Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings
Date: 2013-11-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, criminal procedure, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, mutual recognition principle, rights of the defence

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 27.11.2013  
COM(2013) 821 final 

2013/0407 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right 
to be present at trial in criminal proceedings 

{SWD(2013) 478 final} 
{SWD(2013) 479 final} 
{SWD(2013) 500 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

1.1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

This  proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  aims  to 
strengthen  certain  aspects  of  the  right  of  suspects  or  accused  persons  in  criminal 
proceedings  throughout  the  European  Union  to  be  presumed  innocent  until  proven 
guilty by a final judgment and to strengthen the right to be present at one's trial. 

In the light of Article 82(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
("TFEU"), mutual recognition should be the cornerstone of judicial cooperation, that 
is,  that  judicial  decisions  taken  in  one  Member  State  should  be  considered  as 
equivalent  to  each  other  wherever  that  decision  is  taken,  and  so  enforceable 
anywhere  in  the  EU.  Judicial  cooperation  needs  to  be  founded  on  mutual  trust  and 
confidence between the different judicial systems and the perception that the rights 
of  suspects  or  accused  persons  are  not  respected  in  every  instance  has  a 
disproportionately  detrimental  effect  on  mutual  trust  and,  in  turn,  on  judicial 
cooperation. 
In this context, the Stockholm Programme1 put a strong focus on the strengthening of 
the  rights  of  individuals  in  criminal  proceedings.  In  its  point  2.4,  the  European 
Council invited the Commission to put forward proposals, setting out a step by step 
approach  to  strengthening  the  rights  of  suspects  or  accused  persons  by  setting 
common minimum standards on fair trial rights. 

Three  measures  have  already  been  adopted:  Directive  2010/64/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpretation and 
translation  in  criminal  proceedings2,  Directive  2012/13/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal 
proceedings3  and  Directive  2013/48/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  22  October  2013  on  the  right  of  access  to  a  lawyer  in  criminal 
proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a 
third  party  informed  upon  deprivation  of  liberty  and  to  communicate  with  third 
persons  and  with  consular  authorities  while  deprived  of  liberty4.  Measures  on  the 
protection  of  vulnerable  persons  suspected  or  accused  in  criminal  proceedings  are 
presented  as  a  package  with  the  present  initiative,  together  with  a  Directive  on 
provisional legal aid for suspects or accused persons deprived of liberty and legal aid 
in European arrest warrant proceedings. 

Moreover,  the  Commission  published,  on  14  June  2011,  a  Green  Paper  on  the 
application  of  EU  criminal  justice  legislation  in  the  field  of  detention  to  reflect  on 
ways  to  strengthen  mutual  trust  and  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition in the area of detention, in accordance with and within the limits of the 
EU's competence. 

The purpose of the whole exercise of the Commission's agenda on procedural rights 
is to ensure the respect of the right to a fair trial in the European Union. The principle 

OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. 
OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1. 
OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1. 
OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
of presumption of innocence, together with its related rights, contributes to ensuring 
the  right  to  a  fair  trial.  Various  rights  of  suspects  or  accused  persons  in  criminal 
proceedings  established  by  the  above-mentioned  EU  Directives  over  the  past  few 
years, such as the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information and 
the right to access to a lawyer are not objectives themselves. They have a wider aim; 
they  are  rather  tools  to  materialise  the  principle  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial. 
Presumption of innocence and its related rights contribute to it. In case of persistent 
breach  of  presumption  of  innocence  in  the  Member  States,  the  objectives  of  the 
procedural right's agenda could not be fully achieved. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that,  in  the  Stockholm  Programme,  the  European  Council 
expressly invited the Commission to address the issue of presumption of innocence. 

The Commission made a thorough examination of the issue in its impact assessment 
and  concluded  that  a  measure  on  certain  aspects  of  presumption  of  innocence  is 
needed  to  strengthen  this  fundamental  right.  The  overarching  objectives  of  the 
measures  already  adopted  in  the  area  of  procedural  rights  in  criminal  proceedings, 
including its key instrument which is the Directive on the right to access to a lawyer, 
still  require  that  a  certain  minimum  level  of  protection  of  the  principle  of 
presumption of innocence is guaranteed in all EU Member States. 

This  proposal  is  based  on  Article  82(2)  TFEU.  That  Article  provides  that,  ‘[t]o  the 
extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions 
and  police  and  judicial  cooperation  in  criminal  matters  having  a  cross-border 
dimension,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  may,  by  means  of  directives 
adopted  in  accordance  with  the  ordinary  legislative  procedure,  establish  minimum 
rules. Such rules shall take into account the differences between the legal traditions 
and systems of the Member States. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

They shall concern: 

(a) mutual admissibility of evidence between Member States; 

(b) the rights of individuals in criminal procedure; 

(c) the rights of victims of crime; 

(d)[…].’ 

10. 

11. 

5 

The  current  proposal  will  also  contribute  to  strengthening  the  legal  safeguards  that 
protect  individuals  involved  in  proceedings  conducted  by  the  European  Public 
Prosecutor's  Office.  The  recently  presented  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation5 
clarifies that the suspected person has all rights granted by EU legislation as well as 
other rights which derive directly from the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union ("the Charter"), to be applied in accordance with applicable national 
law,  and  it  explicitly  refers  to  the  right  to  be  presumed  innocent.  By  introducing 
strengthened  standards  on  presumption  of  innocence  in  the  current  proposal,  the 
procedural  safeguards  applying  before  the  European  Public  Prosecutor's  Office  are 
also reinforced. 

Article  6(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  European  Union  ("TEU")  provides  that  fundamental 
rights,  as  guaranteed  by  the  European  Convention  of  Human  Rights  and 
Fundamental  Freedoms  ("the  ECHR")  and  as  they  result  from  the  constitutional 
traditions  common  to  the  Member  States,  constitute  general  principles  of  EU  law. 

Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the establishment  of  the  European  Public  Prosecutor's  Office,  COM(2013) 
534 final, 17.7.2013. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
12. 

13. 

14. 

Article 6(1) TEU provides that the European Union recognises the rights, freedoms 
and principles set out in the Charter, which has the same legal value as the TFEU and 
the TEU. The Charter is addressed to EU institutions and Member States when they 
implement EU law, such as in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in 
the European Union. 

Article 47 of the Charter stipulates the right to a fair trial. Article 48 guarantees the 
right  to  be  presumed  innocent  and  has  the  same  meaning  and  scope  as  the  right 
guaranteed  by  Article  6(2)  of  the  ECHR6.  Article  6(2)  of  the  ECHR  stipulates  that 
everyone  charged  with  a  criminal  offence  shall  be  presumed  innocent  until  proved 
guilty according to law. Article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
safeguards  this  principle  by  the  same  wording.  Article  14(2)  of  the  International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR")7 contains a very similar provision. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has clarified the scope of Article 6 
of  the  ECHR.  The  Court  has  repeatedly  held  that  it  applies  as  well  to  the  pre-trial 
stage of criminal proceedings8 and that suspects or accused persons have the rights 
under Article  6  of  the  ECHR  at the initial stages of police questioning9.  The Court 
has  also  ruled  that  these  guarantees  must  apply  to  witnesses  whenever  they  are  in 
reality  suspected  of  a  criminal  offence,  as  the  formal  qualification  of  the  person  is 
immaterial10. 

that  Article  6(2)  of 

the  ECHR  encompasses 

The principle of presumption  of  innocence has been developed  over the years. The 
ECtHR  has  held 
three  key 
requirements11:  the  right  not  to  be  publicly  presented  as  convicted  by  public 
authorities  before  the  final  judgment12,  the  fact  that  the  burden  of  proof  is  on 
prosecution and that any reasonable doubts on guilt should benefit the accused and 
the right of the accused to be informed of the accusation. The ECtHR also recognises 
the existence of a clear link between the presumption of innocence and other fair trial 
rights, in the sense that when such rights are breached, the presumption of innocence 
is  inevitably  also  at  stake:  the  right  not to  incriminate  one-self,  the  right  not  to  co-
operate and the right to silence13 and the right to liberty (and not to be placed in pre-
trial detention)14. 

15. 

The  right  to  be  present  at  trial  is  an  essential  right  of  defence.  The  right  of  the 
accused  person  to  appear  in  person  at  the  trial  is  part  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial 
provided for in Article 6 of the ECHR, as interpreted by the ECtHR15. Strengthening 
this right will therefore contribute to reinforce the right to a fair trial. 

6 
7 

8 
9 
10 
11 

12 
13 

14 

15 

OJ C 303, 14.12.2007, p. 30. Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
999 U.N.T.S. 171. The ICCPR is an international convention on civil and political rights opened for signature by 
resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966 which has been ratified by, and is thus 
binding in international law on, all EU Member States. 
Salduz v Turkey (judgment of 27.11.2008, application 36391/02, paragraph 50). 
Idem, paragraph 52. 
Brusco v France (judgment of 14.10.2010, application 1466/07, paragraph 47). 
Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (judgment of 6.12.1988, applications 10588/83, 10589/83 and 10590/83). 
See also Allenet de Ribemont v. France (judgment of 10.2.1995, application 15175/89). 
Minelli v. Switzerland (judgment of 25.3.1983, application 8660/79). 
Funke v. France (judgment of 25.2.1993, application 10828/84), Murray v. UK (judgment of 8.2.1996, application 
18731), Saunders v. UK (judgment of 17.12.1996, application 19187/91). 
Except when the public interest justifies a departure from the principle of the right to liberty - see Kudla v. Poland 
(judgment of 26.10.2010, application 30210/96). 
Colozza v. Italy (judgment of 12 February 1985, application 9024/80). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

                                                 
16. 

17. 

1.2. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

16 

17 

The right to be informed of the accusation is covered by the Directive 2012/13/EU 
on the right to information in criminal  proceedings and is  therefore  not covered  by 
this  Directive.  Pre-trial  detention  is  the  subject  of  separate  initiatives16  and  is 
therefore  not  addressed  in  this  Directive.  All  other  above-mentioned  aspects  of  the 
principle  of  the  presumption  of  innocence  or  related  to  it  are  dealt  with  in  this 
proposal. 

This  Directive  lays  down  minimum  requirements  at  EU  level  governing  certain 
aspects of the right of suspects or accused persons to be presumed innocent, in line 
with  the  Stockholm  Programme  and  the  ECtHR  case  law.  It  thus  promotes  the 
application of the Charter, and in particular Articles 6, 47 and 48 therein, by building 
upon Article 6 of the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR. 

RESULTS  OF  CONSULTATIONS  WITH  THE  INTERESTED  PARTIES  AND  IMPACT 
ASSESSMENT 

Stakeholders were consulted on several occasions. 
In 2006 the Commission published a Green Paper17 on the presumption of innocence. 
At that time, 11 Member States replied to the consultation and independent experts 
and  practitioners  took  this  opportunity  to  point  out  an  erosion  of  the  principle  of 
presumption  of  innocence  and  to  underline,  in  particular  as  regards  investigations 
against  non-nationals  or  non-residents,  that  a  principle  of  "presumption  of  guilt" 
seems to be more and more tolerated in national systems. 

The  Commission  has  also  had  contact  with  major  stakeholders  and  has  benefitted 
from consultations on the other initiatives attached to this package. 
In the meeting of the Expert Group on EU Criminal Policy of 23 January 2013, the 
Commission gathered views from academics, practitioners, judges, defence lawyers 
and prosecutors on the topic. 

Moreover, a meeting with Representatives of Ministries of Justice of Member States 
and  Croatia  specifically  devoted  to  the  presumption  of  innocence  was  held  on  19 
February 2013. 

In addition to this, in the framework of the study carried out for the preparation of the 
Impact Assessment accompanying this proposal, an on-line survey was launched on 
27  February  2013  and  published  on  the  DG  Justice  and  EJN  website.  All  major 
stakeholders  were  informed  about  this  survey  via  e-mail  and  more  than  100 
responses  were  received.  The  survey  focused  not  only  on  the  legal  situation  as 
regards the protection of the right to be presumed innocent in the Member States, but 
above all on its functioning in practice. The findings of this survey were included in 
the  Annex  III  of  the  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  this  Proposal.  The  Impact 
Assessment  is  available  at  [http://ec.europa.eu/governance].  It  has  shown  that  the 
level of safeguards in Member States' legislation is, in a general way, acceptable and 
there  does  not  seem  to  be  any  systemic  problem  in  this  area.  However,  there  still 

COM(2011) 327 final, 14.6.2011. The themes of the Green Paper were pre-trial detention and mutual recognition 
of custodial and non-custodial decisions. The Commission received 81 replies from Member States, civil society 
and  NGOs.  A  summary  of 
the  Commission. 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/criminal/opinion/110614_en.htm. 
Framework  Decision 
2009/829/JHA  of  23  October  2009  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  decisions  on 
supervision measures as an alternative to provisional detention (OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20). 
COM(2006) 174 final, 26.4.2006. 

the  replies  has  been  published  on 

the  website  of 

also 

See 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
exist  points  in  which  legal  safeguards  should  be  improved.  Moreover,  breaches  of 
presumption of innocence do still occur too often across the EU. 

2. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

2.1. 

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 

Article 1 — Subject matter 

24. 

The  objective  of  the  Directive  is  to  lay  down  minimum  rules  concerning  certain 
aspects  of  the  right  of  suspects  or  accused  persons  to  be  presumed  innocent  until 
proved  guilty  by  a  final  judgment.  This  Directive  covers  the  following  rights:  the 
right not to be presented as guilty by public authorities before the final judgment, the 
fact that the burden of proof is on prosecution and that any reasonable doubts on the 
guilt should benefit the accused, the right not to incriminate one-self, the right not to 
cooperate and the right to remain silent. The right to be present at one's trial is also 
addressed by this Directive. 

Article 2 — Scope 

25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

The  Directive  applies  to  suspects  or  accused  persons  in  criminal  proceedings  from 
the very start of the criminal proceedings, even before the time when the suspects are 
made  aware  by  the  competent  authorities  of  the  fact  that  they  are  suspected  or 
accused  of  having  committed  a  criminal  offence.  It  applies  until  the  conclusion  of 
such proceedings, i.e. until the final judgement is delivered. 

The  right  to  be  presumed  innocent  encompasses  different  needs  and  degrees  of 
protection regarding natural persons and legal persons, as recognised in the case law 
of the Court of Justice on the right not to incriminate one-self18. This Directive takes 
into account these differences and therefore only applies to natural persons. 

Protection  of  the  right  of  legal  persons  to  be  presumed  innocent  is  nevertheless 
ensured  by  the  existing  safeguards  of  national  and  Union  legislation,  as  interpreted 
by national courts and by the Court of Justice, and by the ECHR as interpreted by the 
ECtHR. 

The "step-by-step" approach of intervention of Union law, in particular in the area of 
rights  of  individuals  in  criminal  procedure,  is  therefore  kept  and  respected.  Future 
initiatives  in  this  field  will  be  considered  depending  on  the  evolution  of  national 
legislation and of the case law. 

Article 3 – Presumption of innocence 

29. 

This provision lays down the right to the presumption of innocence. 

Article 4 — Public references to guilt before conviction 

30. 

18 

19 
20 

The ECtHR established as one of the basic aspects of the principle of presumption of 
innocence the fact that a court or public official may not publicly present the suspects 
or accused persons as if they were guilty of an offence if they have not been tried and 
convicted  of  it  by  a  final  judgment19.  This  principle  should  furthermore  apply, 
following  the  ECtHR  case  law,  to  all  public  authorities20.  Both  situations  might 

See,  inter  alia,  Case  C-301/04  P  Commission  v  SGL  Carbon  [2006]  ECR  I-5915;  Case  T-112/98 
Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission [2001] ECR II-732. 
See Minelli v. Switzerland. 
See Allenet de Ribemont v. France. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
encourage the public to believe that person is guilty and prejudge the assessment of 
the facts by the judicial authority. 

31. 

This principle should be without prejudice to the possibility of publication, according 
to  national 
imposing  sanctions  following  administrative 
proceedings. 

law,  of  decisions 

Article 5 – Burden of proof and standard of proof required 

32. 

Presumption of innocence presupposes that the burden of proof is on the prosecution 
and any doubt on the guilt should benefit the suspects or accused persons (in dubio 
pro reo). This presupposes that a court's judgment must be based on evidence as put 
before it and not on mere allegations or assumptions. This is without prejudice to the 
independence  of  the  judiciary  when  assessing  the  suspect  or  accused's  guilt. 
Furthermore, the ECtHR has admitted that in specific and limited cases the burden of 
proof  can  be  shifted  to  the  defence.  This  Article  reflects  the  ECtHR  principle21, 
which  is  considered  as  a  correct  balance  between  the  public  interest  (the  needs  of 
prosecution) and the right of the defence. This Directive is without prejudice to the 
possibilities  for  the  defence  to  present  evidence  in  accordance  with  the  applicable 
national rules. 

Article 6 and Article 7 – Right not to incriminate one-self and not to cooperate, right to 
remain silent 

33. 

34. 

21 

22 

23 
24 

These two Articles establish the right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate 
and the right to remain silent. The right not to be compelled to testify against oneself 
and  not  to  confess  guilt  and  not  to  cooperate  and  the  right  to  remain  silent  are 
generally recognised international standards which lie at the heart of the notion of a 
fair  trial  under  Article  6  of  the  ECHR22.  Their  rationale  lies,  inter  alia,  in  the 
protection  of  the  accused  against  improper  compulsion  by  the  authorities,  thereby 
contributing to the avoidance of miscarriages of justice and to the fulfilment of the 
aims of Article 6 of the ECHR. The "degree of compulsion" imposed on suspects or 
accused  persons  with  a  view  to  compel  them  to  provide  information  relating  to 
charges against them cannot destroy, even for reasons of security and public order, 
the  very  essence  of  their  right  not  to  incriminate  one-self  and  their  right  to  remain 
silent23. Article 3 ECHR, on the prohibition of torture, as interpreted by the ECtHR, 
should in any case be respected. 

The right not to incriminate one-self is primarily concerned with respecting the will 
of  suspects  or  accused  persons  to  remain  silent  and,  in  particular,  presupposes  that 
the  prosecution  in  a  criminal  case  seeks  to  prove  the  case  against  the  suspects  or 
accused  without  resort  to  evidence  obtained  through  methods  of  coercion  or 
oppression in defiance of the will of the suspects or accused. Moreover, the scope of 
the  right  is  not  confined  to  cases  where  duress  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  the 
accused or where the will of the accused has been directly overborne in some way24. 
In this sense, according to the ECtHR, the right in question is closely linked to the 
presumption of innocence contained in Article 6(2) of the ECHR. 

See,  inter  alia,  ECtHR  cases  Salabiaku  v.  France  (judgment  of  7.10.1988,  application  10519/83),  Barberà, 
Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, Telfner v. Austria (judgment of 20.3.2001, application 33501/96). 
See, inter alia, ECtHR cases Funke v. France, Murray v. UK, Saunders v. UK, Heaney and McGuiness v. Ireland 
(judgment  of  21.12.2000,  application  34720/97),  Jalloh  v.  Germany  (judgment  of  11.7.2006,  application 
54810/00). 
See Heaney and McGuiness v. Ireland, paragraphs 55 and 58. 
See Allan v. UK (judgment of 5.11.1992, application 48539/99, paragraph 50). 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
35. 

36. 

37. 

Suspects  or  accused  persons  should  be  promptly  informed  of  their  right  to  remain 
silent, as according to Directive 2012/13/EU. Such information should also refer to 
the content of the right to remain silent and of the consequences of renouncing to it 
and of invoking it. 

Any  inferences  drawn  from  the  fact  that  suspects  or  accused  persons  make  use  of 
these rights should be excluded. Without this, the right would be merely illusory if 
the suspects or accused had to fear that their non-cooperation or their silence will be 
used against them later in the criminal proceedings. This is the sole way to ensure the 
effective exercise of these rights by suspects or accused persons without a fear that 
such exercise can be used against them at a later stage. Therefore, the Directive also 
provides  a  specific  and  immediate  remedy  that  any  use  of  evidence  obtained  in 
breach of these rights is not allowed, save in those very exceptional cases where the 
use of such evidence will not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings25. 

The fact that no inferences should be drawn from the exercise of these rights and that 
the exercise of these rights should not be used against suspects or accused persons at 
a  later  stage  of  the  criminal  proceedings  should  not  prevent  Member  States  from 
taking  into  account  cooperative  behaviour  when  deciding  the  concrete  sanction  to 
impose. 

Article 8 and Article 9 – Right to be present at one's trial 

38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

If  a  person  is  not  present  during  the  trial,  his  right  of  defence  is  at  stake.  The 
defendant is in such case neither able to give his version of the facts to the Court, nor 
is able to present evidence accordingly. He might therefore be found guilty without 
having had the opportunity to rebut the grounds for such a conviction. 

The right to be present at trial, or being able to waive such right after having been 
informed of it, is indispensable for the exercise of the rights of defence. 

Article 8 provides that Member States must ensure that the right to be present applies 
to any trial aiming at assessing the question of the guilt of the accused person (both 
conviction  and  acquittal  decisions).  The  presence  of  the  suspects  or  accused  at  this 
moment  in  the  criminal  proceedings  is  of  particular  importance  given  the 
consequences that moment could have. 

Article 8 stipulates the right established by the ECtHR of an accused to be present at 
the trial and also establishes limited exceptions to this right, in line with the Charter, 
the  ECHR  and  EU  law26.  Provided  that  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Article  8  are 
respected,  nothing  prevents  Member  States  to  make  use  of  "simplified  procedures" 
for  the  most  common  minor  offences.  Article  9  establishes  that  a  remedy  (as 
established by the ECtHR) in cases where the right to be present at trial has not been 
observed is an obligation to provide for a re-trial27. 

Article 10 – Remedies 

42. 

The  ECtHR  has  consistently  held  that  the  most  appropriate  form  of  redress  for  a 
violation  of  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  in  Article  6(2)  ECHR  would  be  to  ensure  that 

25 
26 
27 

See Allan v. UK, paragraph 42. 
See Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009 (OJ L 81, 27.3.2009, p. 24). 
Colozza v. Italy. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
suspects or accused persons, as far as possible, are put in the position in which they 
would have been had their rights not been disregarded28. 

Article 11 –Data collection 

43. 

In  order  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  this  Directive, 
there is a need for collection of data by the Member States with regard to the exercise 
of  the  rights  set  out  in  this  Directive.  Relevant  data  include  data  recorded  by  the 
judicial  authorities  and  by  law  enforcement  authorities  regarding  which  remedy  is 
applied  whenever  there  has  been  a  breach  of  presumption  of  innocence  and  of  the 
right to present at trial. 

Article 12 – Non-regression clause 

44. 

The purpose of this Article is to ensure that setting common minimum standards in 
accordance  with  this  Directive  does  not  have  the  effect  of  lowering  standards  in 
certain Member States and that the standards set in the Charter and in the ECHR are 
maintained. Since this Directive provides for minimum rules, in line with Article 82 
TFEU, Member States remain free to set standards higher than those agreed in this 
Directive. 

Article 13 – Transposition 

45. 

This  Article  requires  that  Member  States  must  implement  the  Directive  by 
xx/xx/201x and, by the same date, transmit the text of the provisions transposing it 
into  national  law  to  the  Commission.  Given  the  simplicity  of  the  transposition 
measures  to  be  implemented,  the  Commission  does  not  require  explanatory 
documents to carry out its task of overseeing the transposition of the Directive. The 
individual  transposition  measures  to  be  notified  should  be  sufficiently  self-
explanatory. 

Article 14 – Entry into force 

46. 

2.2. 

47. 

This  Article  provides  that  the  Directive  will  enter  into  force  on  the  twentieth  day 
following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

SUBSIDIARITY PRINCIPLE 

There is a significant variation in the legislation of the Member States on the right to 
be  presumed  innocent  and  to  all  its  aspects.  Case  law  of  the  ECtHR  shows  that 
violations  of  presumption of innocence and its related fair trial rights have steadily 
taken  place.  This  leads  to  the  lack  of  mutual  trust  between  judicial  authorities  of 
different  EU  Member  States.  As  a  result,  judicial  authorities  are  reluctant  to 
cooperate  with  each  other.  The  impact  assessment  attached  to  this  proposal  shows 
that the ECtHR alone does not ensure a full protection of presumption of innocence: 
some  aspects  of  presumption  of  innocence  have  not  been  recently  or  extensively 
considered by the ECtHR, and the redress procedure at the ECtHR intervenes only ex 
post,  after  exhaustion  of  all  internal  remedies.  This  Directive  will  complement  the 
safeguards provided for by the ECtHR and ensure that presumption of innocence is 
protected  from  the  start  of  the  criminal  proceedings,  including  the  possibility  of 
recourse to EU redress mechanisms. 

28 

See  Teteriny  v.  Russia  (judgment  of  30.6.2005,  application  11931/03,  paragraph  56),  Jeličić  v.  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina (judgment of 31.10.2006, application 41183/02, paragraph 53), and Mehmet and Suna Yiğit v. Turkey 
(judgment of 17.7.2007, application 52658/99, paragraph 47), Salduz v Turkey, paragraph 72. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
48. 

The  objective  of  the  proposal  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  Member  States 
alone as the aim of the proposal is to promote mutual trust; it has to be action taken 
by the European Union, which will establish consistent common minimum standards 
that apply throughout the whole of the European Union. This has been confirmed by 
the Stockholm Programme, in which the European Council invited the Commission 
to  address  the  issue  of  presumption  of  innocence.  The  proposal  will  approximate 
Member  States’  procedural  rules  regarding  certain  aspects  of  the  right  to  be 
presumed  innocent  and  regarding  the  right  to  be  present  at  one's  trial  in  criminal 
proceedings, the aim being to enhance mutual trust. The proposal therefore complies 
with the subsidiarity principle. 

2.3. 

PROPORTIONALITY PRINCIPLE 

49. 

3. 

50. 

The  proposal  complies  with  the  proportionality  principle  in  that  it  does  not  go 
beyond  the  minimum  required  in  order  to  achieve  the  stated  objective  at  European 
level  and  what  is  necessary  for  that  purpose.  The  proposal  only  deals  with  certain 
aspects of presumption of innocence, that are more directly linked to the functioning 
of mutual recognition instruments and to police and judicial cooperation in criminal 
matters. Furthemore, it is limited to natural persons. This is in line with the "step-by-
step" approach of EU intervention in the area of procedural rights in criminal matters 
and the need for proportionate action. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 

This proposal does not have any impact on the EU budget. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

2013/0407 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right 
to be present at trial in criminal proceedings 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union,  and  in  particular 
Article 82(2) (b) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national Parliaments, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee29, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions30, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  purpose  of  this  Directive  is  to  enhance  the  right  to  a  fair  trial  in  criminal 
proceedings  by  laying  down  minimum  rules  concerning  certain  aspects  of  the 
presumption of innocence and the right to be present at the trial. 

By  establishing  minimum  rules  on  the  protection  of  procedural  rights  of  suspects  or 
accused  persons,  this  Directive  should  strengthen  the  trust  of  Member  States  in  the 
criminal justice systems of other Member States and can thus help to facilitate mutual 
recognition of decisions in criminal matters. Such common minimum rules should also 
remove  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  citizens  throughout  the  territory  of  the 
Member States. 
The Stockholm Programme31 put a strong focus on the strengthening of the rights of 
individuals in criminal proceedings. In its point 2.4, the European Council invited the 
Commission  to  put  forward  proposals  setting  out  a  step  by  step  approach  to 
strengthening the rights of suspects or accused persons. The EU agenda on procedural 
rights  is  designed  to  operate  as  a  whole,  only  when  all  its  components  are 
implemented will its benefits be felt in full. 

In  the  Stockholm  Programme  the  European  Council  invited  the  Commission  to 
examine  further  elements  of  minimum  procedural  rights  for  suspects  or  accused 
persons, and to assess whether other issues, for instance the presumption of innocence, 
need to be addressed, in order to promote better cooperation in that area. 

29 
30 
31 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

Three  measures  have  already  been  adopted:  Directive  2010/64/EU  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council32,  Directive  2012/13/EU  of  the  European  Parliament 
and of the Council33 and Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council34. 

This Directive should apply only to criminal proceedings. Administrative proceedings 
leading to sanctions such as competition, trade, tax, financial services proceedings and 
other investigations by administrative authorities in relation to these proceedings, and 
also civil proceedings are not covered by this Directive. 

This  Directive  should  facilitate  the  practical  application  of  the  right  to  be  presumed 
innocent and all its different aspects and also of the right to be present at one's trial, 
with a view to safeguarding the right to a fair trial. 

This Directive should apply to natural persons who are suspected or accused of having 
committed  a  criminal  offence.  It  should  apply  at  any  stage  of  the  proceedings,  even 
before those persons are made aware by the competent authorities of a Member State, 
by  official  notification  or  otherwise,  that  they  are  suspected  or  accused  of  having 
committed a criminal offence, until the conclusion of such proceedings. 

This  Directive  acknowledges  the  different  needs  and  levels  of  protection  of  certain 
aspects  of  the  right  to  be  presumed  innocent  as  regards  natural  persons  and  legal 
persons. Such protection as regards natural persons is reflected in abundant case law of 
the European Court of Human Rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union has, 
however, recognised that the rights flowing from the presumption of innocence do not 
accrue to legal persons in the same way as to natural persons. 

(10) 

In the current state of development of national legislations and of case law at national 
level and at the level of the Court of Justice it is premature to legislate at Union level 
on the right to be presumed innocent of legal persons. 

(11)  Protection of the right of legal persons to be presumed innocent should be ensured by 
the existing legislative safeguards and case law, the evolution of which in the future 
should determine an assessment of the need for Union action. 

(12) 

"Law enforcement or judicial  authorities" for the purposes of this Directive refers to 
public  authorities  which,  according  to  national  law,  exercise  powers  in  the  realm  of 
criminal proceedings. 

(13)  The presumption of innocence is violated if, without the accused’s having previously 
been  proved  guilty  according  to  law,  a  judicial  decision  or  a  public  statement  by 
judicial or other public authorities presents the suspects or accused persons as if they 
were convicted. 

(14)  The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused. 
Thus,  the  presumption  of  innocence  will  be  infringed  where  the  burden  of  proof  is 
shifted  from  the  prosecution  to  the  defence,  without  prejudice  to  any  possible  ex 

32 

33 

34 

Directive  2010/64/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  October  2010  on  the  right  to 
interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings (OJ L 280, 26.10.2010, p. 1). 
Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in 
criminal proceedings (OJ L 142, 1.6.2012, p. 1). 
Directive 2013/48/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 on the right of access to a 
lawyer in criminal proceedings and in European arrest warrant proceedings, and on the right to have a third party 
informed  upon  deprivation  of  liberty  and  to  communicate  with  third  persons  and  with  consular  authorities  while 
deprived of liberty (OJ L 294, 6.11.2013, p. 1). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
officio fact findings powers of the court and without prejudice to the independence of 
the judiciary when assessing the suspect's or accused's guilt. 

(15)  However,  in  some  cases  shifting  the  burden  of  proof  to  the  defence  should  not  be 
incompatible  with  the  presumption  of  innocence  as  long  as  certain  safeguards  are 
guaranteed: it should be ensured that presumptions of fact or law are confined within 
reasonable limits, which take into account the importance of what is at stake, and that 
they  are  rebuttable,  for  example  by  means  of  new  evidence  on  extenuating 
circumstances or on a case of force majeure. 

(16)  The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate is an important aspect of the 
presumption  of  innocence.  Suspect  or  accused  persons  should  not  be  forced,  when 
asked to make a statement or answer questions, to produce evidence or documents or 
to provide information which may lead to incriminate themselves. 

(17)  Any compulsion used to compel the suspect or accused person to provide information 
should be limited. To determine whether the compulsion did not violate those rights, 
the  following  should  be  taken  into  account,  in  the  light  of  all  circumstances  of  the 
case:  the  nature  and  degree  of  compulsion  to  obtain  the  evidence,  the  weight  of  the 
public  interest  in  the  investigation  and  punishment  of  the  offense  at  issue,  the 
existence  of  any  relevant  safeguards  in  the  procedure  and  the  use  to  which  any 
material so obtained is put. However, the degree of compulsion imposed on suspects 
or accused persons with a view to compelling them to provide information relating to 
charges  against  them  should  not  destroy  the  very  essence  of  their  right  not  to 
incriminate one-self and their right to remain silent, even for reasons of security and 
public order. 

(18)  The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate should not extend to the use 
in  criminal  proceedings  of  material  which  may  be  obtained  from  the  suspect  or 
accused  person  through  the  use  of  lawful  compulsory  powers  but  which  has  an 
existence independent of the will of the suspects or accused persons, such as material 
acquired pursuant to a warrant, material in respect of which there is a legal obligation 
of retention and production upon request, breath, blood and urine samples and bodily 
tissue for the purpose of DNA testing. 

(19)  The  right  to  remain  silent is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence. It 

should serve as protection from self-incrimination. 

(20)  The right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate and the right to remain silent 
should apply as regards questions material to the offence that someone is suspected or 
accused of having committed and not, for example, as regards questions relating to the 
personal identification of a suspect or accused person. 

(21)  The right to a fair trial is one of the basic principles in a democratic society. The right 
of  an  accused  person  to  be  present  at  the  trial  is  based  on  that  right  and  should  be 
guaranteed throughout the Union. 

(22)  However,  the  right  of  the  accused  person  to  be  present  at  the  trial  is  not  absolute. 
tacitly  but 

Under  certain  conditions  the  accused  person  may,  expressly  or 
unequivocally, waive that right. 

(23)  Under  certain  well  defined  conditions  which  ensure  effective  compliance  with  the 
right to a fair trial, it should be possible for a trial resulting in the decision on guilt or 
innocence to take place in the absence of the suspect or accused person. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

(24)  This  Directive  should  not  regulate  the  forms  and  methods,  including  procedural 
requirements,  that  are  used  to  achieve  the  results  specified  as  regards  the  right  to  be 
present at one's trial, which are a matter for the national laws of the Member States. 

(25)  When considering whether the way in which the information is provided is sufficient 
to  ensure  the  person’s  awareness  of  the  trial,  particular  attention  could,  where 
appropriate, also be paid to the diligence exercised by the person concerned in order to 
receive information addressed to him or her. 

(26)  The principle of effectiveness of Union law requires that Member States put in place 
adequate  and  effective  remedies  in  the  event  of  a  breach  of  a  right  conferred  upon 
individuals  by  Union  law.  An  effective  remedy  available  in  the  event  of  a  breach  of 
any  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  this  Directive  should  have,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
effect  of  placing  the  suspects  or  accused  persons  in  the  same  position  in  which  they 
would have found themselves had the breach not occurred. 

(27) 

In  order  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the  effectiveness  of  this  Directive,  Member  States 
should  collect  data  with  regard  to  the  implementation  of  the  rights  set  out  in  this 
Directive.  Such  data  should  include  data  recorded  by  law  enforcement  and  judicial 
authorities as regards the remedy applied where there has been a breach of any of the 
aspects  of  the  right  to  presumption  of  innocence  covered  by  this  Directive  and  a 
breach of the right to be present at one's trial. 

(28)  This  Directive  upholds  the  fundamental  rights  and  principles  recognised  by  the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention 
for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms,  including  the 
prohibition  of  torture  and  inhuman  and  degrading  treatment,  the  right  to  liberty  and 
security, respect for private and family life, the right to the integrity of the person, the 
rights  of  the  child,  integration  of  persons  with  disabilities,  the  right  to  an  effective 
remedy and the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence and the rights of the 
defence. 

(29)  As this Directive establishes minimum rules, Member States may extend the rights set 
out in this Directive in order to provide a higher level of protection. Such higher level 
of  protection  should  not  constitute  an  obstacle  to  the  mutual  recognition  of  judicial 
decisions that those minimum rules are designed to facilitate. The level of protection 
should never fall below the standards provided by the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of  the  European  Union  or  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human 
Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms,  as  interpreted  in  the  case  law  of  the  Court  of 
Justice and of the European Court of Human Rights. 

(30)  Since  the  objectives  of  this  Directive,  namely  setting  common  minimum  rules  for 
certain aspects of the right to presumption of innocence and for the right to be present 
at trial in criminal proceedings, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States 
but can rather, by reason of the scale of the measure, be better achieved at Union level, 
the Union may adopt measures in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set 
out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of 
proportionality,  as  set  out  in  that  Article,  this  Directive  does  not  go  beyond  what  is 
necessary in order to achieve those objectives. 

(31) 

[In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Protocol  No  21  on  the  position  of  the  United 
Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, annexed 
to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, those Member States have notified their wish to participate in the adoption and 

EN 

14 

   EN 

application of this Directive] OR [In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 21 
on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the Area of Freedom, 
Security and Justice, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on 
the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that 
Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Directive and 
are not bound by it or subject to its application]35. 

(32) 

In  accordance  with  Articles  1  and  2  of  Protocol  No  22  on  the  position  of  Denmark, 
annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Directive, and is 
not bound by it or subject to its application, 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

CHAPTER 1 
Subject matter and Scope 

Article 1 
Subject matter 

This Directive lays down minimum rules concerning: 

(a) 

(b) 

certain aspects of the right to the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings; 

the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings. 

This Directive applies to natural  persons  suspected or accused in criminal proceedings until 
the final conclusion of those proceedings. 

Article 2 
Scope 

CHAPTER 2 
Right to the presumption of innocence 

Article 3 
Presumption of innocence 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  suspects  or  accused  persons  are  presumed  innocent  until 
proven guilty according to law. 

Article 4 
Public references to guilt before conviction 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that,  before  a  final  conviction,  public  statements  and  official 
decisions  from  public  authorities  do  not  refer  to  the  suspects  or  accused  persons  as  if  they 
were convicted. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  appropriate  measures  are  taken  in  the  event  of  a  breach  of 
that requirement. 

35 

The final wording of this recital in the Directive will depend on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland 
taken in accordance with the provisions of protocol (No 21). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
Article 5 
Burden of proof and standard of proof required 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  the  burden  of  proof  in  establishing  the  guilt  of 
suspects or accused persons is on the prosecution. This is without prejudice to any ex 
officio fact finding powers of the trial court. 

Member States shall ensure that any presumption, which shifts the burden of proof to 
the suspects or accused persons, is of sufficient importance to justify overriding that 
principle and is rebuttable. 

In order to rebut such a presumption it suffices that the defence adduces enough evidence as 

to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the suspect or accused person's guilt. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Member States shall ensure that where the trial court makes an assessment as to the 
guilt of a suspect or accused person and there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of 
that person, the person concerned shall be acquitted. 

Article 6 
Right not to incriminate oneself and not to cooperate 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  suspects  or  accused  persons  have  the  right  not  to 
incriminate themselves and not to cooperate in any criminal proceeding. 

The  right  referred  to  in  paragraph  1  shall  not  extend  to  the  use  in  criminal 
proceedings of material which may be obtained from the suspects or accused persons 
through  the  use  of  lawful  compulsory  powers  but  which  has  an  existence 
independent of the will of the suspects or accused persons. 

Exercise of the right not to incriminate oneself or of the right not to cooperate shall 
not  be  used  against  a  suspect  or  accused  person  at  a  later  stage  of  the  proceedings 
and shall not be considered as a corroboration of facts. 

Any  evidence  obtained  in  breach  of  this  Article  shall  not  be  admissible,  unless  the 
use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings. 

Article 7 
Right to remain silent 

Member States shall ensure that suspects or accused persons have the right to remain 
silent when questioned, by the police or other law enforcement or judicial authorities, 
in relation to the offence that they are suspected or accused of having committed. 

Member States shall promptly inform the suspect or accused persons of their right to 
remain  silent,  and  explain  the  content  of  this  right  and  the  consequences  of 
renouncing or invoking it. 

Exercise of the right to remain silent shall not be used against a suspect or accused 
person  at  a  later  stage  in  the  proceedings  and  shall  not  be  considered  as  a 
corroboration of facts. 

Any  evidence  obtained  in  breach  of  this  Article  shall  not  be  admissible,  unless  the 
use of such evidence would not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

CHAPTER 3 
Right to be present at one's trial 

Article 8 
Right to be present at one's trial 

1. 

2. 

(a) 

(i) 

and 

(ii) 

(b) 

3. 

(a) 

or 

(b) 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  suspects  or  accused  persons  have  the  right  to  be 
present at their trial. 

Member States may provide for a possibility under which the trial court may decide 
on  the  guilt  in  the  absence  of  the  suspect  or  the  accused  person,  provided  that  the 
suspect or accused person: 

in due time: 

either  was  summoned  in  person  and  thereby  informed  of  the  scheduled  date  and 
place  of  the  trial,  or  by  other  means  actually  received  official  information  of  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 scheduled trial; 

was informed that a decision may be handed down if he or she does not appear for 
the trial; or 

being  aware  of  the  scheduled  trial,  had  given  a  mandate  to  a  legal  counsellor,  who 
was either appointed by the person concerned or by the State, to defend him or her at 
the trial, and was indeed defended by that counsellor at the trial. 

If the conditions of paragraph 2 have not been met, a Member State can proceed to 
execution  of  a  decision  intended  in  that  paragraph  if,  after  being  served  with  the 
decision  and  being  expressly  informed  about  the  right  to  a  retrial,  or  an  appeal,  in 
which the person has the right to participate and which allows a fresh determination 
of  the  merits  of  the  case,  including  examination  of  new  evidence,  and  which  may 
lead to the original decision to be reversed, the person: 

expressly states that he or she does not contest the decision; 

does not request a retrial or appeal within a reasonable time frame. 

Article 9 
Right to a retrial 

Member States shall ensure that where the suspects or accused persons were not present at the 
trial  referred  to  in  Article  8(1)  and  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Article  8(2)  and  (3)  are  not 
met,  the  person  concerned  has  the  right  to  a  new  trial  at  which  they  have  the  right  to  be 
present  and  which  allows  a  fresh  determination  of  the  merits  of  the  case,  including 
examination of new evidence, and which may lead to the original decision to be reversed. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

CHAPTER 4 
General and final provisions 

Article 10 
Remedies 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  ensure  that  suspects  or  accused  persons  have  an  effective 
remedy if their rights under this Directive are breached. 

The remedy shall have, as far as possible, the effect of placing suspects or accused 
persons  in  the  same  position  in  which  they  would  have  found  themselves  had  the 
breach not occurred, with a view to preserving the right to a fair trial and the right to 
defence. 

Article 11 
Data collection 

Member States shall, by […] and every three years thereafter, send to the Commission data 
showing how the rights under in this Directive have been implemented. 

Article 12 
Non-regression clause 

Nothing in this Directive shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the rights 
and  procedural  safeguards  that  are  ensured  under  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union,  the  European  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  Human  Rights  and 
Fundamental  Freedoms,  or  other  relevant  provisions  of  international  law  or  the  law  of  any 
Member State which provides a higher level of protection. 

Article 13 
Transposition 

1. 

Member  States  shall  bring  into  force  the  laws,  regulations  and  administrative 
provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [18 months after publication of 
this  Directive].  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of 
those provisions. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  measures,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  this 
Directive  or  be  accompanied  by  such  a  reference  on  the  occasion  of  their  official 
publication. Member States shall determine how such reference is to be made. 

2. 

Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the main provisions 
of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive. 

Article 14 
Entry into force 

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

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
Article 15 
Addressees 

This Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

19 

   EN