Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC, Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation
Date: 2021-12-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: access to the courts, cross-border cooperation, decentralised cooperation, digitisation, exchange of information, information system, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, telecommunications

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.12.2021  COM(2021) 760 final 2021/0395 (COD)  Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL   amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC,  Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial cooperation  {SWD(2021) 392} - {SWD(2021) 393} - {SEC(2021) 580}  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

• 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Reasons for and objectives of the proposal 

Efficient  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  requires  secure,  reliable  and  time-efficient 
communication between courts and competent authorities. Moreover, this cooperation should 
be carried out  in  a way  that does not  create  a disproportionate  administrative burden and is 
resilient to force majeure circumstances.  

At Union level, there exists a comprehensive set of instruments designed to enhance judicial 
cooperation in  cross-border civil,  commercial and criminal  cases. Many  of these  govern the 
communication between authorities, including in certain cases with the EU Justice and Home 
Affairs (JHA) agencies and bodies. However, most instruments do not provide for engaging in 
such communication through digital means. Even where they do, other gaps still exist, such as 
a lack of secure and reliable digital communication channels or non-recognition of electronic 
documents,  signatures  and  seals.  This  deprives  judicial  cooperation  of  using  the  most 
efficient, secure and reliable channels of communication available. 

In  addition,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  shown  that  force  majeure  events  may  severely 
affect the normal  functioning of Member States’ justice systems. During the crisis, in many 
cases national courts have been unable to maintain normal operations due to the spread of the 
virus. Member States were forced to take a number of measures ranging from full lockdowns 
to  treating  certain  priority  cases  only.  At  the  same  time,  those  activities  that  could  be 
conducted  digitally  (e.g.  by  email,  videoconference,  etc.)  were  able  to  continue  without 
interruption. However, many of the technical solutions employed were developed in an ad hoc 
manner, and did not necessarily satisfy security and fundamental rights standards to the full. 
Judicial cooperation in EU cross-border cases has been similarly affected, and the COVID-19 
pandemic has underlined the need to ensure the resilience of communication. 

Against this background, the Commission proposed the adoption of a harmonised set of rules 
on digitalisation, which aim at improving access to justice and the efficiency and resilience of 
the  communication  flows  inherent  to  the  cooperation  between  judicial  and  other  competent 
authorities in  EU cross-border cases [Reference to  Digitalisation  Regulation]. The proposed 
Regulation provides that written communication between competent authorities taking part in 
judicial  cooperation  in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters  should  be  conducted  through 
digital  communication  channel,  subject  to  justified  exceptions.  In  order  to  ensure  that 
communication is conducted uniformly under the scope of all Union legal instruments in the 
area  of  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters,  certain  provisions  already  governing 
communication need to be aligned with the goal of ensuring “digital by default”1 information 
exchanges.  The  purpose  of  the  amendments  is  to  ensure  legal  certainty  in  such  situations 
where  existing  provisions  may  govern  communication  differently  than  the  proposed 
Regulation.  Considering  that  a  certain  number  of  the  concerned  legal  acts  are  Framework 
Decisions and Directives, it is appropriate to amend them by way of a Directive, which also 
sets out transposition aspects. 

1 

In the context of this proposal for a Directive, the “digital by default” principle should be understood as 
a  way  to  improve  the  efficiency  and  resilience  of  communication,  reduce  costs  and  administrative 
burden, by making the digital channel of communication the preferred one to be used. 

EN 

1 

  EN 

                                                 
As Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA2 and Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA3 continue to 
apply not only between the Member States that are not bound by Regulation (EU) 2018/18054 
but also between any Member State that is not bound by Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 (notably 
Ireland) and any Member State that is bound by (EU) Regulation 2018/1805, amendments to 
these Framework Decisions are also proposed by the current proposal, in case Ireland opts in 
to the Digitalisation Regulation.  

• 

Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area 

The Commission’s proposal on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice 
in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters  (hereinafter  “the  proposal  for  a  regulation”)  lays 
down a comprehensive set of horizontal rules regarding the use of the digital communication 
channel  between  judicial  authorities,  the  possibility  for  natural  and  legal  persons  to 
the  use  of 
communicate  with 
videoconferencing.  

through  electronic  means  and 

judicial  authorities 

Considering that the purpose of this proposal is to ensure alignment of Framework Decisions 
and Directives in the area of civil and criminal matters with the provisions of the proposal for 
a  regulation  and  to  amend  conflicting  legal  provisions,  the  proposed  Directive  makes 
consistent  references  to  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  for  all  horizontal  rules  on 
communication.   

• 

Consistency with other Union policies 

Similarly, the proposal for a regulation fully complies with the existing statutory provisions in 
the area of trust services and data protection. 

Given  the  highly  sensitive  nature  of  the  information  exchanged,  it  is  essential  that  the 
implementation of the toolbox approach on the digitalisation of justice, including through this 
proposal,  takes  place  in  a  way  that  guarantees  strong  cybersecurity  standards.  This  is 
consistent  with  the  approach  outlined  in  the  EU's  Cybersecurity  Strategy5  and  the 
Commission’s proposal for a Directive on measures for a high common level of cybersecurity 
across the Union (NIS2)6, aiming to improve further the cybersecurity capacities of public and 
private entities, competent authorities and the Union as a whole in the field of cybersecurity 
and critical infrastructure protection. While judiciary in Member States is not in the scope of 
NIS2  proposal  it  is  of  essence  that  Member  States  will  put  in  place  national  measures  that 
would ensure a comparable level of cybersecurity. 

2. 

• 

2 

3 

4 

  

5 
6 

LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY 

Legal basis 

Council Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of 
orders freezing property or evidence (OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 45). 
Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA of 6 October 2006 on the application of the principle of 
mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59). 
Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 November 2018 on 
the  mutual  recognition  of  freezing  orders  and  confiscation  orders  PE/38/2018/REV/1  (OJ  L  303, 
28.11.2018, p. 1).  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial 
cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters (OJ L …). 
JOIN/2020/18 final. 
COM 2020/823 final. 

EN 

2 

  EN 

                                                 
The  use  of  digital  channels  for  communication  in  cross-border  judicial  proceedings  would 
facilitate judicial cooperation in civil, commercial and criminal matters. Therefore, the legal 
basis  for  this  initiative  are  Articles  81(2)  and  82(1)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU)7.  

The  use  of  digital  channels  for  communication would  facilitate  judicial cooperation  and  the 
effective  access  to  justice  in  civil  matters  in  line  with  Article  81(2)  TFEU.  Article  82(1) 
TFEU is  the legal  basis  for the  Union to  facilitate the cooperation between Member States’ 
judicial  or  other  competent  authorities  in  criminal  proceedings  and  in  the  enforcement  of 
decisions. 

 • 

Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)  

Under Article 4(2)(j) of the TFEU, the competence to adopt measures in the area of freedom, 
security and justice is shared between the Union and its Member States. Therefore, Member 
States  may  act  alone  to  govern  the  use  of  digital  communication  channels  in  the  context  of 
judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  to  the  extent  that  the  Union  has  not  exercised  its 
competence. However, without EU action, progress can be expected to be very slow and, even 
where  Member  States  take  action,  it  is  very  difficult  to  ensure  interoperability  of  the 
communication channels without coordination and intervention at the EU level. Moreover, the 
envisaged digitalisation measures are strictly linked to existing Union legal instruments in the 
area  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  and  cannot  be  achieved  by  Member  State  acting 
alone.  Therefore,  the  objectives  of  this  proposal  cannot  be  fully  achieved  by  the  Member 
States acting alone, but only at EU level.  

There are already certain EU rules governing the conduct of communication, some of which 
even provide for the use of modern technology. However, the existing rules do not ensure an 
adequate and holistic infrastructure for electronic communication between individuals, legal 
entities or competent authorities with the authorities of another Member State. 

EU action is needed to coordinate Member States’ efforts and establish a coherent framework 
for the existing EU rules. This will improve the efficiency, resilience, security and speed of 
judicial  procedures  having  cross-border  implications  and  will  simplify  and  speed  up 
communication between Member States’ authorities. Therefore, the administration of justice-
related cases with cross-border implications will improve.  

Further benefits arise from driving forward the digitalisation of EU judicial cooperation and 
bringing  on  board  all  Member  States,  as  this  will  improve  the  current  situation,  where  only 
certain  groups  of  Member  States  have  taken  action,  resulting  in  a  limited  and  fragmented 
response to the identified problems.  

• 

Proportionality 

The proposed  actions will not  burden Member States beyond what  is  needed to  achieve the 
objective of digital communication in judicial cooperation in civil, commercial and criminal 
matters. Provisions governing communication need to be amended so as to include the digital 
communication  channel.  Since  these  provisions  are  laid  down  in  Union  legal  acts,  the  only 
appropriate means to amend them is through another Union act. 

7 

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, p. 
47–390). 

EN 

3 

  EN 

                                                 
The  proposed  amending  Directive  does  not  lay  down  new  substantive  rules,  it  is  limited  to 
expanding the rules on communication in order to include the digital communication channel, 
in-line with the proposal for a regulation. 

• 

Choice of the instrument 

Since the legal acts amended by this proposal are Framework Decisions and Directives, it is 
appropriate to amend them through a Directive, which also sets out transposition aspects. 

3. 

• 

RESULTS 
CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

EX-POST 

EVALUATIONS, 

OF 

STAKEHOLDER 

Stakeholder consultations 

For  more  than  a  decade,  the  Commission  has  been  working  on  e-Justice  policy  in  close 
cooperation  with  various  stakeholders.  These  stakeholders  have  been  consulted  on  the 
proposal’s objectives and on the identified policy options. Following the consultation strategy 
for  this  proposal,  a  broad  range  of  stakeholders  were  consulted.  Consultations  were  carried 
out  in  the  Council  Working  Party  on  e-Justice  (EJUSTICE),  the  Council  Working  Party  on 
Civil  Law  Matters  (JUSTCIV),  the  Council  Working  Party  on  Judicial  Cooperation  in 
Criminal Matters (COPEN), the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters, 
and the European Judicial Network in Criminal Matters.  

In  publishing  the  inception  impact  assessment  and  launching  a  public  consultation,  the 
Commission reached out to a broad range of stakeholders, including Member States’ national 
authorities, non-governmental organisations, professional associations, business organisations 
and individuals. 

The findings of the consultations show support for the proposals’ objectives. The stakeholders 
favoured a compulsory use of the digital channel for communication against a voluntary use 
in  judicial  cooperation.  They  also  supported  the  possibility  for  the  parties  to  cross-border 
proceedings  to  take  part  in  oral  hearings  through  videoconferencing  or  other  distance 
communication technology.  

 • 

Collection and use of expertise 

The Commission engaged the services of a contractor to prepare a study to support the impact 
assessment. The contractor carried out various stakeholder consultation activities specifically 
designed for the purposes of the study, such as organising an EU level focus group, national 
stakeholder  consultation  on the impacts  of the policy options, carried out  a national  survey, 
held one-to-one interviews, etc. 

All data collected informed the preparation of the proposal, including the impact assessment.  

In  addition,  the  Commission  used  the  considerable  amount  of  existing  data  on  the 
digitalisation of justice in the EU. For instance  from the EU Justice Scoreboard, the  rule of 
law  report,  data  from  the  Council  of  Europe’s  European  Commission  for  the  efficiency  of 
justice (CEPEJ) and the Digital Criminal Justice study. 

• 

8 

Impact assessment8 

SWD(2021) 392 

EN 

4 

  EN 

                                                 
Since this proposal lays down alignment provisions to ensure coherence with the set of rules 
included in the proposal for a Regulation on digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access 
to justice in civil, commercial and criminal matters,  the impact has been assessed as part of 
the  impact  assessment  presented  in  the  accompanying  staff  working  document  to  that 
proposal. 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB)  discussed 
impact  assessment  on 
22 September 2021 and delivered its positive opinion on 27 September 2021. The RSB made 
the following recommendations: 

the  draft 

(1) The problem analysis should be strengthened to highlight the main problems this proposal 
aims  to  address.  The  analysis  should  be  backed  by  evidence  on  voluntary  participation  in 
seals  and 
digitalisation,  non-recognition  of  electronic  documents, 
interoperability. 

signatures  or 

(2)  The  report  should  explain  how  this  proposal  will  ensure  coherence  with  other  EU-level 
instruments  designed  to  improve  digitalisation  that  could  be  used  in  cross-border  judicial 
cooperation.  The  report  should  also  explain  why  Member  States  do  not  fully  exploit  the 
existing possibilities for digitalisation. 

(3)  The  impact  analysis  should  be  strengthened  with  a  clear  presentation  of  impacts, 
particularly  investment  costs  and  stakeholders  affected.  It  should  acknowledge  the 
uncertainties  in  the  assumptions  made  and  the  implications  these  have  for  the  impacts 
assessed. 

(4) The report should assess the effects of a potential increase of cross-border cases. It should 
discuss  if  there  is  a  risk  that  improved  access  to  justice  and  more  efficient  cross-border 
judicial cooperation could lead to delays in the treatment of cases due to higher workload for 
judges and the time legal proceedings take. 

(5) The report should clarify the data protection issues at stake and acknowledge that moving 
from  a  paper  to  a  digital  format  entails  other  risks.  The  report  should  address  potential 
sensitivities linked to the fact that having more data in digital format may not only ease their 
transmission,  but  also  creates  data  protection  and  security  issues.  The  concerns  raised  by 
stakeholders about data protection should be considered. 

The RSB has also sent additional recommendations with the quality checklist. 

In  addressing  the  RSB’s  recommendations,  the  following  changes  were  introduced  to  the 
impact assessment: 

(1)  The  problem  definition  has  been  reformulated  so  that  it  reflects  the  actual  problems 
analysed in Section 2. 

(2) The coherence with other initiatives, such as e-CODEX and e-IDAS has been explained, 
as well as the links with the European e-Justice Portal9. 

9 

The main tool that has been developed as a one-stop shop for access to information and services in the 
area of justice. 

EN 

5 

  EN 

                                                 
(3) Section 6 on the impacts of the baseline and the policy options has been restructured and 
the main impacts (i.e. economic impacts, social impacts, impacts on fundamental rights) have 
been  outlined  for  each  of  the  options.  The  section  also  addresses  in  what  way  the  main 
stakeholders will be affected by the proposal. 

(4)  Section  6  on  the  impacts  clarified  if  there  is  a  potential  risk  of  an  increased  number  of 
cross-border cases and the capacity of the judiciary to absorb such a development. 

(5) Clarifications on data protection have been added in Section 6. 

In  addition,  the  impact  assessment  was  supplemented  with  the  data  available  from  the 
supporting  study  and  from  Annex  7  of  the  report.  The  economic  analysis  and  the  costs  for 
Member States have been added to the report. The views of the stakeholders consulted have 
been  outlined  in  the  corresponding  sections  of  the  report.  The  technical  recommendations, 
such as merging the outcome of the public consultation with Annex 2, numbering the pages of 
the Annexes, deleting the Annex on the subsidiarity grid, have been addressed. 

The  impact  assessment  identified  one  non-legislative  and  one  legislative  policy  option  with 
three  sub-options.  There  were  additional  options  that  were  discarded  at  an  early  stage.  A 
promotional campaign on using digital tools and the e-CODEX system for communicating in 
cross-border  judicial  procedures  has  been  discarded  because  it  was  considered  that  such  a 
campaign would not constitute a real alternative to regulatory action and could in any case be 
carried  out  as  part  of  the  baseline  scenario.  The  option  of  the  electronic  exchange  of 
information  and  data  through  a  centralised  EU  system  was  not  considered  appropriate,  as  it 
was difficult to justify from the point of view of proportionality and subsidiarity. In addition, 
all  information,  data  and  documents  would  be  stored  in  Commission  infrastructure  or 
infrastructure  of  the  entity  managing  the  system  (e.g.  eu-LISA),  while  these  would  not  be 
party to cross-border exchanges. A centralised system would also constitute a single point of 
failure,  as  all  data  would  be  stored  in  one  place  compared  to  a  decentralised  system  where 
data are stored by each Member State individually. 

The baseline scenario against which the two main options were assessed did not envisage any 
action to  drive forward the digitalisation of cross-border judicial cooperation and the use of 
digital  tools  to  improve  access  to  justice.  Therefore,  the  use  of  electronic  communication 
between  the  authorities  would  remain  voluntary.  The  use  of  electronic  signatures/seals  and 
data protection responsibilities would continue to be fragmented. Therefore, the two options 
considered in view of the outlined objectives of the proposal were adoption of a Commission 
recommendation (non-legislative option) or adoption of a legal act – a regulation (legislative 
option).  

The legislative option would require a package of a Regulation with horizontal provisions and 
amendments to existing Regulations to ensure consistency and a Directive with amendments 
to existing Directives and Framework Decisions. 

The  non-legislative  option  would  involve  action  to  encourage  Member  States  to  use  the 
e-CODEX  system  for  digital  cross-border  communication  and  access  to  justice.  A 
Commission  recommendation  could  encourage  Member  States  to  follow  a  harmonised 
approach  to  the  use  of  electronic  communications,  including  videoconferencing,  electronic 
documents,  electronic  seals  and  signatures.  Given  the  voluntary  nature  of  this  approach, 
Member  States  would  be  free  to  develop  their  own  digital  tools.  Such  action  could  be 
technically  and  operationally  feasible.  Cost-effectiveness  would  depend  on  the  individual 

EN 

6 

  EN 

Member State  approach  to  digitalisation and on their needs and resources. However, on the 
extent to which the option fulfils the objectives of the proposal, a recommendation would not 
guarantee the actual implementation of digital tools for communication, the interoperability of 
the digital channel, the acceptance of electronic documents, or common standards on the use 
and recognition of trust services.  

Under  the  legislative  option,  legislative  measures  (a  Regulation  and  a  Directive)  will  be 
adopted.  A  regulation  will  include  rules  establishing  a  secure  electronic  channel  based  on 
e-CODEX (identified as the most appropriate technical solution in the impact assessment on 
the  Commission’s  proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  e-CODEX).  This  channel,  constituting  a 
decentralised  IT system, will be used for communication and exchange of information,  data 
and  documents  between  courts  and  competent  authorities,  and  where  relevant  with  JHA 
agencies  and  EU  bodies.  Rules  will  be  introduced  in  support  of  communication  between 
individuals and legal entities, and Member States’ courts and competent authorities, including 
rules  on  the  use  of  videoconference  or  other  distance  communication  technology.  The 
responsibilities  of  the  data  controllers  and  data  processors  will  be  outlined.  This  option  is 
based on the assumption that the IT systems for exchanges of European Investigation Orders 
(EIOs)  and  the  service  of  documents/taking  of  evidence,  as  developed  by  the  Commission, 
will  be  extended  to  all  cross-border  judicial  communication  regulated  in  the  EU  judicial 
cooperation instruments. Member States will be able to connect their national IT system to a 
decentralised  network  or  use  the  software  solution  developed  by  the  Commission  and 
provided  free  of  charge.  This  will  allow  direct  communication  between  the  courts  and/or 
competent  authorities  participating  in  the  proceedings  under  the  EU  instruments  in  cross-
border judicial cooperation in civil, commercial or criminal matters. Three sub-options were 
considered under the legislative option, namely a) compulsory or voluntary use of the digital 
channel,  b)  compulsory  or  voluntary  acceptance  of  electronic  communication  regarding 
natural  and  legal  persons,  and  c)  regulatory  or  non-regulatory  approach  to  the  use  and 
recognition of trust services. A Directive will amend the existing Framework Decisions and 
Directives to align them with the rules of the Regulation. 

After  comparing  the  policy  options  and  the  sub-options,  and  assessing  them  against  the 
objectives  of  the  proposal,  the  preferred  option  chosen  is  the  legislative  option.  This  option 
will  make  using  digital  communication  compulsory  (subject  to  justified  exceptions)  for 
communication between courts and competent authorities (and between them and the EU JHA 
agencies and bodies). It will also oblige courts and competent authorities to accept electronic 
communication  from  natural  and  legal  persons,  provide  a  legal  basis  for  the  use  of 
videoconferencing  or  other  distance  communication  technology  for  oral  hearings  in  cross-
border cases, and the use and recognition of trust services.  

While  the  courts  and  competent  authorities  will  be  required  to  accept  electronic 
communication from natural and legal persons, the use of the digital channel will be voluntary 
for the natural and legal persons. They will be free to use traditional means of communication, 
including a paper based one if they wish. 

The use of the digital channel can be expected to have a positive environmental impact, due to 
the use of less paper and postage. These environmental impacts relate mainly to the adoption 
of electronic means of communication and a likely increase in the use of videoconferencing 
and distance communication instead of in-person hearings. While it could be presumed that 
the  production  and  operation  of  equipment  will  consume  energy,  the  overall  impact  on  the 
environment will be positive. 

EN 

7 

  EN 

• 

Regulatory fitness and simplification 

This proposal aims at introducing modern digital technology in judicial cooperation in civil, 
commercial  and  criminal  matters  with  cross-border  implications.  The  expected  result  is 
quicker, cheaper, more secure and reliable communication between the competent authorities. 

The  use  of  the  digital  communication  channel  will  alleviate  administrative  burden  and  will 
render processing of cases more efficient. 

 • 

Fundamental rights 

Making  use  of  the  digital  channel  of  communication  between  Member  States’  courts  and 
competent  authorities  will  help  to  overcome  delays,  reduce  the  administrative  burden  and 
facilitate  and  accelerate  the  exchange  of  information  between  these  authorities.  As  a  result, 
the overall time for processing cases will be reduced as well as the costs for the proceedings.  

THE  DECENTRALISED  NATURE  OF  THE  SYSTEM,  ESTABLISHED  BY  THE  PROPOSED 
REGULATION  ON  DIGITALISATION  OF  JUDICIAL  COOPERATION  AND  ACCESS  TO 
JUSTICE  IN  CIVIL,  COMMERCIAL  AND  CRIMINAL  MATTERS,  FOR  THE  EXCHANGE 
BETWEEN  THE  COURTS  AND  THE  COMPETENT  AUTHORITIES  AND  BETWEEN  THESE 
ENTITIES AND NATURAL OR LEGAL PERSONS, MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE NO DATA 
STORAGE  OR  DATA  PROCESSING  BY  THE  ENTITY  ENTRUSTED  WITH  THE 
OPERATIONAL  MANAGEMENT  OF  THE  SYSTEM’S  COMPONENTS.  DEPENDING  ON 
WHETHER AN ACCESS POINT TO THE SYSTEM IS OPERATED BY AN EU INSTITUTION, 
AGENCY OR BODY, OR AT NATIONAL LEVEL, AND DEPENDING ON WHICH NATIONAL 
AUTHORITIES ARE PROCESSING PERSONAL DATA AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES, EITHER 
(EU)  2018/172510  OR  THE  GENERAL  DATA  PROTECTION 
REGULATION 
REGULATION11 OR DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/68012 WILL APPLY.4.  BUDGETARY 
IMPLICATIONS 

This  proposal  ensures  coherence  with  the  cohesive  set  of  rules  laid  down  in  the  proposed 
Regulation on digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice in civil, commercial 
and  criminal  matters.  Therefore,  its  budgetary  impact  is  already  considered  as  part  of  the 
proposed  Regulation,  which  addresses  technical  implementation  aspects,  whereas  this 
proposal only ensures legal alignment.  

For  this  reason,  the  proposal  for  an  amending  directive  will  have  no  standalone  budgetary 
implications. 

10 

11 

12 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the  processing of personal data by the Union institutions, 
bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39–98). 
Regulation  (EU)  2016/679  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, 
p. 1–88). 
Directive  (EU)  2016/680  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  April  2016  on  the 
protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for 
the  purposes  of  the  prevention,  investigation,  detection  or  prosecution  of  criminal  offences  or  the 
execution  of  criminal  penalties,  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data,  and  repealing  Council 
Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L 119, 4.5.2016, p. 89–131). 

EN 

8 

  EN 

                                                 
5. 

• 

OTHER ELEMENTS 

Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements 

Since  the  technical  aspects  of  implementing  the  judicial  cooperation  through  the  digital 
communication channel are governed by the proposed Regulation on digitalisation of judicial 
the 
cooperation  and  access 
implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting on the achievement of its specific goals, 
shall be performed under the rules of the Regulation.  

in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters, 

justice 

to 

The scope of this proposal is limited to amending certain legal provisions on communication. 
Therefore,  its  impact  should  be  monitored,  evaluated  and  reported  on  under  the  individual 
amended instruments. 

• 

Explanatory documents (for directives) 

This Directive does not require Explanatory Documents on the transposition. 

• 

Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal 

Articles 1 – 11 - introduce amendments to the Framework Decisions and Directives in civil, 
commercial and criminal matters to include references to the digital means of communication 
as established by the Regulation on digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to justice 
in  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters,  to  avoid  uncertainty  as  to  the  communication 
means to be used under the existing legal acts. 

Article 12 – 15 - set out the transposition periods for the implementation of the amendments 
in the concerned Directives and Framework decisions. 

Article 16 - provides that the Directive would enter into force on the twentieth day following 
that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. 

Article 17 – clarifies that the Directive is addressed to the Member States in accordance with 
the Treaties.

EN 

9 

  EN 

 
 
 
2021/0395 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

amending Council Directive 2003/8/EC,  Council Framework Decisions 2002/465/JHA, 
2002/584/JHA, 2003/577/JHA, 2005/214/JHA, 2006/783/JHA, 2008/909/JHA, 
2008/947/JHA, 2009/829/JHA and 2009/948/JHA, and Directive 2014/41/EU of the 
European Parliament and of the Council, as regards digitalisation of judicial 
cooperation 

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 81(2), points (e) and (f) and Article 82(1), (d) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments, 

Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

1 

In its 2 December 2020 Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU1 the 
Commission identified the need to modernise the legislative framework of the Union’s 
cross-border procedures in civil, commercial and criminal law, in line with the “digital 
by  default”  principle,  while  ensuring  all  necessary  safeguards  to  avoid  social 
exclusion. 

Facilitating  judicial  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  is  among  the  main 
objectives of the Union’s area of freedom, security and justice enshrined in Title V of 
Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

For  the  purposes  of  enhancing  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  commercial  and  criminal 
matters  with  cross-border  implications,  legal  acts  of  the  Union  providing  for 
communication between competent authorities, including Union agencies and bodies, 
should  be  complemented  by  conditions  for  conducting  such  communication  through 
digital means. 
In order to achieve these goals, Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation] has 
been adopted. 

For the purposes of ensuring the full attainment of the objectives of Regulation (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation  Regulation],  and  for  the  alignment  of  the  existing  Union  legal 
acts in civil, commercial and criminal matters with that Regulation, it is necessary to 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Digitalisation  of  justice  in  the 
European Union. A toolbox of opportunities, COM(2020) 710 final 

EN 

10 

  EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2002/465/JHA3, 

amend  the  following  legal  acts:  Council  Directive  2002/8/EC2,  Council  Framework 
2005/214/JHA6, 
Decisions 
2006/783/JHA7, 
and 
2009/948/JHA11,  and  Directive  2014/41/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council12. 

2002/584/JHA4,  2003/577/JHA5, 
2008/947/JHA9, 

2009/829/JHA10 

2008/909/JHA8, 

(6) 

The amendments seek to ensure that communication between authorities takes place in 
accordance  with 
(EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

rules  and  principles 

in  Regulation 

set  out 

the 

(7)  Whereas  this  Directive  sets  out  amendments  to  rules  already  transposed  into  the 
national  legal  order of the Member States, it should  also  have  specific provisions on 
the transposition of these amendments. The transposition provisions should be aligned 
(EU) 
with 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

in  Regulation 

implementation 

provided 

timeline 

the 

for 

(8) 

(9) 

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. 

[In accordance with Articles 1, 2 and 4a(1) 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,  and  without  prejudice  to  Article  4  of  that  Protocol,  Ireland  is  not 
taking  part  in  the  adoption  of  this  Directive  and  is  not  bound  by  it  or  subject  to  its 
application.] 

OR 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Council Directive 2002/8/EC of 27 January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes 
by  establishing  minimum  common  rules  relating  to  legal  aid  for  such  disputes  (OJ  L  026, 31.1.2003, 
p.41). 
Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams (OJ L 162, 20.6.2002, p. 1). 
2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the 
surrender  procedures  between  Member  States  -  Statements  made  by  certain  Member  States  on  the 
adoption of the Framework Decision 
Council  Framework  Decision  of  13  June  2002  on  the  European  arrest  warrant  and  the  surrender 
procedures between Member States (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1–20). 
Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of 
mutual recognition to financial penalties (OJ L 76, 22.3.2005, p. 16–30). 
Council  Framework  Decision  2006/783/JHA  of  6 October 2006  on  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
mutual recognition to confiscation orders (OJ L 328, 24.11.2006, p. 59–78). 
Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle 
of  mutual  recognition  to  judgments  in  criminal  matters  imposing  custodial  sentences  or  measures 
involving deprivation of liberty for the purpose of their enforcement in the European Union (OJ L 327, 
5.12.2008, p. 27–46). 
Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA of 27 November 2008 on the application of the principle 
of mutual recognition to judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation 
measures and alternative sanctions (OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 102–122). 
Council Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA of 23 October 2009 on the application, between Member 
States  of  the  European  Union,  of  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition  to  decisions  on  supervision 
measures as an alternative to provisional detention (OJ L 294, 11.11.2009, p. 20–40). 
Council  Framework  Decision  2009/948/JHA  of  30 November  2009  on  prevention  and  settlement  of 
conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings (OJ L 328, 15.12.2009, p. 42–47). 
Directive  2014/41/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  3  April  2014  regarding  the 
European Investigation Order in criminal matters (OJ L 130, 1.5.2014, p. 1–36). 

EN 

11 

  EN 

                                                 
[In accordance with Article 3 and Article 4a(1) 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, Ireland has notified [, by letter of …,] its wish to 
take part in the adoption and application of this Directive], 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE: 

CHAPTER I 
AMENDMENTS TO LEGAL ACTS IN THE AREA OF JUDICIAL 
COOPERATION IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS 

Article 1 
Amendments to Directive 2002/8/EC 

In Article 13 of Directive 2002/8/EC, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 

 “4.  The  competent  transmitting  authority  shall  transmit  the  application  to  the  competent 
receiving  authority  in  the  other  Member  State  t  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]* within 15 days of the receipt of the application duly 
completed  in  one  of  the  languages  referred  to  in  paragraph  2  of  this  Article,  and  the 
supporting documents, translated, where necessary, into one of those languages.”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”. 

CHAPTER II 
AMENDMENTS TO LEGAL ACTS IN THE AREA OF JUDICIAL 
COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS 

Article 2 
Amendment to Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA 

In Article 1 of Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA, the following paragraph is added: 

“13. Written communications between Member States to set up a joint investigation team and 
sign  a  joint  investigation  team  agreement,  shall  be  made    in  accordance  with  Article  3  of 
Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. 

_______ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).” 

EN 

12 

  EN 

Article 3 
Amendment to Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA 

Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 10, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 

“The issuing judicial authority shall forward the European arrest warrant in accordance with 
Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation  Regulation]*,  without  prejudice  to 
paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Article.”; 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) in Article 18, paragraph (1), point (a) is replaced by the following: 

(a) either agree that the requested person should be heard according to Article 19 or via video-
conference in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]  

(3) in Article 25, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3.  The  transit  request  and  the  information  set  out  in  paragraph  1  of  this  Article  may  be 
addressed to  the authority  designated pursuant  to  paragraph 2 of this Article  in accordance 
with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation  Regulation].  The  Member  State  of 
transit shall notify its decision by the same procedure.”. 

Article 4 
Amendment to Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA 

Framework Decision 2003/577/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 4, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1.  A  freezing  order  within  the  meaning  of  this  Framework  Decision,  together  with  the 
certificate provided for in Article 9 of this Framework Decision, shall be transmitted by the 
judicial authority which issued it directly to the competent judicial authority for execution in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) in Article 5(1), the third subparagraph is replaced by the following: 

“A  report  on  the  execution  of  the  freezing  order  shall  be  made  forthwith  to  the  competent 
authority 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
issuing  State 
the 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

in 

(3) in Article 7, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

EN 

13 

  EN 

 
 
“3. Any decision to refuse recognition or execution shall be taken and notified forthwith to the 
competent judicial authorities of the issuing State in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

(4) Article 8 is amended as follows: 

(a)  paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

“2. A report on the postponement of the execution of the freezing order, including the grounds 
for  the  postponement  and,  if  possible,  the  expected  duration  of  the  postponement,  shall  be 
made forthwith to the competent authority in the issuing State in accordance with Article 3 of 
Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

(b) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3.  As  soon  as  the  ground  for  postponement  has  ceased  to  exist,  the  competent  judicial 
authority of the executing State shall forthwith take the necessary measures for the execution 
of  the  freezing  order  and  inform  the  competent  authority  in  the  issuing  State  thereof  in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].” 

Article 5 
Amendment to Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA 

Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 4, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3. The decision or a certified copy of it, together with the certificate, shall be transmitted by 
the  competent  authority  in  the  issuing  State  directly  to  the  competent  authority  in  the 
executing  State  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation]*.  The  original  of  the  decision,  or  a  certified  copy  of  it,  and  the  original  of  the 
certificate,  shall  be  sent  to  the  executing  State  if  it  so  requires.  All  official  written 
communications  shall  also  be  made  directly  between  the  said  competent  authorities  in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) In Article 7, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3. In cases referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2(c) and (g), before deciding not to recognise and 
to execute a decision, either totally or in part, the competent authority in the executing State 
shall  consult  the  competent  authority  in  the  issuing  State,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of 
Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation  Regulation]*,  and  shall,  where  appropriate,  ask  it  to 
supply any necessary information without delay.” 

(3) In Article 14, introductory wording, is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State  shall  without  delay  inform  the  competent 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
issuing  State 
authority  of  the 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”. 

EN 

14 

  EN 

 
 
Article 6 
Amendment to Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA 

Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 4, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

“2.  The  confiscation  order  or  a  certified  copy  thereof,  together  with  the  certificate,  shall  be 
transmitted  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  directly  to  the  authority  of  the 
executing State which is competent to execute it, in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. The original of the confiscation order, or a certified 
copy thereof, and the original of the certificate shall be transmitted to the executing State if it 
so  requires.  All  official  written  communications  shall  be  made  directly  between  the  said 
competent  authorities  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) Article 10 is amended as follows:  

(a) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3.  In  the  case  of  postponement  pursuant  to  paragraph  1,  point  (a),  of  this  Article  the 
competent authority of the executing State shall inform the competent authority of the issuing 
(EU) 
State 
…/…[Digitalisation  Regulation],  and  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  shall 
comply with the obligations referred to in Article 14(3) of this Framework Decision.”; 

in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation 

immediately 

thereof 

(b)  paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 

“4.  In  the  cases  referred  to  in  paragraph  1,  points  (b)  to  (e),  of  this  Article,  a  report  on  the 
postponement,  including  the  grounds  for  the  postponement  and,  if  possible,  the  expected 
duration  of  the  postponement,  shall  be  made  forthwith  by  the  competent  authority  of  the 
executing State to the competent authority of the issuing State in accordance with Article 3 of 
Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

As soon as the ground for postponement has ceased to exist, the competent authority of the 
executing  State  shall  forthwith  take  the  necessary  measures  for  the  execution  of  the 
confiscation  order  and  inform  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  thereof  in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”. 

(3) in Article 14(3), the introductory wording, is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  shall  immediately  inform  the  competent 
authority of any executing State concerned in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]:” 

(4) Article 15 is replaced by the following: 

“Article 15 

Termination of execution 

EN 

15 

  EN 

 
The competent authority of the issuing State shall forthwith inform the competent authority of 
the  executing  State  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation] of any decision or measure as a result of which the order ceases to be enforceable 
or shall be withdrawn from the executing State for any other reason. The executing State shall 
terminate execution of the order as soon as it is  informed by the competent authority of the 
issuing State of that decision or measure.”; 

(5) In Article 17, the introductory wording, is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State  shall  without  delay  inform  the  competent 
authority  of  the 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
issuing  State 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]:” 

Article 7 
Amendments to Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 

Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1. The judgment or a certified copy of it, together with the certificate, shall be forwarded, by 
the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  directly  to  the  competent  authority  of  the 
executing  State  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation]*. The original of the judgment, or a  certified copy of it, and  the original of the 
certificate,  shall  be  sent  to  the  executing  State  if  it  so  requires.  All  official  written 
communications  shall  also  be  made  directly  between  the  said  competent  authorities  in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) in Article 16, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1.  Each  Member  State  shall,  in  accordance  with  its  law,  permit  the  transit  through  its 
territory of a sentenced person who is being transferred to the executing State, provided that a 
copy of the certificate referred to in Article 4 of this Framework Decision has been forwarded 
to  it  by  the  issuing  State  together  with  the  transit  request.  The  transit  request  and  the 
certificate  may  be 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation  Regulation].  Upon  request  of  the  Member  State  to  permit  transit,  the 
issuing  State  shall  provide  a  translation  of  the  certificate  into  one  of  the  languages,  to  be 
indicated in the request, which the Member State requested to permit transit accepts.”; 

transmitted 

(3) in Article 21, the introductory wording is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State  shall  without  delay  inform  the  competent 
authority  of  the 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
issuing  State 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]:”. 

Article 8 
Amendments to Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA 

Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA is amended as follows: 

EN 

16 

  EN 

(1) Article 6 is amended as follows: 

(a) paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

“2. The judgment and, where applicable, the probation decision, together with the certificate 
referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, shall be forwarded by the competent authority of the 
issuing  State  directly  to  the  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State  in  accordance  with 
Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. The original of the judgment 
and,  where  applicable,  the  probation  decision,  or  certified  copies  thereof,  as  well  as  the 
original of the certificate, shall be sent to the competent authority of the executing State if it 
so requires. All official written communications shall also be made directly between the said 
competent  authorities  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(b)  paragraph 7 is replaced by the following: 

“7.  When  an  authority  of  the  executing  State  which  receives  a  judgment  and,  where 
applicable, a probation decision, together with the certificate referred to in paragraph 1 of this 
Article,  has  no  competence  to  recognise  it  and  take  the  ensuing  necessary  measures  for  the 
supervision of the probation measure or alternative sanction, it shall, ex officio, forward it to 
the competent authority and shall without delay inform the competent authority of the issuing 
State  accordingly  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation].”; 

(2) in Article 12, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1. The competent authority of the executing State shall decide as soon as possible, and within 
60  days  of  receipt  of  the  judgment  and,  where  applicable,  the  probation  decision,  together 
with the certificate referred to in Article 6(1) of this Framework Decision, whether or not to 
recognise  the  judgment  and,  where  applicable,  the  probation  decision  and  assume 
responsibility  for  supervising  the  probation  measures  or  alternative  sanctions.  It  shall 
immediately inform the competent authority of the issuing State of its decision, in accordance 
with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

(3) Article 16 is amended as follows: 

(a) paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1. The competent authority of the executing State shall without delay inform the competent 
authority  of  the  issuing  State,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation], of all decisions on the: 

(a) modification of the probation measure or alternative sanction; 

(b) revocation of the suspension of the execution of the judgment or revocation of the decision 
on conditional release; 

(c) enforcement of a custodial sentence or measure involving deprivation of liberty, because 
of non-compliance with a probation measure or alternative sanction; 

(d) lapsing of the probation measure or alternative sanction.”; 

EN 

17 

  EN 

(b)  paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3.  The  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  shall  immediately  inform  the  competent 
authority  of  the  executing  State,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation  Regulation],  of  any  circumstances  or  findings  which,  in  its  opinion, 
could entail one or more of the decisions referred to in paragraph 1, points (a), (b) or (c) of 
this Article being taken. “; 

(4)  in Article 17, paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: 

“3. Notice of the findings mentioned in paragraph 1 points (a) and (b) and in paragraph 2 of 
this Article shall be given using the standard form set out in Annex II. Notice of the facts and 
circumstances  mentioned  in  paragraph  1,  point  (c),  of  this  Article  shall  be  given,  in 
accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation  Regulation],  including, 
where possible, through the form set out in Annex II of this Framework Decision.”; 

(5) in Article 18, the introductory wording is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State  shall  without  delay  inform  the  competent 
authority  of  the  issuing  State,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation], of:”. 

Article 9 
Amendments to Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA 

Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 10, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: 

“2.  The  decision  on  supervision  measures  or  a  certified  copy  of  it,  together  with  the 
certificate, shall be forwarded by the competent  authority in the issuing State directly to the 
competent  authority in  the executing State in  accordance with  Article 3  of Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. The original of the decision on supervision measures, or a 
certified copy of it, and the original of the certificate, shall be sent to the executing State if it 
so requires. All official written communications shall also be made directly between the said 
competent  authorities  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…[Digitalisation 
Regulation].”. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) in Article 20(2), the introductory wording is replaced by the following: 

“The  competent  authority  in  the  executing  State  shall,  without  delay,  inform  the  competent 
authority 
in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
issuing  State 
the 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]”. 

in 

Article 10 
Amendments to Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA 

Article 7 of Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA is replaced by the following: 

EN 

“Article 7 

18 

  EN 

 
The contacting and contacted authorities  shall communicate in  accordance with Article 3 of 
Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. 

Means of communication 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”. 

Article 11 
Amendment to Directive 2014/41/EU 

Directive 2014/41/EU is amended as follows: 

(1) in Article 7, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: 

“1.  The  EIO  completed  in  accordance  with  Article  5  of  this  Directive  shall  be  transmitted 
from  the  issuing  authority  to  the  executing  authority  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of 
Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]*. 

________ 

  
Regulation  (EU)  […]  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the 
digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial 
and  criminal  matters,  and  amending  certain  acts  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  (OJ  L 
…).”; 

(2) in Article 15, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:  

“2. As soon as the ground for postponement has ceased to exist, the executing authority shall 
forthwith  take  the  necessary  measures  for  the  execution  of  the  EIO  and  inform  the  issuing 
authority in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

(3) Article 16 is amended as follows:  

(a)  paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:  

“2. Without prejudice to Article 10(4) and (5) of this Directive the executing authority shall 
inform the issuing authority immediately by any means: 

(a)  if  it  is  impossible  for  the  executing  authority  to  take  a  decision  on  the  recognition  or 
execution due to the fact that the form provided for in Annex A is incomplete or manifestly 
incorrect; 

(b)  if  the  executing  authority,  in  the  course  of  the  execution  of  the  EIO,  considers  without 
further  enquiries  that  it  may  be  appropriate  to  carry  out  investigative  measures  not  initially 
foreseen,  or  which  could  not  be  specified  when  the  EIO  was  issued,  in  order  to  enable  the 
issuing authority to take further action in the specific case; or 

(c)  if  the  executing  authority  establishes  that,  in  the  specific  case,  it  cannot  comply  with 
formalities  and  procedures  expressly  indicated  by  the  issuing  authority  in  accordance  with 
Article 9. 

EN 

19 

  EN 

Upon  request  by  the  issuing  authority,  the  information  shall  be  confirmed  without  delay  in 
accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation].”; 

(b)  in paragraph 3, the introductory wording is replaced by the following: 

“Without  prejudice  to  Article 10(4)  and  (5)  of  this  Directive  the  executing  authority  shall 
inform  the  issuing  authority  without  delay  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  Regulation  (EU) 
…/…[Digitalisation Regulation]:”. 

CHAPTER III 
TRANSPOSITION 

Article 12 
Transposition of Articles 3, 7 and 11 

Member States shall adopt and publish, by [two years from the adoption of the Implementing 
act  referred  to  in  Article  12(3)  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…(Digitalisation  Regulation)  at  the 
latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 3, 
7 and 11. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. 

They shall apply those provisions from the first day of the month following the period of two 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  implementing  act  referred  to  in  Article  12(3)  of  Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  Articles  3, 7 
and  11  of  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. 

Article 13 
Transposition of Article 1 

Member States shall adopt and publish, by [two years from the adoption of the Implementing 
act  referred  to  in  Article  12(4)  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…(Digitalisation  Regulation)]  at  the 
latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1. 
They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. 

They shall apply those provisions from the first day of the month following the period of two 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  implementing  act  referred  to  in  Article  12(4)  of  Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to Article 1 of 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. 

Article 14 
Transposition of Articles 4, 5, 6 and 10  

Member States shall adopt and publish, by [two years from the adoption of the Implementing 
act  referred  to  in  Article  12(5)  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…(Digitalisation  Regulation)]  at  the 
latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4, 
5,  6  and  10.  They  shall  forthwith  communicate  to  the  Commission  the  text  of  those 
provisions. 

EN 

20 

  EN 

 
They shall apply those provisions from the first day of the month following the period of two 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  implementing  act  referred  to  in  Article  12(5)  of  Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

When Member States adopt those provisions, they shall contain a reference to Articles 4, 5, 6, 
10 and 11  of 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. 

Article 15 
Transposition of Articles 2, 8 and 9 

Member States shall adopt and publish, by [two years from the adoption of the Implementing 
act  referred  to  in  Article  12(6)  of  Regulation  (EU)  …/…(Digitalisation  Regulation)]  at  the 
latest, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 2, 
8 and 9. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those provisions. 

They shall apply those provisions from the first day of the month following the period of two 
years  after  the  adoption  of  the  implementing  act  referred  to  in  Article  12(6)  of  Regulation 
(EU) …/…[Digitalisation Regulation]. 

When  Member  States  adopt  those  provisions,  they  shall  contain  a  reference  to  Articles  2, 8 
and 9 of 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. 

Article 16 
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. 

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

Done at Brussels, 

Article 17 

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

21 

  EN