REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conflict of powers, criminal procedure, exchange of information, jurisdiction, national implementing measure













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0313 - EN











|



52014DC0313

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings /* COM/2014/0313 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of
Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and
settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings
1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................. 3
1.1........ Objective and scope of the
Framework Decision......................................................... 3
1.2........ Fundamental rights safeguards..................................................................................... 4
1.3........ Main elements of the Framework
Decision.................................................................. 4
1.4........ State of play of transposition
and consequences of non-implementation.................... 5
2........... Evaluation of the implementation
by the Member States of the Framework Decision 5
2.1........ Preliminary evaluation of the
transposition laws received............................................ 5
2.2........ Evaluation of selected key
provisions of the Framework Decision.............................. 6
2.2.1..... Competent authorities................................................................................................... 6
2.2.2..... Language regime........................................................................................................... 6
2.2.3..... Exchange of information on the
case........................................................................... 7
2.2.4..... Procedure for direct consultations
and reaching consensus......................................... 9
2.2.4.1.. Procedure for direct consultations................................................................................ 9
2.2.4.2.. Outcome of the direct consultations
and reaching consensus under Article 10 and 11 10
3........... Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 11

1.                      
Introduction
1.1.                
Objective and scope of the Framework Decision

In a genuine area of justice based on mutual
trust, citizens can legitimately expect safety and security and to be protected
against crime across the European Union, while at the same time having
confidence that their fundamental rights are respected when they find
themselves involved in criminal proceedings as defendants.
The European Union has put in place various
tools to fight cross-border crime more effectively. Criminal activities may
take place in the territory of several Member States: for instance the preparation
of a crime can be carried out in one Member State, while the crime can be
committed in another Member State; its perpetrators can be arrested in a third
Member State and the assets of the crime transferred to a fourth Member State.
This leads to situations where potentially several Member States are competent
to conduct criminal investigations in respect of the crime and proceedings
against the alleged perpetrators. This poses challenges not only in terms of
coordination and effectiveness of criminal prosecutions, but also with regard
to respect for the fundamental principle of criminal law, also enshrined in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ("the Charter"),
that a person may not be prosecuted and convicted twice for the same offence.[1]
The European Union adopted Framework Decision
2009/948/JHA of 30 November 2009 on prevention and settlement of conflicts of
exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings[2],
which aims to prevent unnecessary parallel criminal proceedings concerning the
same facts and the same person in the European Union.
It is in the interests of effective criminal
justice within the European area of justice to ensure that criminal proceedings
are conducted in the best-placed Member State, for example in the State where
the major part of the criminality occurred, where the majority of the loss was
sustained or where the suspected or accused person or victims have significant
interests. This jurisdiction must be chosen in a transparent and objective way
in order to safeguard legal certainty for citizens and in order to improve
judicial cooperation in criminal matters between authorities that may exercise
parallel competence.
This Framework Decision is the first important
step in European Union law on prevention of conflicts of jurisdiction.[3] In the
context of the internationalisation of crime within the European Union, this
measure provides added value by improving the proper functioning of the
European area of justice. It therefore also contributes to the efficient administration
of criminal justice in the Member States. 
The purpose of this report is to provide a
preliminary evaluation of the national transposition laws already received by
the Commission.
As of 1 December 2014, the date of expiry of
the five year transitional period of the Lisbon Treaty, the judicial powers of
the Court of Justice and the Commission's enforcement powers will fully apply
with regard to the pre-Lisbon Treaty acquis in the field of judicial
cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation.

1.2.                
Fundamental rights safeguards

This instrument respects fundamental rights and
observes the principles enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on the EU and
reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. With the entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Charter became legally binding and the right
not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings has been reinforced.
Article 50 of the Charter enshrines the "ne bis in idem” principle which
Member States, pursuant to Article 51 of the Charter, are obliged to respect,
observe and promote when implementing EU law. 
The "ne bis in idem" principle is
contained in Articles 54-58 of the Convention Implementing the Schengen
Agreement (CISA), as interpreted by the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in
several cases.[4]


1.3.                
Main elements of the Framework Decision

The Framework Decision sets out the procedure
whereby competent national authorities of the EU Member States shall contact
each other when they have reasonable grounds to believe that parallel
proceedings are being conducted in another EU Member State(s). In such a case,
it must seek confirmation of the existence of such parallel proceedings from
the competent authority of another Member State. The contacted authority must
reply without undue delay or within the deadline set by the contacting
authority.
This measure also establishes the framework for
these authorities to enter into direct consultations when parallel proceedings
are discovered, in order to find an effective agreement about which of the
Member States involved is best placed to continue to prosecute the crime. The
consultation should lead, preferably, to the concentration of the proceedings
in one EU Member State, for example through the transfer of criminal
proceedings. In order to reach consensus, the competent authorities should
consider all relevant criteria, which may include those set out in the
Guidelines, which were published in the Eurojust Annual Report 2003, and take
into account of for example the place where the major part of the criminality
occurred, the place where the majority of the loss was sustained, the location
of the suspected or accused person and possibilities for securing his/her
surrender or extradition to other jurisdictions, the nationality or residence of
the suspected or accused person, significant interests of the suspected or
accused person, significant interests of victims and witnesses, the
admissibility of evidence or any delays that may occur.
If no agreement is reached, the case shall be
referred to Eurojust where appropriate and provided that it falls under its
competence. As Eurojust is particularly well suited to provide assistance in
resolving conflicts, referral of a case to Eurojust should be a usual step,
when it has not been possible to reach consensus.[5]

1.4.                
State of play of transposition and consequences
of non-implementation

At the time of writing, the Commission has
received notifications on the national transposition laws from the following 15
Member States: AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, FI, HU, HR, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO, SI and
SK. 
More than 1 year after the implementation date,
13 Member States have not yet notified the measures transposing the obligations
of this Framework Decision: BG, DK, EE, EL,
ES, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, MT, SE and UK.  
7 Member States informed the Commission of the
process of preparing relevant transposition measures at national level (BG,
EL, ES, FR, LT, MT and SE). However, none of these Member
States adopted the measures or notified the Commission before April 2014.
A table on the state of play of implementation
of the Framework Decision can be found in the Annex.
Framework Decisions have to be implemented by
Member States as is the case with any other element of the EU acquis. By their
nature, Framework Decisions are binding upon the Member States as to the result
to be achieved, but it is a matter for the national authorities to choose the
form and method of implementation. 
The non-implementation of the Framework
Decisions by some Member States is problematic since those Member States who
have properly implemented the Framework Decisions cannot benefit from their
co-operation provisions in their relations with those Member States who did not
implement them in time. Indeed, the principle of mutual recognition, which is
the cornerstone of the European area of justice that this Framework Decision
facilitates, cannot work if instruments are not implemented correctly in all
Member States concerned. As a consequence, when cooperating with a Member State
who did not implement in time, even those Member States who did so will have to
rely on the random and often lengthy practice of traditional mutual legal
assistance in criminal matters without a reliable guarantee of a timely
detection of bis in idem cases, which should already take place at early stages
of criminal proceedings. Such a practice increases significantly a risk of
double jeopardy.  

2.                      
Evaluation of the implementation by the Member
States of the Framework Decision
2.1.                
Preliminary evaluation of the transposition laws
received[6]

This report focuses on selected Articles that
form the core part of the Framework Decision in the light of its aims. 
In general, the Member States have chosen
different methods and approaches for transposing the Framework Decision. Some
Member States chose to transpose the Framework Decision in their national
criminal law legislation (AT, CZ, DE, FI, HR, HU, LV, PT, RO, SI and SK), one
Member State in the administrative act (CY) and two Member States transposed
the Framework Decision in their internal (administrative) procedure (BE, NL).  
As this is a preliminary evaluation, it is too
early to draw general conclusions on the quality of implementation. This is
also due to the fact that many Member States have not yet complied with their
obligation to transpose the Framework Decision. Moreover, thus far Member
States have little practical experience in the application of this Framework
Decision.

2.2.                
Evaluation of selected key provisions of the
Framework Decision
2.2.1.          
Competent authorities

The principle of direct contact between
competent authorities, established by Article 4, is a key requirement. 
Article 4 obliges Member States to determine
which national judicial or non-judicial authorities are competent for the
purpose of this Framework Decision. As a subsidiary supporting element,
however, each Member State may also designate one or more central authorities
responsible for the administrative transmission and reception of the requests
and for assistance to the competent authorities, if it is necessary because of
the organisation of its internal system. 
For a majority of Member States, the competent
authorities for conducting tasks under the Framework Decision are judicial
authorities such as courts (CZ , PL, RO, SK) or public prosecutors (AT, BE, CZ,
DE, FI, HR, NL, PL, RO, SK).  Police authorities, such as police officers in
charge of the investigation were designated in a minority of Member States (FI,
CY[7], LV). Additionally, CZ, LV[8],
RO and SI make a distinction between the competent authorities depending on the
stage of proceedings.
A central authority with an
assisting/facilitating role is designated in a minority of Member States, for
example in HU[9],
FI, PT[10],
RO and to some extent in CZ. 
The Member States that designated central
authorities for conducting the tasks under this Framework Decision must comply
with the provision that such authorities function as a subsidiary authority only
and that, as a rule, the principle of direct contact between competent
authorities should be duly respected.

2.2.2.          
Language regime

In order to ensure efficient cooperation among
the competent authorities in the context of this Framework Decision, it is
necessary that Member States' competent authorities are informed of the
languages that have to be used in the procedure of taking contact. 
According to Article 14, Member States shall
declare which languages, amongst the official languages of the institutions of
the Union, may be used for the procedure of making contact (Chapter 2).
In addition the competent authorities are free to agree to use any language in
the course of their direct consultations. 
For example, SK requires the Slovak language
only for the procedures provided for in Chapter 2. Some Member States accept,
apart from their own official language, also the English language (CY, NL, HU
and SI) or some languages used in their neighbouring geographical context (CZ,
NL, FI). 
The majority of Member States apply a certain
degree of flexibility stating that the competent authority may additionally
accept contact requests in another language than the listed language on a
reciprocal basis (AT, PT), if no obstacle to its use exists (FI, RO), or in
(oral) contacts as long as the language is understood and spoken by the parties
in the consultations (NL, BE, SI). 
The majority of Member States properly notified
their language regime for accepting requests. 3 Member States (DE, HR and LV) did not specify their implementing language regime.

2.2.3.          
Exchange of
information on the case

(Article 5 – Obligation to contact, Article
6 – Obligation to reply, Article 7 – Means of communication, Article 8 –
Minimum information to be provided in the request, Article 9 – Minimum
information to be provided in the response)
With regard to Article 5(1) of this Framework
Decision, which requests Member States to contact another Member State when it has 'reasonable grounds' to believe that parallel proceedings are being
conducted, practically all Member States transposed these exact words in their
transposition measure (with the exception[11]
of DE, HR, HU, LV, PL and PT). NL and RO extensively described in the measure
what it considers to constitute 'reasonable grounds'.[12]
The role of the European Judicial Network
(EJN) should be mentioned in this respect (Article 5(2)). The network was
established primarily in order to improve the relations between the competent
authorities as regards the exchange of information. This efficient and informal
means of fast information exchange may also often contribute to a better
awareness of on-going criminal proceedings conducted in two or more Member
States regarding the same or related facts. 
The transpositions of BE, FI, HR, HU, NL, PL,
RO and SK refer to the European Judicial Network, which can help to promote
direct contact between practitioners. 
According to Article 6(1) of this Framework
Decision, contacted authorities should reply to submitted requests within any
'reasonable deadline' indicated by the contacting authority, or without undue
delay. BE, CZ, FI, HR, HU, RO, PL and SK have transposed Article 6 of this
Framework Decision almost literally into their national legislation/measures,
with the only exceptions being that FI has interpreted the requirement of
informing "without undue delay" as "promptly" and LV as "as early as possible".
The transpositions of NL and SI also differ in
this respect: NL applied "with due dispatch", SI seems to have
implemented the provision in the opposite order as it requires a response
"without delay or at the latest within the time limit set in the
request". Moreover, SI requires its own authorities to set an
"appropriate time limit" for contacting authorities. 
It is important to point out that AT, DE, LV, NL, PL, PT, RO and SK have omitted to transpose the element of Article 6 (1) of this
Framework Decision that requires States to treat requests in cases where a
suspect is held in detention as a matter of urgency. 
NL differs from other transpositions by
granting a strong role to the International Centres for Legal Assistance
(IRC).[13]
DE has not literally transposed Article 6 of
this Framework Decision into its national legislation. Instead, § 59 of the Law
on International Assistance in Criminal Matters merely ensures in general
that if EU rules lay down an obligation to cooperate, this must be taken into
account in the exercise of discretionary powers. 
BE, CZ, HR, HU, FI, NL, RO and SI accept any
form of communication, including electronic communication, as long as it can be
recorded in writing. SI stresses that the means of communication chosen should
sufficiently protect personal data. The following States have not specified
their means of communication: AT, CY, DE, LV, PL, PT, RO and SK. Member States
that have not introduced the means of communication enabling the production of
written records do not fulfil a key requirement of the Chapter 2 on Exchange of
information.
AT, BE, CZ, FI, HR, HU, LV, NL, RO, SI and SK have
transposed the wordings of Articles 8 and 9 of this Framework Decision on the
minimum information to be provided in the request or in the response (almost)
directly into their national measures. Those Member States, who have neither
transposed the minimum information requirement under Articles 8 and 9 into
national legislation nor into internal binding rules, therefore don't fulfil the key obligation stemming from the
Framework Decision and are encouraged to review and align their national
implementation measures with the provisions of the Framework Decision.

2.2.4.          
Procedure for
direct consultations and reaching consensus

(Article 10 – Obligation to enter into
Direct Consultations; Article 11 – Procedure for Reaching Consensus; Article 12
– Cooperation with Eurojust)

2.2.4.1.    
Procedure for direct consultations

The majority of Member States used a wording
similar to Article 10(1) of this Framework Decision to transpose this
obligation into national law/measures (AT, BE, CZ, FI, HR, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI,
SK). However, some Member States incorporated additional proceedings or guidance
as part of the procedure for direct consultations and reaching consensus. For
example, the NL measure suggests that IRCs can provide assistance in the
contact between Member States. The BE transposition stipulates that for the
application of this Article "all relevant factors must be considered
including the factual elements and the points of law". 
Furthermore, under the BE measure, a public
prosecutor shall, in the event of a "mirror" investigation or a joint
investigation, liaise with the relevant authority in another Member State on
the prosecution procedures and, as far as possible, establish common deadlines,
to prevent any conflict of jurisdiction and to ensure greater efficiency in the
prosecution, trial and implementation of the sentence. 
This transposition, although not a literal
translation of the text in Article 10 of this Framework Decision, reflects the
spirit of this Framework Decision. BE went further than the Framework Decision
by obliging Member States to enter into direct consultations when a person who
is sought pursuant to a  European arrest warrant is being prosecuted in BE for
the same offence as that in respect of which the European arrest warrant was
issued.[14]

PL law stipulates that "where the
interests of justice so require", the court or the state prosecutor
shall consult the competent court or other body of the EU Member State where
criminal proceedings in respect of the same act of the same person have been
instituted, and request to take over or transfer the criminal prosecution. 
Under CY law investigators should, where
necessary, not hesitate to request assistance from the European Union and International
Police Cooperation Directorate, which may ask the Legal Department for
assistance and/or guidance where required. 
As a preliminary conclusion, it seems that
Article 10(2) of this Framework Decision – which contains an obligation that
Member States keep each other informed of any important procedural measures
taken in the process – was directly transposed into national laws or measures
by AT, BE, CZ, HR, HU, FI, NL, PL, RO, SI and SK.[15] 
The following Member States made reference to
use of a 'national security exception'[16]
in the obligation to reply to requests of other competent authorities: AT, BE,
CZ, FI, HR, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI and SK.
Some Member States have emphasised that their
national prosecutor is not obliged to withdraw or instigate proceedings as part
of these consultations. If no agreement can be reached on the concentration of
prosecutions in a Member State, even after the mediation of Eurojust, the
public prosecutor may pursue criminal proceedings for any offence within its
jurisdiction (BE, NL). SI added that direct consultations shall be without
prejudice to the introduction or conduct of pre-trial criminal proceedings.

2.2.4.2.    
Outcome of the direct consultations and
reaching consensus under Article 10 and 11

Member States have referred to the following
scenarios as potential outcomes of the direct consultation to determine the
optimum venue for prosecution and/or trial. 
·              
Concentration/transfer of investigations or
proceedings in order to ensure prosecution of the defendant in one Member State (AT, BE, HR, HU, FI, RO, SI and NL). In PL taking over or transfer of criminal
prosecution shall only be done "where the interests of justice so
require";
·              
To hold the criminal proceedings in an otherwise
appropriate manner (FI);
·              
The investigation is halted (NL, HR). HR
specified that "when the criminal proceedings in the other Member State have been completed with a decision that has the force of res judicata, the
State Attorney's Office shall stop the criminal prosecution or drop the charges
and inform the court thereof";
·              
Parallel investigations being carried out in
both Member States with close collaboration and contact between them (BE, NL);
·              
The establishment of a joint investigation team
(BE, NL);
SI elaborated in detail which circumstances
should be considered during direct consultations to reach consensus: "all
facts and evidence in connection with the case, and all circumstances relevant
to reaching consensus shall be examined." In doing so, it is especially
important to "take into account the interests of criminal proceedings,
cost-effectiveness of prosecution, availability of evidence, protection of
family life, and also the costs of pre-trial criminal proceedings or criminal
proceedings entailed until that time or about to be entailed, but not the length
of the prescribed penalty."[17]

3.                      
Conclusion

·              
This Framework Decision is a first substantial
step in preventing breaches of the "ne bis in idem" principle during
criminal proceedings and in avoiding the risk of inadequate exercise of
jurisdiction by Member States. The degree of implementation of this Framework
Decision varies significantly. While recognising the efforts of the 15 Member
States that have transposed to date, the level of implementation of this
important piece of legislation is far from satisfactory as 13 other Member
States have not transposed it. 
·              
The partial and incomplete transposition of this
Framework Decision hampers the effective functioning of the European area of
justice. It can moreover undermine the legitimate expectations of EU citizens
in certain cases. The national implementing provisions received from 12 Member
States seem to be generally satisfactory, especially regarding the most
important issues such as the exchange of information mechanism and consultation
procedure (AT, BE, CY, CZ, FI, HR, HU, NL, PL, RO, SI, SK).
·              
Member States are encouraged to provide for
exact statistical data as regards the referrals of cases, which would enable an
assessment of the efficient application of this Framework Decision in practice.
·              
Finally, late implementation is to be regretted
as this Framework Decision has the potential to increase the efficient
administration of criminal justice in cross-border cases by saving time and
human and financial resources of the competent authorities in the criminal
proceedings.
·              
It is of utmost importance for all Member States
to consider this report and to provide all further relevant information to the
Commission, in order to fulfil their obligations under the Treaty. In addition,
the Commission encourages those Member States that have signalled that they are
preparing relevant legislation to enact and give notification of these national
measures as soon as possible. The Commission urges all those Member States that
have not yet done so to take swift measures to implement this Framework
Decision to the fullest extent. Furthermore, it invites those that have
transposed it incorrectly to review and align their national implementation
legislation with the provisions of this Framework Decision.
[1]               Article 50 of the EU Charter ("Ne bis in idem"):
"Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for
the same criminal offence: No one shall be liable to be tried or
punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has
already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with
the law."
[2]               This Framework Decision was initiated by the Czech Republic, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic and the Kingdom of Sweden.
[3]               The Council of Europe Convention on Transfer of
Proceedings of 1972 only entered into force in 13 EU Member States.
[4]               See for example CJEU cases C-187/01 and C-385/01
Gözütok and Brügge, C-436/04 Van Esbroeck, C-367/05 Kraaijenbrink, C-150/05 Van
Straaten, C-297/07 Klaus Bourquain, C-261/09 Gaetano Mantello.
[5]               The Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002
setting up Eurojust as amended by Council Decision 2009/426/JHA of 16 December
2008 on the strengthening of Eurojust. Eurojust Annual Report 2012 states that
Eurojust makes limited formal use of its recommendation powers to prevent and
resolve positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction. The notifications show
that majority of Member States implemented Article 12 (Cooperation with
Eurojust) in a flexible way stating in principle that "where authorities
fail to reach consensus on any effective solution, the matter may be referred
to Eurojust". Only 1 Member State ensured explicitly the role of Eurojust
2003 "Guidelines for deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute” in its
implementing measure.
[6]               Where the transposition measure does not include
specific provisions on certain elements of the Framework Decision, this report
states that the Member State concerned did not transpose those elements.
[7]               In CY, the Police was designated, and more specifically,
European Union and International Police Cooperation Directorate (EU&IPCD). 
[8]               In addition to Police, LV designated the Prosecutor
General's Office and Ministry of Justice.
[9]               For the purpose of Article 4, HU designated only the
Supreme Prosecutor's Office. 
[10]             For the purpose of Article 4, PT designated only the
Prosecutor General's Office.
[11]             Some Member States used a slightly different
terminology such as "when it is justified or when it is established that
parallel proceedings are conducted".
[12]             According to NL implementation measure:
"reasonable grounds will always exist if a suspect states that he/she is
subject of parallel criminal proceedings in another Member States; it appears
from a request for legal assistance from a competent authority in another
Member States that such proceedings may be on-going; the police or judicial
authorities provide information from which it can be assumed that parallel
criminal proceedings may be on-going; or it emerges from a Dutch criminal
investigation that parallel proceedings may be on-going."
[13]             Requests from the competent authorities in other Member
States will be sent directly to the public prosecutor or forwarded from an IRC.
If a public prosecutor receives a request directly he or she should notify the
IRC.
[14]             http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:en:HTML.

[15]             For example, PL law provides that the provision of
information shall be done regarding the procedure in respect of preventive
measures, and other information at the request of the competent body. The NL
measure adds that the public prosecutor is also advised to reach agreement with
the competent authority on how the exchanged information is to be recorded and
used in the criminal proceedings. HU law stipulates that when the consultations
start, the prosecutor's office shall suspend the investigation or the court
shall suspend the proceedings, as the case may be. The Prosecutor-General shall
inform the competent authority in the other Member State of the suspension of
the criminal proceedings. 
[16]             If the requested specific information would harm
essential national security interests or jeopardise the safety of individuals,
the competent authority is not obliged to provide it in individual case.
[17]             In HU, in the course of the consultations, the parties
shall consider all the significant aspects with a view to deciding which Member State is to continue the criminal proceedings. Such significant aspects may include
in particular to the stage that has been reached in the criminal proceedings,
in which Member State there is more evidence available, whether the ongoing
criminal proceedings in the different Member States are related to other
criminal proceedings in the same state, the place where the accused person is
held in detention, or the nationality of the accused person.
Overview of National transposition measures
   || Notification received || Transposition date/entry into force || Type of implementation || Competent authorities || Languages (Art. 14) 
 AT || YES || 1. 8. 2013 || Federal Act on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Cases with the Member States of the European Union, published in Federal Law Gazette (Bundesgesetzblatt) I No 175/2013 || Public prosecutors' offices.   || German can be used in procedures as described in Chapter 2.   Other languages can also be used on a reciprocal basis. 
 BE || YES || 27. 3. 2013 || Joint circular from the Minister of Justice and the Board of Prosecutors General || Relevant public prosecutor. || Any language understood & spoken by authorities. 
 CY || YES || 10. 8. 2012 || Regulatory Administrative Act No 303/2012 Circular of the Chief of Cyprus Police, published on 21. 11.  2012 || Cyprus Police. || Greek and English. 
 CZ || YES || 1. 1. 2014 || Act No 104/2013 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters || Courts, public prosecutor depending on stage of proceedings. Role is given also to Ministry of Justice/Supreme Prosecutor's Office depending on stage of proceedings  (Art. 4(3)).   || Czech; Slovak in relation to SK and German in relation to AT. 
 DE || YES || n/a || Law on International Assistance in Criminal Matters; Code of Criminal Procedure || Public prosecutor's offices. || Not specified. 
 FI || YES || 19. 6. 2012 || Act on the prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction and on the transfer of preliminary investigations and proceedings between Finland and other Member States (295/2012) || Relevant prosecutor or the officer in charge of investigation – Art. 4(3): Office Prosecutor General and the National Bureau of Investigation. || Finnish, Swedish or English; contact requests in another language if no obstacle to its use exists. 
 HR || YES || 1. 7. 2013 || Act amending the Act on the State Attorney's Office (NN No 72/13) || State Attorney’s Office. || Not specified. 
 HU || YES || n/a || Act No CLXXX of 2012 || Supreme Prosecutor's Office (also acting as central authority under Art. 4(3)). || Hungarian, English, German, French. 
 LV || YES || 1. 7. 2012 || Law  of 24 May 2012 Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law || Office of the Prosecutor General; State Police; Ministry of Justice depending on stage of proceedings. || Not specified. 
 NL || YES || 15. 6. 2012 || Circular from Board of Procurators General || All public prosecutors. || Dutch, English and German for written requests – oral contact: any language that is understood by both parties. 
 PL         || YES || 17. 10. 2012 || Law amending Code of Penal  Procedure || Courts, public prosecutors. || Polish. 
 PT || YES || 30. 8. 2001 || Article 145 of Law 144/1999, as amended by Law 104/2001 || Office of the Prosecutor General. || Portuguese; other languages can also be used on a reciprocal basis. 
 RO                     || YES || 25. 12. 2013 || Law No 300/2013 amending and completing Law No 302/2004 on international judicial cooperation in criminal matters || Prosecutors in charge of the case; court in the trial stage. Art. 4(3): Prosecution Office of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. || Romanian; contact requests in another language if no obstacle to its use exists. 
 SI || YES || 20. 9. 2013 || Act on International Co-operation in Criminal Matters between Member States of EU, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no.48/20133 of 4th June 2013 || Before the decision on the investigation has been issued: public prosecutors; During the investigation: investigating judges; Within the trial stage: the trial judges. || In taking contact Slovenian or English; competent authorities may agree to use any other language in the course of direct consultations. 
 SK || YES || 1. 8. 2013 || Act No 204/2013 amending Act No 300/2005, the Criminal Code, as amended, and amending certain laws   Act No 301/2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended   Act No 575/2001 on the organisation of government activities and the organisation of central state administration, as amended || Courts, public prosecutor. || In the procedures provided for in Chapter 2 of the Framework Decision, Slovak language is required.