
transmit the European supervision order to the competent authority for execution and 
shall inform the issuing authority accordingly. 

Article 9 
Recognition and execution 

Except  as  otherwise  provided  for  in  this  Framework  Decision,  the  executing  authority  shall 
recognise a European supervision order, transmitted in accordance with Article 8, without any 
further  formality  being  required,  and  shall  forthwith  take  the  necessary  measures  for  its 
execution. 

Article 10 
Grounds for non-recognition and non-execution 

1. 

2. 

A court, a judge, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor, in the requested 
State shall refuse to recognise and execute a European supervision order if it is clear 
that  criminal  proceedings  for  the  offence  in  respect  of  which  that  order  has  been 
issued would infringe the ne bis in idem principle.  

A court, a judge, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor, in the requested 
State  may  refuse  to  recognise  and  execute  a  European  supervision  order  on  one  or 
more of the following grounds: 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

if, under the law of the requested State, the suspect may not, owing to his age, 
be held criminally responsible for the acts on which the European supervision 
order is based; 

if there is an immunity or privilege under the law of the requested State which 
would prevent the execution of the European supervision order; 

if the offence to which the European supervision order relates is covered by an 
amnesty  in  the  requested  State,  where  that  State  had  jurisdiction  to  prosecute 
the offence under its own criminal law.  

Article 11 
Guarantees to be given by the issuing State in particular cases  

Where a person who is the subject of a European supervision order is a national or resident of 
the executing State, the execution of the order may be subject to the condition that the person, 
after being tried, is transferred to the executing State in order to serve there custodial sentence 
or detention order passed against him in the issuing State. 

Article 12 
Decision on enforcement  

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

A court, a judge, an investigating magistrate or a public prosecutor, in the requested 
State  shall,  as  soon  as  possible  and  in  any  case  within  5  days  of  receipt  of  the 
European supervision order, decide whether to recognise and execute it or to invoke 
grounds  for  non-recognition  and  non-execution.  The  competent  authority  in  the 
requested  State  shall  inform  the  issuing  authority  of  that  decision  by  any  means 
capable of producing a written record. 

Where in exceptional cases it is not possible to take a decision on the recognition and 
execution  of  the  European  supervision  order  within  the  period  laid  down  in 
paragraph  1,  the  competent  authority  in  the  requested  State  shall  without  delay, 
inform  the  issuing  authority  thereof,  of  the  reasons  therefore  and  of  the  number  of 
days required to take the decision. 

Where  the  European  supervision  order  is  incomplete,  the  court,  the  judge,  the 
investigating magistrate or the public prosecutor in the requested State may postpone 
its decision on the recognition and execution of the order until it has been completed 
by the issuing authority. 

If,  in  accordance  with  paragraph  3,  the  recognition  and  execution  of  the  European 
supervision  order  is  postponed,  the  court,  the  judge,  the  investigating  magistrate  or 
the  public  prosecutor  in  the  requested  State  shall  forthwith  communicate  a  report 
detailing the grounds for postponement directly to the issuing authority by any means 
capable of producing a written record. 

As  soon  as  the  grounds  for  postponement  have  ceased  to  exist,  the  competent 
authority  shall  forthwith  take  the  necessary  measures  for  the  execution  of  the 
European supervision order. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Article 13 
Requests for review  

The  suspect  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  issuing  State,  be  afforded  the 
same  rights  with  respect  to  review  of  the  European  supervision  order  as  if  the 
obligations contained therein were imposed on him as pre-trial supervision measures 
to  be  executed  in  the  issuing  State.  However,  the  suspect  shall  have  the  right  to 
request the issuing authority to review the European supervision order no later than 
60 days after it has been issued or last reviewed.  

The  executing  authority  may  request  the  issuing  authority  to  review  the  European 
supervision order 60 days after it has been issued or last reviewed.  

Upon a request for review in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 2, the issuing authority 
shall,  as  soon  as  possible  and  in  any  case  within  15  days  of  receipt  of  the  request, 
review  the  European  supervision  order  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  issuing 
State. 

The suspect shall have the right to be heard by the issuing authority, in accordance 
with the law of the issuing State. This requirement may be satisfied through the use 
of appropriate video or telephone links with the issuing authority (hearing by video 
or  telephone  conference).  The  issuing  authority  shall  also  consult  the  executing 
authority on the review of the European supervision order.  

The  executing  State  may  assign  a  person  designated  in  accordance  with  the  law  of 
that Member State to take part in the hearing of the suspect. 

The issuing authority may, in accordance with the law of the issuing State, decide: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

to  uphold  the  European  supervision  order  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  first 
issued; 

to  uphold  the  European  supervision  order  but,  subject  to  Articles  5  and  6, 
amend one or more of the obligations contained therein; 

to  uphold  the  European  supervision  order  but  revoke  one  or  more  of  the 
obligations contained therein; or 

(d) 

to revoke the European supervision order in its entirety. 

The issuing authority shall forthwith communicate its decision to the suspect and the 
executing authority. 

When the European supervision order is reviewed pursuant to this article, the suspect 
shall have the right to interpretation and legal advice. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

1. 

In accordance with the law of the issuing State, the issuing authority: 

Article 14 
Revocation  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
(a)  may at any point in time, ex officio, decide to revoke the European supervision 

order to the benefit of the suspect;  

(b) 

shall revoke the European supervision order once the suspect has fulfilled all of 
the obligations contained therein.  

2. 

The  issuing  authority  shall  forthwith  communicate  any  decision  to  revoke  a 
European supervision order to the suspect and the executing authority. 

CHAPTER 4 - SPECIFIC SITUATIONS  

Article 15 
Competing obligations to surrender or extradite on the part of the executing State  

The  existence  of  a  European  supervision  order  shall  be  without  prejudice  to  the  executing 
Member State’s obligations under: 

(a) a European arrest warrant under Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA; 

(b) a request for extradition presented by a third country; 

(c) the Statute of the International Criminal Court. 

It  shall  not  prevent  the  executing  Member  State  from  initiating  or  pursuing  criminal 
proceedings of its own.  

CHAPTER 5 - BREACH OF A EUROPEAN SUPERVISION ORDER 

Article 16 
Obligation to report any breach  

1. 

2. 

The  executing  authority  shall,  without  delay,  report  to  the  issuing  authority  any 
breach  of  the  obligations  contained  in  a  European  supervision  order  of  which  it 
becomes aware. The report shall be made using Form B as set out in the Annex. The 
form  shall  be  signed,  and  its  contents  certified  as  accurate,  by  the  executing 
authority.  

The  report  shall  be  transmitted  by  the  executing  authority  directly  to  the  issuing 
authority  by  any  means  capable  of  producing  a  written  record  under  conditions 
allowing the issuing State to establish authenticity. A copy of Form A (the European 
supervision  order),  as  issued  by  the  issuing  authority  in  accordance  with  Article  7, 
shall be annexed to the report. 

Article 17 
Consequences of breach 

1. 

In the event of a breach of the European supervision order, the issuing authority may, 
in accordance with the law of the issuing State, take the decision: 

(a) 

to revoke the European supervision order;  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
(b) 

(c) 

to amend or revoke one or more of the obligations contained in the European 
supervision order; 

to arrest and transfer the suspect, if the European supervision order was issued 
in respect of an offence for which pre-trial detention is justified under the law 
of  the  issuing  State,  in  particular  when  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  attend  a 
preliminary hearing or trial; 

(d) 

to arrest and transfer the suspect, in the following circumstances: 

(i) 

if the European supervision order was issued in respect of an offence for which 
pre-trial detention was initially not justified under the law of the issuing State; 
and 

(ii) 

if  the  European  supervision  order  contains  limitations  of  his  freedoms  of  a 
degree comparable to deprivation of liberty; and 

(iii) 

if the arrest and transfer is necessary to attend a preliminary hearing or trial. 

Before  deciding  on  arrest  and  transfer,  the  issuing  authority  shall  consider  all 
relevant circumstances, including the specific penalty envisaged, the consequences of 
the breach and, in particular, the willingness of the suspect to come back voluntarily 
to the issuing State. 

If the issuing authority decides that the suspect must be arrested and transferred and, 
at the time of that decision, the suspect is in the territory of another Member State, 
that State shall arrest and transfer the suspect under the conditions of article 18. 

Before the decision under paragraph 1 is taken, the suspect shall have the right to be 
heard by the issuing authority, in accordance with the law of the issuing State. This 
requirement may be satisfied through the use of appropriate video or telephone links 
between  the  executing  and  the  issuing  authority  (hearing  by  video  or  telephone 
conference). The issuing authority shall also consult the executing authority. 

Article 18 

Conditions for arrest and transfer of the suspect 

If  the  issuing  authority  decides  that  the  suspect  must  be  arrested  and  transferred  to 
the  issuing  State,  the  suspect  shall  be  heard  by  a  judicial  authority  of  the  Member 
State on whose territory he is arrested. 

If  the  suspect  consents  to  his  transfer  the  Member  State  on  whose  territory  the 
suspect is arrested shall forthwith transfer him to the issuing State. 

If the suspect does not consent to his transfer the Member State on whose territory he 
is arrested shall forthwith transfer him to the issuing State. It may refuse the arrest 
and transfer only 

– 

if it is clear that criminal proceedings for the offence in respect of which that 
order has been issued would meanwhile infringe the ne bis in idem principle; 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
– 

– 

– 

if the suspect is being prosecuted in the executing Member State for the same 
facts as those on which the European supervision order is based; 

if  the  criminal  prosecution  or  punishment  of  the  suspect  is  statute-barred 
according to the law of the executing Member State and the acts fall within the 
jurisdiction of that Member State under its own criminal law; 

if  the  decision  to  arrest  and  transfer  concerns  new  facts  not  covered  by  the 
European supervision order.  

4. 

A Member State other than the executing State may also refuse to arrest and transfer 
the suspect on the basis of one or more of the grounds set out in Article 10. 

Article 19 
Notification of decisions  

The issuing authority shall immediately notify the executing authority of all decisions taken 
under Article 17. 

Article 20 
Time limits for transfer 

1. 

2. 

The suspect shall be transferred to the issuing State pursuant to Article 18 on a date 
mutually agreed between member States concerned and in any event no later than 3 
days following the arrest. 

The  transfer  of  a  suspect  may  exceptionally  be  temporarily  postponed  for  serious 
humanitarian reasons, for example, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that 
transfer would manifestly endanger the suspect’s life or health. The issuing authority 
shall immediately be informed of any such postponement and of the reasons thereof. 
The transfer of the suspect shall take place as soon as these grounds have ceased to 
exist on a date agreed between the Member States concerned. 

Article 21 
Transit  

1. 

Each Member State shall permit the transit through its territory of a suspect who is 
being  transferred  pursuant  to  the  provisions  of  this  Framework  Decision  provided 
that it has been informed of: 

(a) 

the  identity  and  nationality  of  the  person  subject  to  the  European  supervision 
order; 

(b) 

the existence of a European supervision order; 

(c) 

the nature and legal classification of the offence; 

(d) 

the circumstances of the offence, including the date and place.  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

Each  Member  State  shall  designate  an  authority  responsible  for  receiving  transit 
requests and the necessary documents, as well as any other official correspondence 
relating to transit requests. Member States shall communicate this designation to the 
Council. 

The transit request and the information provided for in paragraph 1 may be addressed 
to  the  authority  designated  pursuant  to  paragraph  2  by  any  means  capable  of 
producing a written record. The Member State of transit shall notify its decision by 
the same procedure. 

This  Framework  Decision  does  not  apply  in  the  case  of  transport  by  air  without  a 
scheduled  stopover.  However,  if  an  unscheduled  landing  occurs,  the  issuing  State 
shall provide the authority designated pursuant to paragraph 2 with the information 
provided for in paragraph 1. 

Article 22 
Deduction of the period of deprivation of liberty 

The  issuing  State  shall  deduct  all  periods  of  deprivation  of  liberty  arising  from  the 
apprehension  and  transfer  of  the  suspect  under  Articles  17  and  18  from  the  total 
period of detention to be served in the issuing State as a result of a custodial sentence 
or detention order being passed. 

To that end, all information concerning the duration of the detention of the suspect 
on  the  basis  of  the  provisions  in  this  Chapter  shall  be  transmitted  by  the  Member 
State on whose territory the suspect was arrested to the issuing authority at the time 
of the transfer. 

CHAPTER 6 - GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS  

Article 23 
Monitoring the effectiveness of the Framework Decision 

A  Member  State  which  has  experienced  repeated  problems  on  the  part  of  another 
Member  State  in  the  execution  of  European  supervision  orders  shall  inform  the 
Council with a view to evaluating the implementation of this Framework Decision at 
Member State level. 

The Council shall conduct a review, in particular of the practical application of the 
provisions of this Framework Decision by the Member States. 

Article 24 
Relation to other agreements and arrangements 

In so far as such agreements or arrangements allow the objectives of this Framework 
Decision  to  be  extended  or  enlarged  and  help  to  simplify  or  facilitate  further  the 
mutual recognition of pre-trial transfer procedures, Member States may:  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
(a) 

(b) 

continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements in force 
when this Framework Decision comes into force. 

conclude  bilateral  or  multilateral  agreements  or  arrangements  after  this 
Framework Decision has come into force. 

2. 

3. 

The agreements and arrangements referred to in paragraph 1 shall in no case affect 
relations with Member States which are not parties to them. 

Member  States  shall,  within  three  months  from  the  entry  into  force  of  this 
Framework  Decision,  notify  the  Council  and  the  Commission  of  the  existing 
agreements  and  arrangements  referred  to  in  paragraph  1(a)  which  they  wish  to 
continue applying. 

Member  States  shall  also  notify  the  Council  and  the  Commission  of  any  new 
agreement  or  arrangement  as  referred  to  in  paragraph  1(b),  within  three  months  of 
signing any such arrangement or agreement. 

Article 25 
Implementation 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of 
this Framework Decision by 0 Month 0000. 

By the same date Member States shall transmit to the Council and to the Commission 
the text of the provisions transposing into their national law the obligations imposed 
on  them  under  this  Framework  Decision  and  a  correlation  table  between  these 
provisions and the Framework Decision.  

Article 26 
Report 

The Commission shall, by 0 Month 0000, submit a report to the European Parliament 
and to the Council, assessing the extent to which the Member States have taken the 
necessary measures in order to comply with this Framework Decision, accompanied, 
if necessary, by legislative proposals. 

Article 27 
Entry into force 

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

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Done at Luxembourg/Brussels, 0 Month 0000 

For the Council 
The President 
N.N. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 

Form A 

EUROPEAN SUPERVISION ORDER12 

This order has been issued by an issuing authority. I request that the person mentioned in Part 
A of this order be made subject to the pre-trial supervision measures listed in Part D of this 
order. 

SIGNED: ……………………………………………………………………………………... 

DATE: ………………………………………………………………………………………... 

PART A  

Information regarding the identity of the person to be made subject to pre-trial 
supervision measures 

Surname:………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Name:…………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Maiden name (where applicable):………………………………………………………………. 

Alias (where applicable):……………………………………………………………………….. 

Sex:………………………………………………………………………………………………

Nationality:……………………………………………………………………………………… 

Date of birth:……………………………………………………………………………………. 

Place of birth:…………………………………………………………………………………… 

Residence and / or known address:……………………………………………………………... 

Language(s) understood:………………………………………………………………………... 

Distinctive marks / physical description:………………………………………………….......... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

12 

This order must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of 
the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

Photograph and fingerprints, if available and capable of transmission, or contact details of the 
relevant individual from whom such information may be obtained or a DNA profile (where 
this evidence can be supplied but has not been included): 

PART B 

Information regarding the issuing authority 

Official name of issuing authority:……………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Name of contact person:………………………………………………………………………... 

Position held (grade / title):…………………………………………………………………….. 

Address:………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Tel: (country code) (area / city code):………………………………………………………….. 

Fax: (country code) (area / city code):………………………………………………………….. 

E-mail address:………………………………………………………………………………… 

File Reference:…………………………………………………………………………………. 

PART C 

Offence on which the European supervision order is based 

Maximum  length  of  custodial  sentence  or  detention  order  which  may  be  imposed  for  the 
offence(s) to which this order relates: 

………………………………………………………………………………………………....... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Description  of  the  circumstances  in  which  the  offence(s)  to  which  this  order  relates  was 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
(were) committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence(s) by 
the person mentioned in Part A above: 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Nature and legal classification of the offence(s) to which this order relates and the applicable 
statutory provision/code: 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Please give a full description of the offences(s) to which this order relates: 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

PART D 

Pre-trial supervision measures 

The  following  obligations  constitute  the  pre-trial  supervision  measures  to  which  the  person 
mentioned in Part A of this order is to be subject. 

The person mentioned in Part A above shall: 

make himself or herself available for the purpose of receiving summons for his or her trial and 
shall attend the trial when summoned to do so;  

not obstruct the course of justice or engage in criminal activity; and 

(tick and complete as appropriate): 

  attend  preliminary  hearings  relating  to  the  offence(s)  with  which  he  or  she  has  been 

charged; 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
 not enter the following place(s) in the issuing State without authorisation during the times 
and dates specified:  

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

 not leave the following place(s) in the issuing State without authorisation during the times 

and dates specified:  

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

 reimburse the costs of for bringing him or her by force to a preliminary hearing or to the 

trial.  

  travel  to  the  following  address  in  the  executing  Member  State  on  the  time  and  date 

specified: 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

 report to the executing authority at the following place(s) at the times and dates specified: 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

ٱ surrender his or her passport(s) or other identification papers to the executing authority;  

ٱ reside at the following address at the times and dates specified; 

………………………………………………………………………………………………....... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

ٱ be at the following place(s) of work during the times and dates specified: 

……………………………………………………………………………………………… 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

  not  enter  the  following  place(s)  in  the  executing  State  without  authorisation  during  the 

times and dates specified:  

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

  not  leave  the  following  place(s)  in  the  executing  State  without  authorisation  during  the 

times and dates specified:  

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

  ٱnot  engage  in  the  following  activities  (which  may  include  involvement  in  a  specified 

profession or field of employment): 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

 undergo the following medical treatment: 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

………………………………………………………………………………………………… 

 other 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………...

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
PART E 

Information 

The  person  mentioned  in  Part  A  above  has  been  informed  about  the  European  supervision 
order in accordance with Article 5. A written record of this is attached to this document. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 

Form B 

REPORT OF BREACH OR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH EUROPEAN 
SUPERVISION ORDER13 

This report has been issued by an executing authority.  

I hereby report that the person mentioned in Part A  of this report has breached the pre-trial 
supervision measures listed in Part C below. 

A copy of the European supervision order to which this report relates is attached. 

SIGNED: …………………………………………………………………………………... 

DATE: ……………………………………………………………………………………... 

PART A 

Information regarding the identity of the person subject to a European supervision 
order (for full details, please refer to the annexed European supervision order) 

Surname:………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Name:…………………………………………………………………………………………… 

Maiden name (where applicable):………………………………………………………………. 

Sex:………………………………………………………………………………………………

Nationality:………………………………………………………………………………………

PART B 

Information regarding the executing authority 

Official name of executing authority:…………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Name of contact person: ……………………………………………………………………... 

13 

This report must be written in or translated into the official language or one of the official languages of 
the executing Member State, or any other languages accepted by that State. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Position held (grade / title): ………………………………………………………………….. 

Address:………………………………………………………………………………………… 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Tel: (country code) (area / city code):…………………………………………………………... 

Fax: (country code) (area / city code):………………………………………………………….. 

E-mail address:………………………………………………………………………………… 

File Reference:…………………………………………………………………………………. 

PART C 

Pre-trial supervision measures 

The person mentioned in Part A above has breached the following obligations to which he or 
she was subject by virtue of the attached European supervision order: 

 to make himself or herself available for the purpose of receiving summons for his or her 
trial and shall attend the trial when summoned to do so; 

 not to obstruct the course of justice or engage in criminal activity; 

  to  attend  preliminary  hearings  relating  to  the  offence(s)  with  which  he  or  she  has  been 
charged; 

 reimburse the costs of for bringing him or her by force to a preliminary hearing or to the 

trial.  

 ٱtravel to a specified address in the executing State at a specified time and date; 

 to report to the executing authority at specified place(s) at specified times and dates;  

 to surrender his or her passport(s) or other identification papers to the executing authority;  

 to be at specified place(s) of residence and/or work in the executing State during specified 

times and dates; 

  not  to  leave  or  enter  specified  places  or  districts  in  the  executing  State  without 
authorisation;  

 not to engage in specified activities;  

 to undergo specified medical treatment; 

 other 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

Details of the circumstances (including date and location) in which the breach(es) took place: 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………... 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 

EN 

31 

   EN