Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters * European Parliament legislative resolution, of 2 September 2008 , on the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (5598/2008 — C6-0075/2008 — 2008/0803(CNS))
Date: 2008-09-02
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, Committee on Legal Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European arrest warrant, amendment, area of freedom, security and justice, consultation procedure, criminal procedure, drafting of EU law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, resolution of parliament, rights of the defence








CE2009295EN.01012001.xml










4.12.2009   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


CE 295/120





Tuesday 2 September 2008Application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters *
P6_TA(2008)0381
European Parliament legislative resolution, of 2 September 2008, on the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to adopting a Council Framework Decision on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (5598/2008 — C6-0075/2008 — 2008/0803(CNS))
2009/C 295 E/37
(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,
having regard to the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany (5598/2008),
having regard to Article 34(2)(b) of the EU Treaty,
having regard to Article 39(1) of the EU Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0075/2008),
having regard to Rules 93 and 51 of its Rules of Procedure,
having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs and the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0285/2008),






1.


Approves the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany as amended;










2.


Calls on the Council to amend the text accordingly;










3.


Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;










4.


Calls on the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the initiative by the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany substantially;










5.


Calls on the Council and the Commission, following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, to give priority to any future proposal to amend the Decision in accordance with Declaration No 50 concerning Article 10 of the Protocol on transitional provisions to be annexed to the Treaty on European Union, to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community;










6.


Is determined to examine any such future proposal by the urgent procedure in accordance with the procedure referred to in paragraph 5 and in close cooperation with national parliaments;










7.


Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and the governments of the Republic of Slovenia, the French Republic, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany.










TEXT PROPOSED BY SEVEN MEMBER STATES


AMENDMENTS





Amendment 1






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


Title





Council Framework Decision 
on the enforcement of decisions rendered in absentia
 and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, 
and
 Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union




on strengthening citizens’ rights, promoting the application of the principle of mutual recognition in respect of decisions rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person,
 and amending Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders, Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union
, and Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA on the recognition and supervision of suspended sentences, alternative sanctions and conditional sentences







Amendment 2






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


Recital 1a (new)





 










(1a)





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










Amendment 3






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


Recital 1b (new)





 










(1b)





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










Amendment 4






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


Recital 4











(4)


It is therefore necessary to provide clear and common solutions which define the grounds for refusal and the discretion left to the executing authority.












(4)


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











Amendment 5






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


Recital 6











(6)


Common solutions on grounds for 
refusal
 in the relevant existing Framework Decisions should take into account the diversity of situations with regard to 
informing the accused person of his right to a retrial
.












(6)


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











Amendment 6






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


Recital 6a (new)





 










(6a)





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










Amendment 7






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


Recital 6b (new)





 










(6b)





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










Amendment 8






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


Recital 7a (new)





 










(7a)





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










Amendment 9






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


Article 1 — paragraph 2





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


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





Amendment 10






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


Article 1 — paragraph 3





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


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





Amendment 11






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


Article 2 — point 1


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 1 — paragraph 4













1)





the following paragraph shall be added to Article 1:



4.
   
For the purpose of this Framework Decision, ‘decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a custodial sentence or a detention order when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.










deleted







Amendment 12






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — title and paragraph 1





Article 4a
Decisions rendered 
in absentia


The executing judicial authority may also refuse to execute the European arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order, if the decision was rendered 
in absentia
, unless the European arrest warrant states that the person:


Article 4a
Decisions rendered 
following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person




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





Amendment 13






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point a











(a)


was summoned in person or 
informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State through a competent representative and in due time
, 
of
 the scheduled date and place of 
the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia
 and informed 
about the fact that such a
 decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial;












(a)




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








 








(i)




either
 was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information about
 the scheduled date and place of 
that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,


and












(ii)






was personally
 informed 
that the
 decision may be handed down 
if he or she

did not appear at the trial;

or










Amendment 14






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point aa (new)





 










(aa)





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










Amendment 15






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point b











(b)


after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
 and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
:












(b)


after being 
personally
 served with the decision and being expressly informed
, in a language which he or she understood,
 about the right to a retrial 
or to an appeal

 (1), 
in which he or she would have the right to participate, at which the merits of the case, including fresh evidence, would be (re)examined and which could lead to the original decision being quashed
:














(i)


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












(i)


expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;








or


or










(ii)


did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which 
was of at least […] days
;












(ii)


did not request a retrial 
or an appeal
 in the applicable timeframe
,
 which 
shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.











Amendment 16






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — paragraph 1 — point c











(c)


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












(c)


was not personally served with the decision but:














(i)


will be served with it 
at the latest on the fifth day
 after the surrender and will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
;












(i)


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








and


and










(ii)


will have 
at least […] days
 to request a retrial.












(ii)


will 
be informed about the timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days, within which he or she must
 request 
such
 a retrial 
or appeal
;









Amendment 17






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


Article 2 — point 2


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Article 4a — paragraph 1a (new)





 




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







Amendment 18






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — introductory part and points 1 and 2











(d)


Indicate if the 
decision was rendered in absentia
:












(d)


Indicate if the 
person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision
:














1.


 
No, it was not














1.


 
Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
















2.


 
Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:














2.


 
No, the person did not appear in person at the trial resulting in the decision.




If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:











Amendment 19






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.1











2.1.


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












2.1.


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








Time and place when and where the person was summoned or 
otherwise informed
:


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




…


…




 




Language in which the information was delivered
:




 


…




Describe how the person was informed:


Describe how the person was informed:




…


…





Amendment 20






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.1a (new)





 










2.1a.





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



Provide information on how this condition was met:


…









Amendment 21






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.2











2.2.


the person, after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia














2.2.


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








Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia
:


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




…


…





Amendment 22






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — point 2 — subpoint 2.3.1 — indent 1











—


the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial;
 and












—


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









Amendment 23






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


Article 2 — point 4


Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA


Annex — box d — point 2.3.2














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















2.3.2. the person was not served with the decision and














—


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












—


the person will be 
personally
 served with the decision within … days after the surrender; and














—


when served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
, the person will be expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
; and












—


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














—


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












—


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








 




If you ticked box 2.3.2, please confirm












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










Amendment 24






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


Article 3 — point 1


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 1 — point e













1)





the following point shall be added to Article 1:









(e)






‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.














deleted







Amendment 25






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — introductory part











(i)


according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered 
in absentia
, unless the certificate states that the person:












(i)


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









Amendment 26






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint i





 








(i)




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














(i)


was summoned in person or 
informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of
 the scheduled date and place of 
the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia
















(a)






either
 was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information about
 the scheduled date and place of 
that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,










and


and




informed 
about the fact that such a
 decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial;










(b)






was personally
 informed 
that the
 decision may be handed down 
if he or she

did not appear at the trial;








or


or





Amendment 27






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint ia (new)





 










(ia)





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










Amendment 28






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint ii













(ii)





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









deleted







Amendment 29






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point i — subpoint iii











(iii)


after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
 and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
:












(iii)


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














—


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












—


expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;








or


or










—


did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which 
was of at least […] days
;












—


did not request a retrial 
or an appeal
 in the applicable timeframe
,
 which 
shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days
;









Amendment 30






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


Article 3 — point 2 — subpoint b


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Article 7 — paragraph 2 — point ia (new)





 










(ia)





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










Amendment 31






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — introductory part and subpoints 1 and 2











3.


Indicate if the 
decision was rendered in absentia
:












3.


Indicate if the 
person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision
:














1.


 
No, it was not














1.


 
Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.
















2.


 
Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:














2.


 
No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision.








If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:







Amendment 32






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.1











2.1.


the person was summoned in person or 
informed
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State 
through a competent representative and
 in due time, 
of
 the scheduled date and place of the 
hearing
 which led to the decision 
rendered in absentia
 and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial












2.1.


the person was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received,
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, 
official information
 in due time 
and in a language which he or she understood, about
 the scheduled date and place of the 
trial
 which led to the decision 
in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial
 and 
was personally
 informed that such a decision may be handed 
down if he or she

did not appear at the trial








Time and place when and where the person was summoned or 
otherwise informed
:


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




…


…




 




Language in which the information was delivered
:




 


…




Describe how the person was informed:


Describe how the person was informed:




…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 33






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.1a (new)





 










2.1a.





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



Provide information on how this condition was met
:
…


OR











Amendment 34






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.2











2.2.


the person, before or after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia
.












2.2.


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








Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia
:


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




…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 35






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.3














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















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














—


the person was expressly informed 
about
 the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
; and












—


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














—


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












—


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








 




OR







Amendment 36






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


Article 3 — point 3


Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA


Annex — box h — point 3 — subpoint 2.3a (new)





 










2.3a.





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



Describe when and how the person waived the right to an oral hearing and indicated that he or she did not contest the case:


…









Amendment 37






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


Article 4 — point 1


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Article 2 — point i













(1)





the following point shall be added to Article 2:









(i)






‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a confiscation order as defined in (c) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.














deleted







Amendment 38






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


Article 4 — point 2


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — introductory part











(e)


according to the certificate provided for in Article 4(2), the decision was rendered 
in absentia
, unless the certificate states that the person:












(e)


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









Amendment 39






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


Article 4 — point 2


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint i





 








(i)




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














(i)


was summoned in person or 
informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of
 the scheduled date and place of 
the hearing which led to the confiscation order rendered in absentia
















(a)






either
 was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information about
 the scheduled date and place of 
that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,










and


and




informed 
about the fact that such a
 confiscation order may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial;










(b)






was personally
 informed 
that a
 confiscation order may be handed down 
if he or she

did not appear at the trial;








or


or





Amendment 40






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


Article 4 — point 2


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint ia (new)





 










(ia)





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



or











Amendment 41






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


Article 4 — point 2


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Article 8 — paragraph 2 — point e — subpoint ii











(ii)


after being served with the confiscation order 
rendered in absentia
 and being expressly informed 
about
 the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
:












(ii)


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














—


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












—


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








or


or










—


did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which 
was of at least […] days
;












—


did not request a retrial 
or an appeal
 in the applicable timeframe
,
 which 
shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.











Amendment 42






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


Article 4 — point 3


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Annex — box j — introductory part and points 1 and 2











(j)


Indicate if the 
decision was rendered in absentia
:












(j)


Indicate if the 
person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order
:














1.



 No, it was not













1.



 Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order.















2.



 Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:













2.



 No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the confiscation order.







If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:







Amendment 43






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


Article 4 — point 3


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.1











2.1.


the person was summoned in person or 
informed
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State 
through a competent representative and in due time
, 
of
 the scheduled date and place of the 
hearing
 which led to the 
decision rendered in absentia
 and informed about the fact that such a decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial












2.1.


the person was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information in due time,
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing State 
and in a language which he or she understood
, 
about
 the scheduled date and place of the 
trial
 which led to the 
confiscation order, in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial
 and 
was personally
 informed that such a decision may be handed 
down if he or she

did not appear at the trial








Time and place when and where the person was summoned or 
otherwise informed
:


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




…


…




 




Language in which the information was delivered
:




 


…




Describe how the person was informed:


Describe how the person was informed:




…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 44






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


Article 4 — point 3


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.1a (new)





 










2.1a.





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



Provide information on how this condition was met:


…


OR











Amendment 45






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


Article 4 — point 3


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.2











2.2.


the person, after being served with the 
decision rendered in absentia
, expressly stated that he or she does not contest 
the decision rendered in absentia
.












2.2.


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










Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the 
decision rendered in absentia
:


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






…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 46






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


Article 4 — point 3


Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA


Annex — box j — point 2 — subpoint 2.3














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















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














—


the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
; and












—


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














—


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












—


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









Amendment 47






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


Article 5 — point 1


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Article 1 — point e













(1)





the following point shall be added to Article 1:









(e)






‘Decision rendered in absentia’ shall mean a decision as defined in (a) when the person did not personally appear in the proceedings resulting in that decision.














deleted







Amendment 48






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


Article 5 — point 2


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f











(f)


according to the certificate provided for in Article 4, the decision was rendered 
in absentia
, unless the certificate states that the person:












(f)


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









Amendment 49






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


Article 5 — point 2


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint i





 








(i)




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














(i)


was summoned in person or 
informed in accordance with the national law of the issuing State through a competent representative and in due time, of
 the scheduled date and place of 
the hearing which led to the decision rendered in absentia
















(a)






either
 was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information about
 the scheduled date and place of 
that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,










and


and




informed 
about the fact that such a
 decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial;










(b)






was personally
 informed 
that a
 decision may be handed down 
if he or she

did not appear at the trial;








or


or





Amendment 50






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


Article 5 — point 2


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint ia (new)





 










(ia)





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



or











Amendment 51






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


Article 5 — point 2


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Article 9 — paragraph 1 — point f — subpoint ii











(ii)


after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
 and being expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
:












(ii)


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














—


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












—


expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;








or


or










—


did not request a retrial in the applicable timeframe which 
was of at least […] days
;












—


did not request a retrial 
or an appeal
 in the applicable timeframe
,
 which 
shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.











Amendment 52






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


Article 5 — point 3


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Annex — box k — point 1 — introductory part and subpoints a and b











1.


Indicate if the 
decision was rendered in absentia
:












1.


Indicate if the 
person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision
:














a.



 No, it was not













a.



 Yes, the person appeared in person at the trial which led to the decision.















b.



 Yes, it was. If you have answered yes, please confirm that:













b.



 No, the person did not appear in person at the trial which led to the decision.







If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:







Amendment 53






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


Article 5 — point 3


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.1














b.1. the person was summoned in person or 
informed
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing Member State 
through a competent representative and in due time
, 
of
 the scheduled date and place of the 
hearing
 which led to the decision 
rendered in absentia
 and informed 
about the fact
 that 
such
 a decision may be handed down 
in case the person

does not appear for the trial















b.1. the person was 
directly
 summoned in person or 
by other means actually received official information in due time and in a language which he or she understood,
 in accordance with the national law of the issuing State, 
about
 the scheduled date and place of the 
trial
 which led to the decision 
in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that the person concerned was aware of the scheduled date and place of the trial
 and 
was personally
 informed that a decision may be handed 
down if he or she

did not appear at the trial








Time and place when and where the person was summoned or 
otherwise informed
:


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




…


…




 




Language in which the information was delivered
:




 


…




Describe how the person was informed:


Describe how the person was informed:




…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 54






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


Article 5 — point 3


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.1a (new)





 












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



Provide information on how this condition was met:


…


OR











Amendment 55






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


Article 5 — point 3


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.2














b.2. the person, after being served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
, expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia
.















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








Describe when and how the person expressly stated that he or she does not contest the decision 
rendered in absentia
:


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




…


…




OR


OR





Amendment 56






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


Article 5 — point 3


Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA


Annex — box k — point 1 — subpoint b.3














b.3. the person was served with the decision 
rendered in absentia
 on … (day/month/year) and was entitled to a retrial in the issuing State under the following conditions:















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














—


the person was expressly informed about the right to a retrial 
and to be present at that trial
; and












—


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














—


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












—


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









Amendment 57






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


Article 5a (new)





 




Article 5a




Amendments to Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA




Framework Decision 2008/…/JHA is hereby amended as follows:










1)






in Article [9(1)], point [h] shall be replaced by the following:










(h)






according to the certificate provided for in Article [6], the decision was rendered following a trial at which the person concerned did not appear in person, unless the certificate states that the person, in accordance with the national law of the issuing State:










(i)






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








—




either was directly summoned in person or by other means actually received official information about the scheduled date and place of that trial in such a manner that it was unequivocally established that he or she was aware of the trial,




and












—




was personally informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she did not appear at the trial;




or


















(ii)






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














(iii)






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






—




expressly stated that he or she did not contest the decision;




or












—




did not request a retrial or an appeal in the applicable timeframe, which shall be a minimum of 10 days and a maximum of 15 days.


























2)






In box [(i)] of the Annex (‘Certificate’), point [1] shall be replaced by the following:









1.





Indicate if the person

appeared in person

at the trial resulting in the decision:












Yes, the person appeared

in person at the trial resulting in the decision.
















No, the person did not appear

in person at the trial resulting in the decision.







If you answered ‘no’ to this question, please indicate if:









(i)






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



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

…


Language in which the information was delivered
:
…

Describe how the person was informed:

…

OR













(ii)






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




Provide information on how this condition was met
:
…

OR













(iii)






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



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

…

OR













(iv)






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








—




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












—




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
























(1)  This amendment applies throughout the text. Adopting it will necessitate corresponding changes throughout (each time there is a reference to a retrial the expression ‘or an appeal’ should be added.)