1 / 103

Workshop on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters In South Eastern Europe

Cristiano RipoliLegal Advisor to the Italian Parliament The Investigative Committee on Serious Crime, Piracy and CounterfeitingLegal Expert to the The European Commission - Joint Research CenterResearcher in European Criminal Procedure Law, The University of Rome. . . How to use the

pooky
Download Presentation

Workshop on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters In South Eastern Europe

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Workshop on Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters In South Eastern Europe Support of Eurojust to investigators and prosecutors of EU and Western Balkans

    2. Cristiano Ripoli Legal Advisor to the Italian Parliament – The Investigative Committee on Serious Crime, Piracy and Counterfeiting Legal Expert to the The European Commission - Joint Research Center Researcher in European Criminal Procedure Law, The University of Rome

    3. How to use the slides Concepts and extracted definitions References Purpose of the presentation How to use Eurojust for MLA/MR (and instruments) in all phases of anti-crime For Third Countries (Sepag/Selec)

    4. Eurojust cooperative relations with institutions, bodies agencies. At least: (a) Europol (and other EU Agencies produce regular threat assessments) (b) OLAF (c) Frontex (d) the Council, in particular its Joint Situation Centre.

    5. Art 26 (1) New Eurojust Decision Council of the European Union – Draft Internal Security Strategy for the European Union : “Towards a European Security Model” – 5842/2/10 Rev.2

    6. To prevent crime it is therefore essential to disrupt criminal networks and combat the financial incentive which drives them. To that end, practical law enforcement cooperation should be strengthened. Authorities across all sectors and at different levels should work together to protect the economy, and criminal profits should be effectively traced and confiscated. We also need to overcome the, obstacles posed by divergent national approaches, where necessary through legislation on judicial cooperation to strengthen mutual recognition and common definitions of criminal offences and minimum levels of criminal sanctions (The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe – COM(2010) 673 final - pag.4)

    7. To prevent crime it is therefore essential to disrupt criminal networks and combat the financial incentive which drives them. To that end, practical law enforcement cooperation should be strengthened. Authorities across all sectors and at different levels should work together to protect the economy, and criminal profits should be effectively traced and confiscated. We also need to overcome the, obstacles posed by divergent national approaches, where necessary through legislation on judicial cooperation to strengthen mutual recognition and common definitions of criminal offences and minimum levels of criminal sanctions (The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe – COM(2010) 673 final - pag.4)

    8. Support of Eurojust to investigators and prosecutors in EU and SEEPAG Countries? prevent crime Minimum definitions of criminal offences (substantial law) Cooperative Procedures law enforcement cooperation Authorities across all sectors and at different levels judicial cooperation Coordination via Eurojust via existing instruments (Conventions, Decisions, etc) Common definitions of criminal offences Common Procedural Law

    9. Intelligence for Crime Prevention Phases (Before the crime)

    10. Art. 2 (c) – Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union. criminal intelligence operation – still a procedural stage, not (yet) having reached the stage of a criminal investigation, within which a competent law enforcement authority is entitled by national law to collect, process and analyse information about crime or criminal activities with a view to establishing whether concrete criminal acts have been committed or may be committed in the future;

    11. Eurojust cooperative relations with institutions, bodies agencies. At least: (a) Europol (and other EU Agencies produce regular threat assessments) (b) OLAF (c) Frontex (d) the Council, in particular its Joint Situation Centre.

    12. Art 26 (1) New Eurojust Decision Council of the European Union – Draft Internal Security Strategy for the European Union : “Towards a European Security Model” – 5842/2/10 Rev.2

    13. Security policies, broad approach, involving law-enforcement agencies and institutions and professionals at both national and local levels Member States should by the end of 2011 start developing common risk analyses. This should involve all relevant authorities with a security role

    14. Council of the European Union - Draft Internal Security Strategy for the European Union : “Towards a European Security Model” – 5842/2/10 Rev.2 Objective 4 Action 4 - The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe – COM(2010) 673 final

    15. Eurojust, UNODC, Selec Eurojust and UNODC will work together in the fields of Eurojust and in the mandate of UNODC SELEC shall have the following tasks: (a) to support investigations and crime prevention activity in Member States; (b) to facilitate the exchange of information and criminal intelligence and requests for operational assistance; (c) to notify and inform the National Focal Points of Member States of connections between suspects, criminals or crimes related to the SELEC mandate; (d) to collect, collate, analyze, process and disseminate information and criminal intelligence; (e) to provide strategic analysis and to produce threat assessments related to the SELEC objective;

    16. Secondment of liaison officers from one Contracting Party to the police authorities of another Contracting Party. exchange of information for the purposes of combating crime by means of both prevention and law enforcement; In order to step up police cooperation, the competent authorities designated by the Member States may, in preventing criminal offences, introduce joint patrols and other joint operations in which designated officers or other officials (officers) from other Member States participate in operations within a Member State's territory.

    17. Art. 3 - Memorandum of Understanding UNODC – Eurojust - 26.2.2010 Art (47) Schengen 2000 Art. 17 ( 1-2) - Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime Art 3 extract – 2009 Convention of the Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELEC)

    18. Art 4 (1) a-b extract – New Eurojust Decision Support by Eurojust (a) the types of crime and the offences in respect of which Europol is at all times competent to act; (b) other offences committed together with the types of crime and the offences referred to in point (a).

    19. Selection of Crimes and Minimum Definitions Drug Trafficking Terrorism Cybercrime

    20. Substantive Law – Minimum Provisions To the extent necessary to facilitate mutual recognition of judgments and judicial decisions and police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, the Union may adopt common minimum rules. The European Council considers that a certain level of approximation of laws is necessary to foster a common understanding of issues among judges and prosecutors, and hence to enable the principle of mutual recognition to be applied properly, taking into account the differences between legal systems and legal traditions of Member States. Criminal behavior in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis should become the object of common definitions of criminal offences It is necessary to adopt minimum rules to the constituent elements of the offences

    21. Point 3.3 The Stockholm Program - Point 3.3.1 The Stockholm Program Preamble 3 - Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking Preamble 4 Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking

    22. Drug Trafficking   The Contracting Parties undertake as regards the direct or indirect sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances of whatever type …and the possession of such products and substances for sale or export, to adopt in accordance with the existing United Nations Conventions, all necessary measures to prevent and punish the illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

    23. Art 71 - Schengen 2000

    24. Crimes linked to trafficking in drugs and precursors Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the following intentional conduct when committed without right is punishable: the manufacture, transport or distribution of precursors, knowing that they are to be used in or for the illicit production or manufacture of drugs. Incitement, aiding and abetting and attempt Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to make incitement to commit, aiding and abetting or attempting one of the offences referred to … a criminal offence.  

    25. Art. 2 (1) d - Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking Art. 3 (1) - Council Framework Decision 2004/757/JHA laying down minimum provisions on the constituent elements of criminal acts and penalties in the field of illicit drug trafficking

    26. http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/newsletter/EurojustNews_Issue3_2010-12.pdf Prevention of Drug Trafficking Eurojust works with the analyses provided by its law enforcement partner Europol to fight drug traf­ficking. Europol has invited Eu­rojust to participate in three of its AWFs dealing with specific drug traf­ficking networks, as well as an AWF dealing with organised crime net­works in relation to drug trafficking.

    27. Terrorism (a lot to be done...) The Commission will in 2011 consider devising a framework for administrative measures under Article 75 of the Treaty as regards freezing of assets to prevent and combat terrorism and related activities. The EU action plans for preventing access to explosives (2008) and Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) substances (2009) need to be implemented as a priority, by way of both legislative and non legislative action. This includes the adoption of a regulation, proposed by the Commission in 2010, limiting general access to chemical precursors used to make explosives.

    28. Terrorist offences Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the intentional acts … as defined as offences under national law, which, given their nature or context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation where committed with the aim of: - seriously intimidating a population, or - unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or - seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation, shall be deemed to be terrorist offences:

    29. Offences linked to terrorist activities Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist-linked offences include the following acts: (a) aggravated theft with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1); (b) extortion with a view to the perpetration of one of the acts listed in Article 1(1); (c) drawing up false administrative documents with a view to committing one of the acts listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) and Article 2(2)(b). Another area to be explored is te­lephony on the internet. Ms Con­insx (Chair CT Team Eurojust) mentioned the need to set up a European-wide network of experts who can focus on search and de­tect codes used in e-mail traffic and chat rooms. Objective 2 Action 2 – European Union Internal Strategy

    30. Art. 1 and 3 - Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism (2002/475/JHA) http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/newsletter/EurojustNews_Issue1_2009-10.pdf

    31. http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/newsletter/EurojustNews_Issue1_2009-10.pdf Art (46) 1 Schengen 2000 Terrorism Prevention One initiative in this area is Europol’s ‘Check the Web’ portal, an interesting monitoring project that unfortunate­ly cannot be accessed by Eurojust at this stage due to data protection re­strictions. The portal focuses on Is­lamist extremist propaganda on the internet and contains a list of Islam­ist extremist websites, publications and claims of terrorist organizations, which are stored on the portal and are thus shared by counter-terrorism units of the 27 Member States In specific cases, each Contracting Party may, in compliance with its national law and without being so requested, send the Contracting Party concerned any information which may be important in helping it combat future crime and prevent offences against or threats to public policy and public security

    32. Cybercrime Significant gaps and differences in Member States’ laws in this area may hamper the fight against organised crime and terrorism, and may complicate effective police and judicial cooperation in the area of attacks against information systems. Criminal law in the area of attacks against information systems should be approximated in order to ensure the greatest possible police and judicial cooperation in the area of criminal offences related to attacks against information systems, and to contribute to the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

    33. Preamble 5 - Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems Preamble 8 – Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA of 24 February 2005 on attacks against information systems

    34. Where an offence falls within the jurisdiction of more than one Member State and when any of the States concerned can validly prosecute on the basis of the same facts, the Member States concerned shall cooperate in order to decide which of them will prosecute the offenders with the aim, if possible, of centralizing proceedings in a single Member State. To this end, the Member States may have recourse to any body or mechanism established within the European Union in order to facilitate cooperation between their judicial authorities and the coordination of their action.

    35. Art 14 (1-2) - Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime - Budapest, 23.XI.2001   Art 10 (4) part – Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA – on attacks against information systems

    36. http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/newsletter/EurojustNews_Issue4_2011-07.pdf Cybercrime Prevention The FEC Team in Eurojust has developed exper­tise in the study of cybercrime, and has supported developments leading to the Council Conclusions on an ac­tion plan to implement the concerted strategy to combat cybercrime. An official letter from the President of Eurojust was submitted to the MDG (multi-disciplinary group) in Febru­ary 2010, supporting the suggestion to set up a cybercrime training center made up of police officers, prosecu­tors and judges, as well as EU bodies operating in the field and willing to contribute to the feasibility study that will be carried out on cybercrime.

    37. After Crime : investigation and prosecution Cooperative Procedures / Judicial Cooperation Law Enforcement Cooperation

    38. Criminal Investigation Phase ‘criminal investigation’: a procedural stage within which measures are taken by competent law enforcement or judicial authorities, including public prosecutors, with a view to establishing and identifying facts, suspects and circumstances regarding one or several identified concrete criminal acts;

    39. As regards the criminal law field, it will be necessary to identify priorities for the negotiations of mutual assistance and extradition agreements. The Union should actively promote the widest possible accession of the partner countries to the most relevant and functioning Conventions and to offer as much assistance as possible to other States with a view to the proper implementation of the instruments. The Union institutions should ensure, to the furthest extent possible, coherence between the Union and the international legal order. Where possible, synergy with the Council of Europe work should be considered.

    40. Art 2 (b) – Council Framework Decision 2006/960/JHA of 18 December 2006 on simplifying the exchange of information and intelligence between law enforcement authorities of the Member States of the European Union Point 3.5.2 The stockholm Program

    41. In so far as is required for the performance of its tasks, Eurojust may establish and maintain cooperative relations with . .. third States; Such agreements may, in particular, concern the exchange of information, including personal data, and the secondment of liaison officers or liaison magistrates to Eurojust For the purpose of facilitating judicial cooperation with third States in cases in which Eurojust is providing assistance in accordance with this Decision, the College may post liaison magistrates to a third State, subject to an agreement.  

    42. Eurojust and SEEPAG Provision should be made for Eurojust to post liaison magistrates to third States in order to achieve objectives similar to those assigned to liaison magistrates seconded by the Member States on the basis of Council Joint Action 96/277/JHA of 22 April 1996 concerning a framework for the exchange of liaison magistrates to improve judicial cooperation between the Member States of the European Union In accordance with the rules laid down by this Decision and at the request of a Member State's competent authority, Eurojust may also assist investigations and prosecutions concerning only that Member State and a non-Member State where an agreement establishing cooperation …has been concluded with the said State or where in a specific case there is an essential interest in providing such assistance.

    43. Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe (SPSEE) replaced by The Regional Cooperation Council (RCC). Southeast European Prosecutors Advisory Group is an international mechanism of judicial cooperation, formed by the countries of the SEE region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, the Republic of Moldova, Romania, Republic of Serbia, Republic of Montenegro, Slovenia and Turkey) with an express intention of facilitating judicial cooperation in significant trans-border crime investigations and cases.   The countries in the Western Balkans will be encouraged to enhance their regional cooperation, while the EU will continue to promote and assist them in the transfer of EU acquis, in view of the perspective of EU membership. Moreover, cooperation with other regions in the world with which cooperation in JHA is highly relevant, will be further developed according to needs.

    44. Preamble 22 – New Eurojust Decision Art 1 (2) – New Eurojust Decision Declaration of the SEEPAG adopted on December 12, 2003 as amended at the 9th SEEPAG Conference on 14th of June in Istanbul, Turkey Point 282 - Council of the European Union – 18 months Programme

    45. Eurojust and SELEC Police Cooperation Convention for Southeast Europe (PCC-SEE, Vienna 2006), and the Convention of the Southeast European Law Enforcement Centre (SELEC, Bucharest 2009) SELEC – former Southeast European Cooperative Initiative (SECI) - Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (hereinafter referred to as “SELEC”) to serve as a framework for cooperation among their competent authorities …to provide support for Member States and enhance coordination in preventing and combating crime, including serious and organized crime, where such crime involves or appears to involve an element of trans-border activity

    46. Art 26a extract – New Eurojust Decision Art 27a (1) extract – New Eurojust Decision Regional Cooperation Council - Annual Report of the Secretary General of the Regional Cooperation Council on regional co-operation in South East Europe – pag.24 Art. 1 (extract) - 2009 Convention of the Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELEC) Art. 2 (extract) – 2009 Convention of the Southeast European Law Enforcement Center (SELEC)

    47. Preamble 14 – New Eurojust Decision Background : Information and Power to Exchange the Data Eurojust should be authorised to process certain personal data on persons who, under the national legislation of the Member States concerned, are suspected of having committed or having taken part in a criminal offence in respect of which Eurojust is competent, or who have been convicted of such an offence. The list of such personal data should include telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, vehicle registration data, DNA profiles established from the non-coding part of DNA, photographs and fingerprints. The list should also include traffic data and location data and the related data necessary to identify the subscriber or user of a publicly available electronic communications service; this should not include data revealing the content of the communication. It is not intended that Eurojust carry out an automated comparison of DNA profiles or fingerprints.

    48. 92 (1) Schengen 2000 95(1) Schengen 2000 100 (1) Schengen 2000 Schengen Information System The Contracting Parties shall set up and maintain a joint information system, hereinafter referred to as "the Schengen Information System"    Data on persons wanted for arrest for extradition purposes shall be entered at the request of the judicial authority of the requesting Contracting Party. Data on objects sought for the purposes of seizure or use as evidence in criminal proceedings shall be entered in the Schengen Information System.

    49. Art 7 - Annex – Council Act of 29 May 2000 - (2000/C 197/01) Spontaneous Exchange of Information   Within the limits of their national law, the competent authorities of the Member States may exchange information, without a request to that effect, relating to criminal offences and the infringements of rules of law referred to in Article 3(1)[ proceedings brought by the administrative authorities in respect of acts which are punishable under the national law of the requesting or the requested Member State, or both, by virtue of being infringements of the rules of law, and where the decision may give rise to proceedings before a court having jurisdiction in particular in criminal matters. ], the punishment or handling of which falls within the competence of the receiving authority at the time the information is provided.  

    50. Coordination via Eurojust for EU Countries and Third States’

    51. Art 27b (1) NewEurojust Decision Eurojust may, with the agreement of the Member States concerned, coordinate the execution of requests for judicial cooperation issued by a third State where these requests are part of the same investigation and require execution in at least two Member States.

    52. European Judicial Network, first. Eurojust and the European Judicial Network shall maintain privileged relations with each other. National members shall, on a case-by-case basis, inform the European Judicial Network contact points of all cases which they consider the Network to be in a better position to deal with;   Functions of contact points The contact points shall be active intermediaries with the task of facilitating judicial cooperation between Member States, particularly in actions to combat forms of serious crime. They shall be available to enable local judicial authorities and other competent authorities in their own Member State, contact points in the other Member States and local judicial and other competent authorities in the other Member States to establish the most appropriate direct contacts.

    53. Art 25a (1) a New Eurojust Decision Art 4 (1) Part. - Council Decision 2008/976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network

    54. Art 13 (1-2) New Eurojust Decision The competent authorities of the Member States shall exchange with Eurojust any information necessary for the performance of its tasks The transmission of information to Eurojust shall be interpreted as a request for the assistance of Eurojust only if so specified

    55. Art 12 (2) a New Eurojust Decision Each Member State shall, before 04 June 2011, set up a Eurojust national coordination system to ensure coordination of the work carried out by the national correspondents for Eurojust

    56. Each Member State shall designate one or more national correspondents for Eurojust Art 12 (5) a, c-d New Eurojust Decision Art 12 (1) New Eurojust Decision The Eurojust national coordination system shall facilitate, within the Member State, the carrying out of the tasks of Eurojust, in particular by: (a) ensuring that the Case Management System receives information related to the Member State concerned in an efficient and reliable manner; ... c) assisting in determining whether a case should be dealt with with the assistance of Eurojust or of the European Judicial Network; d) maintaining close relations with the Europol National Unit.

    57. On-Call Coordination (OCC) within Eurojust is necessary to make Eurojust available around the clock and to enable it to intervene in urgent cases A request for, or a decision on, judicial cooperation, including regarding instruments giving effect to the principle of mutual recognition, needs to be executed in one or more Member States, the requesting authority may forward it to the OCC. The OCC contact point shall immediately forward it to the OCC representative of the Member State from which the request originates and, if explicitly requested by the transmitting or issuing authority, to the OCC representatives of the Member States on the territory of which the request should be executed. These OCC representatives shall act without delay, in relation to the execution of the request in their Member State, through the exercise of tasks or powers available to them

    58. Preamble 7 (partial ) – Council Decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Council Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime Art 5a (3) New Eurojust Decision

    59. The Case Management System shall be intended to: (a) support the management and coordination of investigations and prosecutions for which Eurojust is providing assistance, in particular by the cross-referencing of information; (b) facilitate access to information on ongoing investigations and prosecutions; A temporary work file shall be opened by the national member concerned for every case

    60. Preamble 11 – 12 - Council Decision on the strengthening of Eurojust and amending Council Decision 2002/187/JHA setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime Art 16 (1-2) New Eurojust Decision Art 16a (1) New Eurojust Decision

    61. European Council –The Stockholm Programme – (2010/C 115/01) Further development of Eurojust in the coming years, including in relation to initiation of investigations and resolving conflicts of competence…giving further powers to the Eurojust national members, reinforcement of the powers of the College of Eurojust or the setting up of a “European Public Prosecutor”

    62. On the express request of the requesting Party the requested Party shall state the date and place of execution of the letters rogatory. Officials and interested persons may be present if the requested Party consents. Requests for the presence of such officials or interested persons should not be refused where that presence is likely to render the execution of the request for assistance more responsive to the needs of the requesting Party and, therefore, likely to avoid the need for supplementary requests for assistance.  

    63. Art. 4 – COE - European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters - Strasbourg, 20.IV.1959 Art.2 – COE - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001

    64. Competent authorities of two or more Parties may set up a joint investigation team for a specific purpose and a limited period, to carry out criminal investigations in one or more of the Parties setting up the team. A joint investigation team may, in particular, be set up where: a    a Party’s investigations into criminal offences require difficult and demanding investigations having links with other Parties; b    a number of Parties are conducting investigations into criminal offences in which the circumstances of the case necessitate co-ordinated, concerted action in the Parties involved. Seconded members of the joint investigation team shall be entitled to be present when investigative measures are taken in the Party of operation. Seconded members of the joint investigation team may be entrusted by the leader of the team with the task of taking certain investigative measures

    65. Where the joint investigation team needs investigative measures to be taken in one of the Parties setting up the team, members seconded to the team by that Party may request their own competent authorities to take those measures. Those measures shall be considered in that Party under the conditions which would apply if they were requested in a national investigation. A seconded member of the joint investigation team may, in accordance with his or her national law and within the limits of his or her competence, provide the team with information available in the Party which has seconded him or her for the purpose of the criminal investigations conducted by the team.   arrangements may be agreed for persons other than representatives of the competent authorities of the Parties setting up the joint investigation team to take part in the activities of the team. The rights conferred upon the members or seconded members of the team by virtue of this article shall not apply to these persons unless the agreement expressly states otherwise.

    66. Art 13 (1) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 13 (4-9) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 13 (12) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01)  Art 20 (1) - – COE - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001 Art 20 (5-9) – COE - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001 Art 20 (14) - – COE - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001

    67. When Eurojust acts through its national members concerned, it: (a) may ask the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, giving its reasons, to : … (iv) set up a joint investigation team in keeping with the relevant cooperation instruments;     National members shall be entitled to participate in joint investigation teams, including in their setting up, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union or Council Framework Decision 2002/465/JHA of 13 June 2002 on joint investigation teams

    68. Art 6 (1) a iv) New Eurojust Decision Art 9f (extract) – New Eurojust decision

    69. Covert Investigation The requesting and the requested Member State may agree to assist one another in the conduct of investigations into crime by officers acting under covert or false identity (covert investigations). The requesting and the requested Parties may agree to assist one another in the conduct of investigations into crime by officers acting under covert or false identity (covert investigations).  

    70. Art 14 - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 19 (1) – COE - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001

    71. Intercept of telecommunications A competent authority in the requesting Member State may, make a request to a competent authority in the requested Member State for: (a) the interception and immediate transmission to the requesting Member State of telecommunications; or (b) the interception, recording and subsequent transmission to the requesting Member State of the recording of telecommunications.  

    72. Art 18 (1) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 19 (1) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 20 (1-2) - Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01)

    73. Surveillance and Pursuit Officers of one of the Contracting Parties who, as part of a criminal investigation, are keeping under surveillance in their country a person who is presumed to have participated in an extraditable criminal offence shall be authorized to continue their surveillance in the territory of another Contracting Party where the latter has authorized cross-border surveillance in response to a request for assistance made in advance. Officers of one of the Contracting Parties who are pursuing in their country an individual caught in the act of committing or of participating in one of the offences …shall be authorised to continue pursuit in the territory of another Contracting Party without the latter's prior authorisation where, given the particular urgency of the situation, it is not possible to notify the competent authorities of the other Contracting Party Police officers of one of the Parties who are keeping under observation in their country a person who is presumed to have taken part in a criminal offence to which extradition may apply, or a person who it is strongly believed will lead to the identification or location of the above-mentioned person, shall be authorised to continue their observation in the territory of another Party where the latter has authorised cross-border observation in response to a request for assistance which has previously been submitted.

    74. Art (40) 1 Schengen 2000 Art (41) 1 Schengen 2000 Art 44(1) Schengen 2000 Art 17 (1) COE Second Protocol

    75. Banking Information Each Member State shall, take the measures necessary to determine, in answer to a request sent by another Member State, whether a natural or legal person that is the subject of a criminal investigation holds or controls one or more accounts, of whatever nature, in any bank located in its territory and, if so, provide all the details of the identified accounts On request by the requesting State, the requested State shall provide the particulars of specified bank accounts and of banking operations which have been carried out during a specified period through one or more accounts specified in the request, including the particulars of any sending or recipient account. Each Member State shall undertake to ensure that, at the request of another Member State, it is able to monitor, during a specified period, the banking operations that are being carried out through one or more accounts specified in the request and communicate the results thereof to the requesting Member State.

    76. Art 1 (1) Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 2 (1) Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01) Art 3 (1) Protocol – Council Act of 16 October 2001 (2001/C 326/01)

    77. Controlled Deliveries National members may, in their capacity as competent national authorities, in agreement with a competent national authority, or at its request and on a case-by-case basis, exercise the following powers: authorizing and coordinating controlled deliveries in their Member State. In their capacity as competent national authorities, national members shall, in urgent cases and in so far as it is not possible for them to identify or to contact the competent national authority in a timely manner, be entitled: to authorize and to coordinate controlled deliveries in their Member State;   Each Member State shall ensure that, at the request of another Member State, controlled deliveries may be permitted on its territory in the framework of criminal investigations into extraditable offences  

    78. Art 9c (1) c New Eurojust Decision Art 9d a New Eurojust Decision Art. 12 (1) - - Annex – Council Act of 29 May 2000 - (2000/C 197/01)   Art 18 (1) - Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 8.XI.2001

    79. Art. 1 – COE - Third Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition Strasbourg, 10.XI.2010 Simplified Extradition Contracting Parties undertake to extradite to each other under the simplified procedure as provided for by this Protocol persons sought in accordance with Article 1 of the Convention, subject to the consent of such persons and the agreement of the requested Party  

    80. Pont 262 - Council of the European Union -The future Danish, Polish and Cypriot Presidencies – 18 Months Programmed of the Council – 1 July 2011 – 31 December 2012 Mutual Recognition The principle of mutual recognition has been a cornerstone of judicial cooperation. The three presidencies will further pursue the implementation of this principle be further pursued, pursuant to the Stockholm Program.

    81. ((European Evidence Warrant)) The EEW shall be a judicial decision issued by a competent authority of a Member State with a view to obtaining objects, documents and data from another Member State for use in proceedings The EEW may be issued with a view to obtaining objects, documents or data falling within paragraph 2, where the objects, documents or data are already in the possession of the executing authority before the EEW is issued.

    82. The EEW shall not be issued for the purpose of requiring the executing authority to: (a) conduct interviews, take statements or initiate other types of hearings involving suspects, witnesses, experts or any other party; (b) carry out bodily examinations or obtain bodily material or biometric data directly from the body of any person, including DNA samples or fingerprints; (c) obtain information in real time such as through the interception of communications, covert surveillance or monitoring of bank accounts; (d) conduct analysis of existing objects, documents or data; and (e) obtain communications data retained by providers of a publicly available electronic communications service or a public communications network. Art 1 (1) – Council Framework Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters

    83. Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters Art 4 (1) - Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters Art 4 (3-6) - Council Framework Decision 2008/978/JHA on the European evidence warrant for the purpose of obtaining objects, documents and data for use in proceedings in criminal matters

    84. European Investigation Order?    In the Stockholm Programme, which was adopted on 11 December 2009, the European Council decided that the setting up of a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued. ..a new approach is needed, based on the principle of mutual recognition but also taking into account the flexibility of the traditional system of mutual legal assistance. The European Council therefore called for a comprehensive system to replace all the existing instruments in this area, including the Framework Decision on the European Evidence Warrant, covering as far as possible all types of evidence and containing deadlines for enforcement and limiting as far as possible the grounds for refusal. This new approach is based on a single instrument called the European Investigation Order (EIO). An EIO is to be issued for the purpose of having one or several specific investigative measure(s) carried out in the executing State with a view to gathering evidence. This includes the obtaining of evidence that is already in the possession of the executing authority.

    85. Preamble 3-4 of Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Council of the European Union Interinstitutional File: 2010/0817 (COD) –29/4/2010 Preamble 6-7 of Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters – Council of the European Union Interinstitutional File: 2010/0817 (COD)

    86. Judicial Records A requested Party shall communicate extracts from and information relating to judicial records, requested from it by the judicial authorities of a Contracting Party and needed in a criminal matter, to the same extent that these may be made available to its own judicial authorities in like case. Each Contracting Party shall inform any other Party of all criminal convictions and subsequent measures in respect of nationals of the latter Party, entered in the judicial records. Ministries of Justice shall communicate such information to one another at least once a year. Where the person concerned is considered a national of two or more other Contracting Parties, the information shall be given to each of these Parties, unless the person is a national of the Party in the territory of which he was convicted.

    87. Art 3(1) – Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings Art 4 - Council Framework Decision 2008/675/JHA on taking account of convictions in the Member States of the European Union in the course of new criminal proceedings Previous convictions Each Member State shall ensure that in the course of criminal proceedings against a person, previous convictions handed down against the same person for different facts in other Member States, in respect of which information has been obtained under applicable instruments on mutual legal assistance or on the exchange of information extracted from criminal records, are taken into account to the extent previous national convictions are taken into account, and that equivalent legal effects are attached to them as to previous national convictions, in accordance with national law.   This Framework Decision shall replace Article 56 of the European Convention of 28 May 1970 on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments as between the Member States parties to that Convention, without prejudice to the application of that Article in relations between the Member States and third countries.

    88. The computerized interconnection of criminal records is part of the E-Justice project European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). A standardized format for the electronic exchange of information extracted from criminal records between the Member States, in particular as regards information on the offence giving rise to the conviction and information on the content of the conviction, as well as other general and technical implementation means related to organizing and facilitating the exchange of information.   without prejudice to the possibility of judicial authorities’ directly requesting and transmitting information from criminal records pursuant to Article 13 in conjunction with Article 15(3), of the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and without prejudice to Article 6(1) of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union, established by Council Act of 29 May 2000 .

    89.   Own-initiative information on convictions Each central authority shall, without delay, inform the central authorities of the other Member States of criminal convictions and subsequent measures in respect of nationals of those Member States entered in the criminal record. Where the person concerned is a national of two or more other Member States, the information shall be given to each of these Member States, unless the person is a national of the Member State in the territory of which he has been convicted. Request for information on convictions Where information from the criminal records of a Member State is requested, the central authority may, in accordance with national law, send a request for extracts from, and information relating to, criminal records to the central authority of another Member State. All information requests shall be sent on the basis of the request form set out in the Annex

    90. Art 13 (1) – COE - European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 20.IV.1959 Art. 22 (1) COE - European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Strasbourg, 20.IV.1959 Preamble 4 – Council Framework Decision 2009/316/JHA - on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA Article 1 - Council Framework Decision 2009/316/JHA - on the establishment of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) in application of Article 11 of Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA Article 1 (a) – Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States Preamble 10 partial - Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States Preamble 10 - Council Framework Decision 2009/315/JHA on the organisation and content of the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record between Member States Art. 6 (1) - Council Act of 29 May 2000 establishing in accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty on European Union the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Member States of the European Union Art. 2 – Council Decision 2005/876/JHA on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record Art. 3 (1) - Council Decision 2005/876/JHA on the exchange of information extracted from the criminal record

    91. Freezing Property or Evidence   A Member State shall recognize and execute in its territory a freezing order issued by a judicial authority of another Member State in the framework of criminal proceedings. ‘property’ includes property of any description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, and legal documents and instruments evidencing title to or interest in such property, which the competent judicial authority in the issuing State considers: — is the proceeds of an offence referred to in Article 3, or equivalent to either the full value or part of the value of such proceeds, or — constitutes the instrumentalities or the objects of such an offence; (e) ‘evidence’ shall mean objects, documents or data which could be produced as evidence in criminal proceedings concerning an offence referred to in Article 3.

    92. Art. 1 – Council Framework Decision - 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence Art. 2 comma c-e - Council Framework Decision - 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence Art. 3 (1- 2 partial) - Council Framework Decision - 2003/577/JHA of 22 July 2003 on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence

    93. Ne bis in idem (conflict of jurisdiction)  Member States shall ensure that their national member is informed of: (a) cases where conflicts of jurisdiction have arisen or are likely to arise; When Eurojust acts through its national members concerned, it: (a) may ask the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, giving its reasons, to : … (ii) accept that one of them may be in a better position to undertake an investigation or to prosecute specific acts; 

    94. Where two or more national members can not agree on how to resolve a case of conflict of jurisdiction as regards the undertaking of investigations or prosecution pursuant to Article 6 and in particular Article 6(1)(c), the College shall be asked to issue a written non-binding opinion on the case, provided the matter could not be resolved through mutual agreement between the competent national authorities concerned. The opinion of the College shall be promptly forwarded to the Member States concerned.

    95. Art 13 (7) a New Eurojust Decision Art 6 (1) a ii) New Eurojust Decision Art 7 (2) New Eurojust Decision Art 3 (2) FD EAW Art (54) Schengen 2000 Art 5 (1) – CFD 2009/948/JHA - on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings Art 10 (1) – CFD 2009/948/JHA - on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings Art 12 – CFD 2009/948/JHA - on prevention and settlement of conflicts of exercise of jurisdiction in criminal proceedings

    96. Art (53) 3 Schengen 2000 Art 9 (1) - Annex – Council Act of 29 May 2000 - (2000/C 197/01) Requests for the temporary transfer or transit of persons who are under provisional arrest, being detained or who are the subject of a penalty involving deprivation of liberty, and the periodic or occasional exchange of information from the judicial records must be effected through the Ministries of Justice. Where there is agreement between the competent authorities of the Member States concerned, a Member State which has requested an investigation for which the presence of the person held in custody on its own territory is required may temporarily transfer that person to the territory of the Member State in which the investigation is to take place  

    97. Art (63) Schengen 2000 Extradition The Contracting Parties undertake, to extradite between themselves persons being prosecuted by the judicial authorities of the requesting Contracting Party, or sought by the requesting Contracting Party for the purposes of enforcing a sentence or preventive measure imposed in respect of such an offence

    98. European Arrest Warrant The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition The issuing judicial authority may, in any event, decide to issue an alert for the requested person in the Schengen Information System (SIS). Council recommends that Member States apply the practice of flagging the EAW-based SIS alerts according to the criteria in Council Decision 2007/533/JHA on the second generation Schengen Information System

    99. Decision in the event of multiple requests 1. If two or more Member States have issued European arrest warrants for the same person, the decision on which of the European arrest warrants shall be executed shall be taken by the executing judicial authority with due consideration of all the circumstances and especially the relative seriousness and place of the offences, the respective dates of the European arrest warrants and whether the warrant has been issued for the purposes of prosecution or for execution of a custodial sentence or detention order. 2. The executing judicial authority may seek the advice of Eurojust when making the choice referred to in paragraph 1. 3. In the event of a conflict between a European arrest warrant and a request for extradition presented by a third country, the decision on whether the European arrest warrant or the extradition request takes precedence shall be taken by the competent authority of the executing Member State with due consideration of all the circumstances, in particular those referred to in paragraph 1 and those mentioned in the applicable convention.

    100. Art. 1 (1-2) - 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Art. 9 (1-2) - 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Part II – Councikl Recommendations - Commission Staff Working Document COM 2011 – 175 final Art 16 (1-3) - 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Art 17 -2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Part II – Councikl Recommendations - Commission Staff Working Document COM 2011 – 175 final

    101. Art. 29 - 2002/584/JHA: Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States Part II – Council Recommendations - Commission Staff Working Document COM 2011 – 175 final Handing over of property At the request of the issuing judicial authority or on its own initiative, the executing judicial authority shall, in accordance with its national law, seize and hand over property which: (a) may be required as evidence, or (b) has been acquired by the requested person as a result of the offence. 2. The property referred to in paragraph 1 shall be handed over even if the European arrest warrant cannot be carried out owing to the death or escape of the requested person. For Article 29 on the seizure and handover of property of the EAW FD The Council has recommended that Member States take measures to promote direct communication between judicial authorities

    102. 1983 Council of Europe Convention of the transfer of Sentenced Presons and its protocol Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to judgments in criminal matters imposing custodial sentences or measures involvinjg deplrivation of liberty for the Purpose of their enforcement in the European Union Art. 68 (1) and (2) Schengen 2000 Art. 8 (1) – Council Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA 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 Transfer of the Enforcement of Criminal Judgements The Contracting Party in whose territory a penalty involving deprivation of liberty or a detention order has been imposed by a judgment which has obtained the force of res judicata in respect of a national of another Contracting Party who, by escaping to the national's own country, has avoided the enforcement of that penalty or detention order may request the latter Contracting Party, if the escaped person is within its territory, to take over the enforcement of the penalty or detention order.

    103. Objective 1 Action 3 - The EU Internal Security Strategy in Action: Five steps towards a more secure Europe Preamble 8 – Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders Art 1 (1) - Council Framework Decision 2006/783/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders Confiscation Order To combat the financial incentive of criminal networks Member States must do all they can to seize, freeze, manage and confiscate criminal assets, and ensure that they do not return to criminal hands. Council Decision 2007/845/JHA requires each Member State to set up at least one Asset Recovery Office on its territory This Framework Decision is linked to Council Framework Decision 2005/212/JHA of 24 February 2005 on Confiscation of Crime-Related Proceeds, Instrumentalities and Property

    104.

More Related