natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The rapporteur fully supports the legal basis chosen by the Commission.
The rapporteur fully supports the legal basis chosen by the Commission.
Establishing common basic principles contributes to Member States' faith in each other's legal system and a Framework Decision seems to be a proper instrument to attain that goal.
Establishing common basic principles contributes to Member States' faith in each other's legal system and a Framework Decision seems to be a proper instrument to attain that goal.
Mutual Recognition
Mutual Recognition
Mutual recognition implies that a Member State accepts decisions taken by another Member State even though these decisions may have been reached in a different way .
Mutual recognition implies that a Member State accepts decisions taken by another Member State even though these decisions may have been reached in a different way .
The first instrument to have been adopted on mutual recognition in criminal matters is the European Arrest Warrant.
The first instrument to have been adopted on mutual recognition in criminal matters is the European Arrest Warrant.
This has been followed by a Framework Decision on orders for freezing property or evidence, and will be followed by measures on confiscation orders, financial penalties and transmission of evidence and criminal records.
This has been followed by a Framework Decision on orders for freezing property or evidence, and will be followed by measures on confiscation orders, financial penalties and transmission of evidence and criminal records.
If these measures, and indeed future proposals on mutual recognition, are to be implemented successfully a spirit of confidence is needed .
If these measures, and indeed future proposals on mutual recognition, are to be implemented successfully a spirit of confidence is needed .
Not only the judicial authorities, but all actors in criminal proceedings have to consider decisions of the judicial authorities of another Member State as equivalent to their own decisions .
Not only the judicial authorities, but all actors in criminal proceedings have to consider decisions of the judicial authorities of another Member State as equivalent to their own decisions .
Judicial capacity and respect for fair trial rights should not be called into question.
Judicial capacity and respect for fair trial rights should not be called into question.
This is the reason that the Tampere Conclusions included several proposals for minimum standards for procedural law, such as "an adequate level of legal aid in cross-border cases", and "multilingual forms or documents to be used in cross-border court cases".
This is the reason that the Tampere Conclusions included several proposals for minimum standards for procedural law, such as "an adequate level of legal aid in cross-border cases", and "multilingual forms or documents to be used in cross-border court cases".
The rapporteur has always been of the opinion that the European Arrest Warrant should have been accompanied by minimum standards of procedural law from the outset, but is pleased that three years after date, this proposal is taken up by the European Commission.
The rapporteur has always been of the opinion that the European Arrest Warrant should have been accompanied by minimum standards of procedural law from the outset, but is pleased that three years after date, this proposal is taken up by the European Commission.
If prosecution is organised on a European scale, then so should citizen's rights.
If prosecution is organised on a European scale, then so should citizen's rights.
Obviously, the right to legal advice and the right to interpretation/translation are rights that already exist in the European Convention on the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR), as guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Obviously, the right to legal advice and the right to interpretation/translation are rights that already exist in the European Convention on the protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR), as guaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
But how valuable the ECHR may be there are quite some differences in interpretation of these rights by the Member States.
But how valuable the ECHR may be there are quite some differences in interpretation of these rights by the Member States.
The current proposal of the European Commission is more specific.
The current proposal of the European Commission is more specific.
Common procedural safeguards will not only increase trust in each other’s legal systems but will make judicial co-operation between Member States more efficient.
Common procedural safeguards will not only increase trust in each other’s legal systems but will make judicial co-operation between Member States more efficient.
Citizens (especially criminal suspects) will know where they stand (these minimum standards should apply to all activities of the national police forces and judicial authorities, Europol, joint investigating teams and officials from non-EU countries operating on EU territory).
Citizens (especially criminal suspects) will know where they stand (these minimum standards should apply to all activities of the national police forces and judicial authorities, Europol, joint investigating teams and officials from non-EU countries operating on EU territory).
The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court on Human Rights
It is clear that the Framework Decision will also make citizen's rights more visible .
It is clear that the Framework Decision will also make citizen's rights more visible .
This should mean that police officers, lawyers, translators, suspects and defendants are more aware of those rights and are more likely to comply with those European standards.
This should mean that police officers, lawyers, translators, suspects and defendants are more aware of those rights and are more likely to comply with those European standards.
It will make these rights also more accessible .
It will make these rights also more accessible .
Currently many violations of fundamental rights are not brought for the Strasbourg court, simply because people are not aware of the legal possibility.
Currently many violations of fundamental rights are not brought for the Strasbourg court, simply because people are not aware of the legal possibility.
Another reason that violations are not brought to the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) is that the procedure is complicated and cumbersome because all national remedies must have been exhausted.
Another reason that violations are not brought to the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) is that the procedure is complicated and cumbersome because all national remedies must have been exhausted.
This may take years of proceedings before a complaint can be filed to the ECtHR.
This may take years of proceedings before a complaint can be filed to the ECtHR.
The proposal on the minimum standards in criminal proceedings has the important advantage that the workload of the ECtHR will be reduced.
The proposal on the minimum standards in criminal proceedings has the important advantage that the workload of the ECtHR will be reduced.
Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights (EG (2001))1 of 27 September 2001.
Report of the Evaluation Group to the Committee of Ministers on the European Court of Human Rights (EG (2001))1 of 27 September 2001.
Between 1989 and 2003 the number of applications to the ECHR increased with more than 500%.
Between 1989 and 2003 the number of applications to the ECHR increased with more than 500%.
In 1989 there were 4923 applications of which 95 were declared admissible.
In 1989 there were 4923 applications of which 95 were declared admissible.
In 2003, there were 38 435 applications of which 753 were declared admissible.
In 2003, there were 38 435 applications of which 753 were declared admissible.
In 2003, the number of judgements that show findings of violations of the ECHR was 385 (which is more than 50%!!!).
In 2003, the number of judgements that show findings of violations of the ECHR was 385 (which is more than 50%!!!).
The proposal for a Framework Decision on minimum standards will serve to complement the ECHR and will provide added clarity as to individuals during criminal proceedings.
The proposal for a Framework Decision on minimum standards will serve to complement the ECHR and will provide added clarity as to individuals during criminal proceedings.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
In December 2000, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament jointly signed and solemnly proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In December 2000, the Commission, the Council and the Parliament jointly signed and solemnly proclaimed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The Charter among other things confirms that respect for fundamental rights will be at the foundation of all European law.
The Charter among other things confirms that respect for fundamental rights will be at the foundation of all European law.
This proposal is in line with the spirit of the Charter on Fundamental Rights and contributes to more equivalent norms in criminal proceedings in the Member States.
This proposal is in line with the spirit of the Charter on Fundamental Rights and contributes to more equivalent norms in criminal proceedings in the Member States.
The Hague Programme
The Hague Programme
The Hague Programme was adopted by the European Council on 4 and 5 November 2004 .
The Hague Programme was adopted by the European Council on 4 and 5 November 2004 .
The Programme stresses that in an enlarged EU, mutual confidence shall be based on the certainty that all European citizens have access to a judicial system meeting high standards of quality.
The Programme stresses that in an enlarged EU, mutual confidence shall be based on the certainty that all European citizens have access to a judicial system meeting high standards of quality.
In order to facilitate full implementation of the principle of mutual recognition, a system providing for objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of EU policies in the field of Justice, while fully respecting independence of the judiciary and consistent with all existing European mechanism, must be established.
In order to facilitate full implementation of the principle of mutual recognition, a system providing for objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation of EU policies in the field of Justice, while fully respecting independence of the judiciary and consistent with all existing European mechanism, must be established.
Mutual recognition is still seen as the cornerstone of judicial co-operation.
Mutual recognition is still seen as the cornerstone of judicial co-operation.
The rapporteur, however, is concerned that it seems to take up a somewhat less prominent place than in the former Tampere Programme.
The rapporteur, however, is concerned that it seems to take up a somewhat less prominent place than in the former Tampere Programme.
The further realisation of mutual recognition implies the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings.
The further realisation of mutual recognition implies the development of equivalent standards for procedural rights in criminal proceedings.
The rapporteur is pleased to see that the objective is to adopt the current proposal for the Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings by the end of 2005.
The rapporteur is pleased to see that the objective is to adopt the current proposal for the Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings by the end of 2005.
The Proposal, some elements
The Proposal, some elements
The Proposal contains the following rights:
The Proposal contains the following rights:
- access to legal advice (Articles 2-5).
- access to legal advice (Articles 2-5).
Legal advice should be available throughout all criminal proceedings ('... in any event before any questioning by law enforcement officers'...
Legal advice should be available throughout all criminal proceedings ('... in any event before any questioning by law enforcement officers'...
Article 3, paragraph 2.
Article 3, paragraph 2.
- access to interpretation and translation (Articles 6-9) The suspect is provided with free interpretation and shall receive the translation of all relevant documents.
- access to interpretation and translation (Articles 6-9) The suspect is provided with free interpretation and shall receive the translation of all relevant documents.
- special provisions ensuring that vulnerable suspects and defendants in particularly are properly protected (Articles 10 and 11) If a suspect is not able to understand the content of the meaning of the proceedings owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition specific attention should be given.
- special provisions ensuring that vulnerable suspects and defendants in particularly are properly protected (Articles 10 and 11) If a suspect is not able to understand the content of the meaning of the proceedings owing to his age, mental, physical or emotional condition specific attention should be given.
- consular assistance to foreign detainees
- consular assistance to foreign detainees
-notifying suspects and defendants of their rights
-notifying suspects and defendants of their rights
p.6 of the proposal for a framework decision. .
p.6 of the proposal for a framework decision. .
The proposal introduces the 'Letter of Rights'.
The proposal introduces the 'Letter of Rights'.
Opinion and suggestions of the Rapporteur
Opinion and suggestions of the Rapporteur
Overall the Rapporteur is pleased with this first step taken by the Commission but at the same time she feels a lot of work still needs to be done.
Overall the Rapporteur is pleased with this first step taken by the Commission but at the same time she feels a lot of work still needs to be done.
As a general remark she wants to stress the importance to interpret the EU minimum standards in the light of the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in order to ensure that those standards do not quickly become obsolete or undermine the level of rights protection afforded by ECHR.
As a general remark she wants to stress the importance to interpret the EU minimum standards in the light of the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in order to ensure that those standards do not quickly become obsolete or undermine the level of rights protection afforded by ECHR.
She wants to propose the following suggestions:
She wants to propose the following suggestions:
In order to reduce the risk of possible confusion and differences in interpretation between Member States the rapporteur proposes to include in the proposal a definitions-section of the most important terms used, as is common practice in EU-proposals, i.e. what is meant with 'suspect','defendant', 'criminal proceedings', 'specific attention', 'lawyer', 'host state'.
In order to reduce the risk of possible confusion and differences in interpretation between Member States the rapporteur proposes to include in the proposal a definitions-section of the most important terms used, as is common practice in EU-proposals, i.e. what is meant with 'suspect','defendant', 'criminal proceedings', 'specific attention', 'lawyer', 'host state'.
She also proposes some amendments which intend to clarify certain provisions, i.e.'as soon as possible' which is not sufficiently precise (Article 2, paragraph 1)
She also proposes some amendments which intend to clarify certain provisions, i.e.'as soon as possible' which is not sufficiently precise (Article 2, paragraph 1)
Furthermore one should assess whether it is not appropriate to enlarge the number of rights presented in the proposal, i.e. with the the right of access to medical assistance
Furthermore one should assess whether it is not appropriate to enlarge the number of rights presented in the proposal, i.e. with the right of access to medical assistance
It seems to be important to make clear provisions on the question from which moment onwards the suspect is entitled to certain rights, i.e. the right to legal assistance, communication and free interpretation.
It seems to be important to make clear provisions on the question from which moment onwards the suspect is entitled to certain rights, i.e. the right to legal assistance, communication and free interpretation.
These should be provided from the moment the suspect comes into contact with the competent authorities of a Member State.
These should be provided from the moment the suspect comes into contact with the competent authorities of a Member State.
The Rapporteur considers the 'Letter of Rights'. as an important instrument to create more visible rights.
The Rapporteur considers the 'Letter of Rights'. as an important instrument to create more visible rights.
This will be an appropriate tool in having a better compliance of these rights.
This will be an appropriate tool in having a better compliance of these rights.
Member States are required to produce a written notification of the procedural rights in a language which the suspect understands.
Member States are required to produce a written notification of the procedural rights in a language which the suspect understands.
She therefore feels that provision should be made for translations into languages third countries.
She therefore feels that provision should be made for translations into languages third countries.
The rapporteur strongly supports the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms laid down in the proposal (Article 15).
The rapporteur strongly supports the evaluation and monitoring mechanisms laid down in the proposal (Article 15).
They are extremely important mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the Framework Decision.
They are extremely important mechanism to measure the effectiveness of the Framework Decision.
Not only should information be gathered, it should also be duly evaluated and made public.
Not only should information be gathered, it should also be duly evaluated and made public.
Or to put it even stronger Member States should be made accountable when failing in safeguarding procedural rights.
Or to put it even stronger Member States should be made accountable when failing in safeguarding procedural rights.
A regular (yearly) monitoring system under the co-ordination of the Commission should be established.
A regular (yearly) monitoring system under the co-ordination of the Commission should be established.
In collecting these data and analysing them the future Agency on Fundamental Rights may be able to play an important role
In collecting these data and analysing them the future Agency on Fundamental Rights may be able to play an important role
The rapporteur stresses the importance that these data are not only handed over by Governments but also by non-state actors such as NGOs, IGO's, lawyer organisations, translators and interpreters.
The rapporteur stresses the importance that these data are not only handed over by Governments but also by non-state actors such as NGOs, IGO's, lawyer organisations, translators and interpreters.
Another reason why this monitoring mechanism is very important is because currently the Commission is not able to bring an action before the Court if a Member State fails to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to implement a Framework Decision in time) under the Third Pillar.
Another reason why this monitoring mechanism is very important is because currently the Commission is not able to bring an action before the Court if a Member State fails to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to implement a Framework Decision in time) under the Third Pillar.
This is a big difference with the competence of the Commission under the First Pillar where she may bring a matter before the Court of Justice when a Member State failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty
This is a big difference with the competence of the Commission under the First Pillar where she may bring a matter before the Court of Justice when a Member State failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty
pro Výbor pro občanské svobody, spravedlnost a vnitřní záležitosti
for the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
k návrhu rámcového rozhodnutí Rady o určitých procesních právech při trestním řízení v celé Evropské unii
on the proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union
Návrh rámcového rozhodnutí Rady o určitých procesních právech při trestním řízení v celé Evropské unii by měl být vnímán jako velmi pozitivní, protože je to významný první krok Unie k vytvoření prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva založeného na ochraně základních práv týkajících se občanských svobod a zajišťujících každému právo na spravedlivý proces.
The proposal for a Council framework decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings throughout the European Union should be considered as positive overall, since it represents the Union’s first significant step towards creating an area of freedom, security and justice, based on safeguarding the fundamental rights relating to citizens’ freedoms and ensuring everyone the right to a fair trial.
Cílem návrhu vytvoření systému procesních záruk v trestních případech je zajistit, aby každý členský stát přijal základní minimální pravidla pro zvýšení důvěry veřejných institucí, soudních orgánů a snížení nedůvěry v různé právní systémy v ostatních členských státech tím, že přijmou opatření k větší harmonizaci procesních záruk.
The move to create a system of procedural guarantees in criminal cases aims to ensure that every Member State adopts basic minimum rules essential for increasing the trust of the public authorities, the judicial authorities and suspects in the various legal systems of the other Member States, by making provisions on procedural guarantees more uniform.
Návrh by však měl být považován spíše za východisko a nikoli za faktické vytvoření evropského soudního prostoru, jehož úkolem by nebylo pouze zaručovat a zachovávat existující práva přiznávaná v Evropské úmluvě o ochraně lidských práv a základních svobod (EÚLP), judikatuře Evropského soudu pro lidská práva a Chartě základních práv Evropské unie, ale také, a to především, zajistit účinné a souvislé uplatňování těchto práv všemi členskými státy.
However, the proposal should be considered as a point of departure rather than of arrival in the creation of a European judicial area, which should not merely safeguard and maintain the existing rights recognised by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, but should also and above all be aimed at ensuring that they are applied properly and consistently by all the Member States.
Navzdory úsilí, které bylo vynaloženo ve věci uznání a zaručení práva na spravedlivý proces, je nutné říci, že Komisí vypracovaný seznam minimálních záruk, které je třeba zachovat, je příliš stručný.
Despite the efforts made to recognise and guarantee the right to a fair trial, it has to be said that the catalogue of minimum guarantees to be safeguarded drawn up by the Commission is incomplete.
Navíc bez ohledu na nezanedbatelné úsilí Komise se předpokládaná ochrana zdá nedostatečná a bylo by proto vhodné posílit řadu bodů v rámcovém rozhodnutí:
Furthermore, despite the commitment made by the Commission, the protection actually envisaged seems insufficient and it would therefore be appropriate to reinforce a number of points in the framework decision:
(a) Měla by být plně zaručena právní pomoc, která by měla být povinná a nezbytná ve všech fázích a na všech úrovních řízení.
(a) there should be recognition of fully guaranteed legal advice, to be considered as compulsory and essential at every stage and level of proceedings.