REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking into account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings
Date: 2014-06-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: conflict of powers, criminal procedure, exchange of information, harmonisation of standards, jurisdiction, national implementing measure, ruling













EUR-Lex - 52014DC0312 - EN











|



52014DC0312

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation by the Member States of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking into account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings /* COM/2014/0312 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 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking into account of
convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new
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 6
2.1........ Preliminary
evaluation of the transposition laws received............................................ 6
2.2........ Evaluation
of selected key provisions of the Framework Decision.............................. 7
2.2.1..... Definition
of conviction............................................................................................... 7
2.2.2..... Requirements
for taking into account foreign convictions........................................... 7
2.2.3..... Equivalent
legal effects................................................................................................ 8
2.2.3.1.. Pre-trial
stage................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.3.2.. Trial
stage...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3.3.. Execution
of conviction stage.................................................................................... 10
2.2.4..... Obtaining
sufficient data on previous convictions..................................................... 10
3.          
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..11
REPORT FROM THE
COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL
on the implementation by the Member States of
Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking into account of
convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new
criminal proceedings
1.                      
Introduction
1.1.                
Objective
and scope of the Framework Decision
In a genuine
area of justice based on mutual trust, the European Union has taken action to
ensure that citizens are protected against crime across the European Union,
while also ensuring that citizens’ fundamental rights are respected when they
find themselves involved in criminal proceedings, whether as a victim or a
defendant.
In the European
Union, where people can move and settle freely, this objective of maintaining
and developing a genuine European area of justice requires that convictions
against persons sentenced in one Member State are taken into account in another
Member State in order to prevent future crimes. Equally, if new crimes are
committed by the same offender, subject to preserving fairness of the
proceedings, this behavioural factor should be taken into account in the
framework of new criminal proceedings.
It is indeed in
the interests of effective criminal justice, including the protection of
victims of crime, within the European Union, that all Member States have rules
in place to take into account, at all stages of the criminal proceedings,
whether a person is a first offender or whether s/he was already sentenced in
another Member State. To be in a position to assess the offender’s criminal
past is essential for the effective conduct of new criminal proceedings, in
particular to ensure informed decisions on pre-trial detention or bail, and to
have full information available at sentencing stage. 
It was against this
background that Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA of 24 July 2008 on taking into
account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course
of new criminal proceedings was adopted. This Framework Decision
allows judicial authorities in one Member State to take account of final
criminal judgments given by the courts in other Member States. It determines
the conditions under which, in the course of criminal proceedings against a
person, previous convictions handed down against the same person for different
facts in other Member States are taken into account by these authorities. In
the context of new criminal proceedings, Member States must ensure that
previous convictions handed down in another Member State are duly taken into
consideration under the same rules as national previous convictions. 
This Framework
Decision replaces Article 56 of the Council of Europe Convention of 28 May 1970
on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments[1]
concerning the taking into consideration of criminal judgments, as between
Member States’ parties to that convention. The information regarding previous
convictions can be obtained through an EU system of the exchange of information
extracted from the criminal record (ECRIS).[2]
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 power
to launch infringements will fully apply with regard to the pre-Lisbon EU acquis
in the field of judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police
cooperation.
1.2.                
Fundamental
rights safeguards
As laid down in
Article 1 paragraph 2 and Recital 12, this Framework Decision respects
fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles recognised by Article 6 of
the Treaty on the European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental
Rights of the European Union ("the Charter"). 
In this context,
in their implementing legislation, certain Member States explicitly refer to
the safeguarding of fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles of
European Union law when taking into account previous convictions in the context
of new criminal proceedings. In
some Member States, taking the
conviction into account is excluded in cases where there are reasonable grounds to assume
that it would infringe the freedom and rights of an individual convicted in
another Member State. Alternatively
Member States have provided an explicit requirement in the implementing law
that a previous conviction should comply with the right to a fair trial, within
the meaning of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
("ECHR") (AT, DE, PL).
1.3.                
Main
elements of the Framework Decision
This Framework
Decision aims to ensure that similar legal effects are given to domestic
convictions and convictions from other Member States. According to Article 2 of
the Framework Decision a conviction is defined as "any final decision of a
criminal court establishing guilt of a criminal offence." 
The Article 3 is
a key provision of the Framework Decision. This Article is based on the
principle of simple assimilation of convictions and imposes as a matter of
principle, that the legal effects of foreign convictions must be equivalent to the
legal effect of domestic convictions ("principle of equivalence"),
according to national law. 
This means that
there is an obligation to take foreign convictions into account, to be
exercised in accordance with national law (the only obligation for Member
States would be to take into account a foreign conviction to the extent that a
national conviction would be taken into account). 
Previous
convictions are to be taken into account at the pre-trial stage, during the
trial as well as when the conviction is executed (Article 3(2)). Due
consideration should be given to previous convictions especially in relation to
the applicable rules of procedure concerning:
Provisional
detention;
Definition
of the offence;
Type
and level of the sentence;
Execution
of the decision.
When previous
convictions are taken into consideration by the Member State conducting new
proceedings, this shall not have the effect of interfering with, revoking or
reviewing the previous convictions. As regards the imposition of sentence in the
course of new criminal proceedings, the Framework Decision foresees exceptions
to the general rule.
In cases where
the previous conviction was not handed down or fully executed by another Member
State prior to the commission of the offence for which the new proceedings are
conducted, this Framework Decision does not require the Member States to apply
their national rules on imposing sentences, if the application of the national
rules to previous foreign convictions limits the judge in imposing a sentence. 
Additionally,
recitals 8 and 9, which have to be read in conjunction with Article 3(5)
Framework Decision, provide some guidance in this respect by emphasising the
proportionality of level of sentence and personal circumstances of the
offender. Interestingly, no
Member State's implementing measure made reference to recital 8, which provides
that where, in the course of criminal proceedings in a Member State,
information is available on a previous conviction in another Member State, in
so far as possible the person concerned should not be treated less favourably
than if the previous convictions had been a domestic conviction. 
Article 3
paragraphs (1) and (2) address the general criminal law principles and
procedures foreseen for example in the criminal codes of procedure  for taking
into account, in the course of new criminal proceedings, a foreign conviction
handed down in another Member State. The implementation of Article 3 paragraphs
(4) and (5) will have to be assessed in the light of national criminal law
principles and procedures related specifically to imposing sentences (e.g.
aggregated sentences).
1.4.                
State
of play of transposition and consequences of non-implementation
At the time of
writing, the Commission had received notifications on the national transposition
laws from the following 22 Member States: AT, BG, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE,
EL, FI, FR, HU, HR, IE, LU, LV, NL, PL, RO, SE, SI, SK and UK.
More than 3
years after the implementation date, 6 Member States have not yet notified
the measures transposing
the obligations of this Framework Decision: BE, ES, IT, LT, MT and
 PT.
4 Member States
informed the Commission of the process of preparing relevant transposition
measures at national level (BE, ES, LT, MT). 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. Framework
Decisions do not entail direct effect. However, the principle of conforming
interpretation is binding in relation to Framework Decisions adopted in the
context of Title VI of the former Treaty on European Union.
While the lack
of implementation in one Member State does not have direct consequences for the
other Member States, in the interests of justice it remains important that a
court in one Member State is able to take account of final criminal judgments
rendered by the courts in other Member States. This approach is underpinned by
ECRIS, a decentralised information technology system which provides for an
efficient circulation of information on convictions handed down against Member
States' nationals by other Member States. The correct application of the
principle of equivalence and the need to ensure that, as a matter of principle,
the legal effects of foreign convictions are systematically equivalent to the
legal effects of domestic convictions, are important in the European area of
justice.
2.                      
Evaluation of the implementation by the Member States
of the Framework Decision
2.1.                
Preliminary
evaluation of the transposition laws received
This report
assesses the extent to which Member States have taken the necessary measures to
comply with the Framework Decision. When assessing the level of transposition
of this instrument in national criminal law, the Commission focuses in
particular on the obligations under Article 3, namely that principle of
equivalence was duly introduced and legal effects of previous convictions are
attached to foreign previous convictions in the national criminal justice
systems, in accordance with national law. 
In general, the
Member States have chosen a mostly similar approach for transposing the
Framework Decision into their national legislation and criminal law. Most
Member States merely had to amend their law governing this issue, whereas a few
Member States adopted separate implementation acts as transposing instruments. 
The
implementation of the Framework Decision is  hampered by the fact that 6 Member
States have not yet complied with their obligation under this Framework
Decision.
2.2.                
Evaluation
of selected key provisions of the Framework Decision
2.2.1.          
Definition
of conviction
Not all Member
States have formally transposed the definition of "conviction" as
"any final decision of a criminal court establishing guilt of a criminal
offence." Several Member States did not provide an explicit definition of
what they consider to be a "conviction" for the purposes of this
Framework Decision (AT, BG, DK, EL, FR, IE, LU, LV, RO, SE, SI, SK and UK).
However these Member States apply the general principles and definitions of
their criminal law. For example, LV and RO merely referred to 'recidivism'
instead of defining previous convictions explicitly. 
Inaccurate use
of the definition of 'previous conviction' can lead to differences in the scope
of application of this Framework Decision – namely final decisions – and
consequently create lack of legal certainty for individuals. Moreover, the
requirement of this Framework Decision to take only 'final' decisions into
account, should also be seen in the light of procedural rights guarantees for
suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings throughout the Union. By limiting the scope to final decisions only, the Framework Decision fully respects
and supports the principle of the presumption of innocence, which lies at the
heart of fundamental, procedural rights protection in criminal proceedings. 
FI and UK law explicitly include unconditional prison sentences, community service orders, fines
or equivalent sanctions as a type of decision to be considered "conditions
under which previous convictions are taken into account." 
DK, FI, HR, LU, LV, SE and SI have not set any additional requirements for the taking into account of
previous convictions. In those Member States, courts can simply give the same
weight to convictions handed down in another Member State as they do to
convictions handed down in their own state (principle of judicial discretion).
This approach can be considered 'mutual recognition friendly', since it
reflects a solid trust in final convictions and criminal records systems in
other Member States.
2.2.2.          
Requirements
for taking into account foreign convictions
In most Member
States, competent authorities have to apply a dual criminality requirement (as
required by their implementing laws and measures) when taking into account
previous convictions in individual cases (AT, BG, CZ, CY, EL, FR, HU, NL, PL, RO, SK and   UK). This means that the courts can only take a previous conviction into
account, if this conviction was based on a crime that is also recognised and
punishable under the law of that Member State. 
The use of the
double criminality check is justified under the Framework Decision as it merely
requires States to "take into account" convictions handed down in
another Member State to the same extent as previous national convictions and
that "equivalent legal effects are attached to them". Hence, if
certain acts, on which a previous conviction is based, are not punishable in a
certain Member State, it will be impossible for the courts to "attach
equivalent legal effects" as there would have been no legal effects at all
if it concerned a purely domestic case.[3]
The wording of
HU law slightly differs in this respect: sentences imposed or measures stemming
from a decision of a foreign court "cannot be contrary to HU law". NL
law uses the term "similar offences". The NL law stipulates that a
similar offence can be an offence under foreign law "which may have been
formulated differently, but which is aimed at protecting the same legal
interests and thus belongs to the same category of offences as the NL offence
to which the reoffending provision relates". In contrast to this approach,
some Member States opted for an approach based on legal qualification, as it is
the case for FR. When assessing the double criminality aspect of previous
convictions, the qualification of the fact is determined in relation to
offences defined under FR law and the sentences will be measured according to
equivalent FR sentences that are prescribed by FR law. SK law requires double
criminality or that decisions of courts of other Member States in criminal
matters may be enforced or have equivalent legal effects in SK only when this
is provided for by an international treaty or an act. 
Some Member
States have set more conditions which have to be fulfilled in addition to the
dual criminality requirement. An example is the obligation that, in addition to
dual criminality, sufficient information must be available about the previous
conviction (CY, PL).[4]
PL national law stipulates that a previous conviction cannot be taken into
account if the matter is subject to a remission measure having the force of
amnesty or pardon (PL). 
SK adds that the
taking into account of previous convictions is also possible when the State has
such an obligation under an international treaty to which it is party. In IE a
defendant must have the opportunity to admit or deny each previous conviction
when confronted with (non-) domestic convictions. Where previous convictions
are relied on for "any purpose" in a trial, they must either be
proved by lawful evidence, or expressly admitted by the accused person.
HU submits
foreign convictions to an extensive recognition procedure before they can be
taken into account. The incorporation of additional requirements for taking
into account of foreign convictions should be proportionate to the objectives
of this Framework Decision.
2.2.3.          
Equivalent
legal effects
The legal
context of this aspect of this Framework Decision is addressed in section 1.3
Main elements of the Framework Decision. The compliance with the rule that the
legal effects that attach to foreign previous convictions are equivalent
to the legal effects that attach to national previous convictions, in
accordance with national law, is, at best, inconclusive.  9 Member States
provide no conclusive information on compliance with this rule. It appears from
the notifications received that 9 Member States focused on the application of a
principle of equivalence only (Art. 3 paragraph 1), but did not provide further
details in respect of the types of legal effects they attach to previous
foreign convictions and at what stage of proceedings (pre-trial, trial stage,
execution) these effects apply in their national criminal justice system (Art.
3 paragraph 2): BG, CZ, EE, HU, FR, LU, PL, RO and SK. 
Information on
the national legal systems and the consequences that are attached to previous
convictions should be
available to all Member States and particularly defendants in order to enhance
the principle of legal certainty and mutual trust. 
Following this
preliminary assessment, the implementation notification of this Framework
Decision by the following 13 Member States addressed all important elements of
this Framework Decision (e.g. principle of equivalence and legal effects): AT,
CY, DE, DK, FI, EL, HR, IE, LV, NL, SE, SI and UK. 
2.2.3.1.    
Pre-trial
stage
In some Member
States, previous convictions may already be taken into account during the
pre-trial stage in criminal proceedings. In HR data in criminal records and
other data on convictions for criminal offences can be considered as the most
recent evidence before investigating a defendant following the completion of
the evidence-gathering procedure. SE law stipulates that previous criminality
is significant in decisions on pre-sentence investigation. 
EL specified
that a court decision is taken into account at all stages of criminal
proceedings, irrespectively of whether it is an EL court decision or a foreign
court decision, e.g. also for determination of recidivism.
In some Member
States, a previous conviction can influence the decision on pre-trial
detention: it can be considered a factor in the court's jurisdiction to refuse
bail where the applicant is charged with a serious offence (IE), or pre-trial
detention may be ordered if the suspect has been convicted in recent years (AT,
EL, NL, SE). Another possibility is to take previous convictions into account
in criminal proceedings as part of the principle of opportunity.[5]
(SE, SI)
The Commission
considers that when Member States take previous convictions into account as a
factor in the decision on pre-trial detention, the link between the criteria in
the Framework Decision and the criteria in national law which are applied in
this decision on pre-trial detention should be strictly assessed in the light
of relevant Council of Europe recommendations[6] and the
European Court of Human Rights case law. The reasons behind a decision on
pre-trial detention should be clearly spelled out having regard to the case in
question and cannot be based solely on the fact that a person has been
previously convicted.
2.2.3.2.     Trial
stage
In many Member
States, previous convictions are taken into account in the decision on the
type, level and extent of a sentence/sanction (AT, CY, DE, DK, HR, HU, IE, LV,
NL, SE, SI and UK), for example as a decisive factor in the decision on the
degree of guilt (HR), the purpose of punishment (HR) or whether there are
aggravating circumstances (DK, LV, UK). 
In SE, previous
legal proceedings exclude the imposition of a conditional sentence. DK and SE
law also take into account that, for a previous conviction to be considered as
an aggravating circumstance, the offence in respect of which the conviction was
handed down should be relevant for the offence currently under consideration.
SI national law states that for the assessment of the severity of the sentence,
the court shall in particular consider whether the earlier offence is of the
same type as the new one, whether both offences were committed with the same
motive, and how much time has elapsed since the previous conviction was served,
remitted or statute-barred. 
Sometimes,
Member States take into account how much time has elapsed since the previous
conviction was handed down, served, remitted or statute-barred (DK, NL, SE,
SI). It is also possible that previous convictions are taken into account when
courts issue an order that aims to ensure the presence of the accused or to
eliminate the risk of re-offending, particularly in decisions to order
detention or alternative measures to ensure the presence of the accused (SI).
Another
possibility is that a previous conviction affects the legal classification of
the offence under the Criminal Code (HU, NL, UK), for instance when assessing
the seriousness of the offence (UK).
2.2.3.3.     Execution
of conviction stage
In some Member
States, previous convictions are taken into account during the execution of a
sentence (DE, HR, NL and SE). It is for instance possible that previous convictions
are taken into account during the decision on probation (DE,  SE), or
conditional early release (DE), or when the suspension of a sentence or
custodial measure is revoked (AT, DE). In some countries, courts also have to
consider previous convictions when deciding whether a person convicted is to be
placed in a high security unit (SE) or a facility for notorious recidivists
(NL). It is often stated that courts shall revoke the suspension of a sentence
or custodial measure if a person commits an offence during the operational
period (DE, SE). SE also takes previous convictions into account in the
decision to commute a life sentence into a fixed term imprisonment.
2.2.4.          
Obtaining
sufficient data on previous convictions
Some Member
States also informed the Commission about domestic acts or internal rules on
the organisation of their national criminal records registers (EE, HU and LV).
Only 2 Member
States (EE, IE) have made a reference to the exchange of information extracted
from the criminal record (ECRIS). This may be due to the fact that the
ECRIS-system was not yet in place at the time this Framework Decision was
adopted. Member States started to use ECRIS in April 2012 and to date 25 Member
States' Central Authorities are using ECRIS to exchange criminal record
information. ECRIS supports the good implementation of this Framework Decision.
To date not all central authorities are interconnected with each other.

3.                      
Conclusion

·              
This Framework Decision sets out the leading
principle of equivalence of foreign and domestic convictions in the course of
new criminal proceedings.  It affirms the principle that Member States should
attach to a conviction handed down in other Member States effects equivalent to
those attached to a conviction handed down by their own courts in accordance
with national law, whether those effects be regarded by national law as matters
of facts or of procedural or substantive law. Recital 5 of the Framework
Decision states that "this Framework Decision does not seek to harmonise
the consequences attached by the different national legislations to the
existence of previous convictions, and the obligation to take into account
previous convictions handed down in other Member States exists only to the
extent that previous national convictions are taken into account under national
law."
The Framework
Decision has considerable added value in promoting mutual trust in penal laws
and judicial decisions in the European area of justice as it encourages a
judicial culture where previous convictions handed down in another Member State are in principle taken into account.
·              
While recognising the efforts made by the 22
Member States that have transposed this Framework Decision to date, the level
of compliance with the letter and spirit of the Framework Decision varies
significantly. It appears that the national implementing provisions received
from 13 Member States are generally satisfactory: AT, CY, DE, DK, EL, FI, HR,
IE, LV, NL, SE, SI and UK. 
·              
The remaining 9 Member States that notified the
Commission have provided no conclusive information as regards the transposition
of the legal effects attached to previous foreign convictions in their national
criminal justice system. The level of compliance on this issue of these Member
States cannot be assessed. 
·              
The non-transposition or 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 as they cannot benefit from this
instrument aiming at reducing the reoffending of perpetrators of crime.
·              
Late implementation is to be regretted as this
Framework Decision has the potential to increase the efficient administration
of criminal justice by putting in place legal tools to assess the offender’s
criminal past and consequently protect victims. 
·              
The Commission will continue to closely monitor
the Member States' compliance with all requirements of the Framework Decision.
Notably the Commission will examine if the Member States duly apply the
principle of equivalence and that, as a matter of principle, legal effects of
foreign convictions are equivalent to legal effects of domestic convictions, in
the Member State’s criminal justice system.
·              
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]               http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?CL=ENG&CM=1&NT=070.
This convention was ratified by 11 EU Member States: AT, BE, BG, CY, DK, EE,
LT, LV, NL, RO and ES.
[2]               Council
Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA of 26 February 2009 on the organisation and
content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record
between Member States: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:093:0023:0032:EN:PDF.
Council Decision 2009/316/JHA of 6 April 2009 on the establishment of the
European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article
11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:093:0033:0048:EN:PDF.

[3]               See
also Recital 6 of the Framework Decision.
[4]               CY law
specifies what is regarded as "sufficient information", for example
the full name, date and place of birth of the individual in respect of whom the
conviction has been handed down; the date of the conviction, name of the court
and the date on which the decision became final; information on the offence
leading to the conviction and, specifically, the date the offence was
committed, the name or legal definition of the offence, and the references of
the legal provisions applied; information on the content of the conviction and,
chiefly, on the offence, any additional sanctions, security measures and
subsequent decisions amending the execution of the conviction.
[5]               This
principle entails the discretionary power of a public prosecutor to pursue
investigations into a case or halt procedures.
[6]               See
also Council of Europe Resolution (65) 11 (Adopted by the Ministers' Deputies
on 9th April 1965): https://wcd.coe.int/com.instranet.InstraServlet?command=com.instranet.CmdBlobGet&InstranetImage=582145&SecMode=1&DocId=626216&Usage=2. 
Overview of National transposition measures
   || Notification received || Transposition date/entry into force || Type of implementation 
 AT || YES || 1. 1. 1975 1. 1. 1989; 1. 8. 2013 1. 1. 2008 || Section 73 Penal Code Section 39, 53 Penal Code Section 173 Code of Penal Procedure. 
 BG || YES || 27. 5. 2011 || New para 2 in Article 8 of the Criminal Code; amending Act was adopted on 13 April 2011. 
 CY || YES || 29. 7. 2011 || Law 111(I)/2011 amends Criminal Procedure Law Cap 155 by adding a new Article 80A. 
 CZ || YES || 1. 1. 2012 || Part Eight of Act No 357/2011 amending Act No 269/1994 on the Criminal Register, as amended, and certain other acts. 
 DE || YES || 22. 10. 2009   || Amendment of s. 56g(2) of the Criminal Code by way of Act of 2.10.2009 implementing FD 2006/783/JHA and FD 2008/675/JHA. 
 DK || YES || n/a || Section 84(2) of the Criminal Justice Act, in the consolidated version published by Order No 1034 of 29 October 2009. 
 EE || YES || n/a   || Sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Penal Code and the Punishment Register Act. 
 EL || YES || n/a || Art 574 and Art 577 Code for Criminal Procedure. Art. 10, 11 (2), 13, 88, 103 of the Criminal Code, 282 of the Criminal Procedural Code. 
 FI || YES || 15. 8. 2010 || s. 9, Ch. 7 Criminal Code (39/1889); Act on Nordic Cooperation in Criminal Matters (326/1963); Act on International Co-operation in the Enforcement of Certain Penal Sanctions (21/1987). 
 FR || YES || 1. 7. 2010[1] || Transposition through Article 17 of the Law n° 2010-242 of 10 March 2010. 
 HR || YES || n/a || Act on the Legal Consequences of Condemnations, Criminal Records and Rehabilitation No 143/12), the Criminal Procedure Act (NN 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11, 91/12, 143/12 and 56/13), the Criminal Code (NN 125/11 and 144/12) and the Act on the Execution of Prison Sentences (NN 128/99, 55/00, 59/00, 129/00, 59/01, 67/01, 11/02, 190/03, 76/07, 27/08, 83/09, 18/11, 48/11, 125/11 and 56/13). 
 HU || YES || n/a || Act No 161/2010 amending the various Acts on criminal matters; Act No 19/1998 on criminal procedure; Act No 38/1996 on international legal assistance in criminal matters; Act No 47/2009 on the criminal records system, the registry of judgments against Hungarian citizens passed by courts of Member States, and the recording of criminal and police biometric data; Act No 12/1998 on foreign travel; Act No 4/1978 on the Criminal Code. 
 IE || YES || n/a || Principle of common law. 
 LU || YES || 24. 2. 2012 || Law of 24 February 2012 amending Article 37 of the Criminal Code and Article 34 of the Law of 6 October 2009. 
 LV || YES || n/a || Articles 1, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 46, 48, 51, 52, 62 and 63 of the Law on criminal offences, Article 1, 2, 5, 25 and 800 of the Law on criminal procedure, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 14.1, 15 and 19 of the Law on the penal register. 
 NL || YES || 1. 7. 2010 || Law of 20 May 2010 on the implementation of Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA. 
 PL || YES || n/a || Act of 20 January 2011 on change of the Penal Code, the Code of Penal Procedure and the fiscal Penal Code. 
 RO || YES || 24. 7. 2009 || Act No 286/2009 on the Criminal Code. 
 SE || YES || n/a || Existing legislation: Chapter 26, Section 3 of the Penal Code; Chapter 29, Section 4 of the Penal Code; Chapter 30, Sections 4, 5, 7 and 9–11 of the Penal Code; Chapter 31, Section 3 of the Penal Code; Chapter 32, Sections 1–3 of the Penal Code; Chapter 20, Section 7 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Chapter 23, Section 4 a of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Chapter 24, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Sections 16 and 17 of the Young Offenders (Special Provisions) Act (1964:167); Section 3 of the Road Traffic Offences Act (1951:649); Section 1 of the Restraining Order Act (1988:688); Section 2 of the Act concerning the issue of banning orders for sports events (2005:321); Section 1 of the Act on pre-sentence investigation in criminal cases, etc. (1991:2041); Chapter 8, Section 8 of the Aliens Act (2005:716); Chapter 2, Section 4 of the Prisons Act (2010:610); Chapter 6, Section 7 of the Prisons Act (2010:610); Chapter 10, Sections 1 and 2 of the Prisons Act (2010:610); Chapter 11, Section 3 of the Prisons Act (2010:610); Section 4 of the Commutation of Life Sentences Act (2006:45). 
 SI || YES || n/a || KZ-1 – Criminal Code (KZ-1, Uradni list RS (UL RS; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia) Nos 55/2008 and 66/2008; ZKP – Criminal Procedure Act – official consolidated text (ZKP-UPB4, UL RS No 32/2007 of 10 April 2007). 
 SK || YES || 1. 1. 2013 || Act No 334/2012 Coll. amending Act No 330/2007 on criminal records and amending certain acts, as amended, and amending certain acts. 
 UK || YES || En/Wa: 15. 8. 2010 Sc: 13. 12. 2010 NI: 18. 4. 2011 || Sc: s. 71 of Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 Eng/Wa/NI: s 144 and Schedule 17 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 
[1] 1. 4. 2012 for foreign decisions on rehabilitations.